Caitlín, I don't know why the constitution can only be amended every six years. I assume that the point is to encourage stability in the organisation. How to weigh that stability against the needs of democracy is a legitimate debate, and I suspect that the correct answer could be a different number these days. Remember, the US Constitution also allows amendment, but the process of actually getting an amendment passed is hugely complicated and time-consuming. Again, for reasons of stability.

Much as I'm a fan of (most) of the amendments to the US Constitution, I'm also glad that the process is a difficult one. The result is stability. You could argue that the Founding Fathers (and the original Comhaltas founders) should have allowed for more direct democracy, and that the Electoral College and the Ardchomhairle are, in some ways, one step removed from direct, in-your-face local democracy. That argument could be made. When governments and high councils do particularly stupid or just controversial stuff, it's easy to call for amendments to the governing structure and to the governing documents. I'm not sure that's always in the best interest of democracy in the longer term.

I suspect that the lack of comment on "my side" has to do with the relatively few people involved in the theatre project. It's also much easier to rally people to a cause, fighting for justice, than it is to talk about capital structuring and administrative process. "My side" is dull, technical, and depends on knowledge that very, very few people have. Most of the people who know what went down are on the former Clontarf committee, and even many of those guys are keeping silent, leaving the outraged shouting to rank-and-file members who have been fed selective facts by their committee. And the outraged shouting is very credible - I have no problem admitting that. As I've said before, I'd be pretty outraged if my branch went away for reasons that I could neither understand nor control.

That said, some of the comments here are pretty definitely aimed at me, not at Comhaltas. I guess that's OK - I mean, it's the Internet, after all - but I try my best not to make Stalinist or "ethnic cleansing" references about those who disagree with me. I've spent some time in Eastern Europe, and I'm pretty sure that most former Soviet republics these days would welcome the relatively benign politics of an organisation like Comhaltas. Ineffective, often. But neither greedy nor malicious nor self-serving. I mean, in this whole thing we're talking about a fight between two committees of volunteers who play folk music, for heaven's sake.

Yes, I hear the fury. Yes, I hear the outrage, and I sympathise.

To answer your other question, Labhrás was appointed as Director-General in the early 70s, I believe, after serving in various volunteer positions. But he could be instantly replaced at the next Ardchomhairle meeting with a 2/3 vote if he lost the support of the membership. The fact that he's still there means that most people in Comhaltas think that he's doing a pretty good job, the job he's paid to do. Those of you in Comhaltas: if you want to change your leadership, just elect new guys to lead you. It's pretty simple.