Aine, did you read Breandain's posts? I don't quarrel with the facts as you state them, as I am not present there. But his explanation of the financial problems, and the HQ's handling of that seems completely in line with what any parent organization is expected to do. It is not unlike Trade Unions in the States. The Local Unions are autonomous bodies and can run their affairs as they see fit. But if they fail in the proper exercise of their fiduciary and constitutional duties, and the HQ can demonstrate that(and their are rigid and formidable burdens of proofs for doing so), it is entirely proper for them to take over, or trustee, these Locals. We then restore their finances to a proper place, correct the inequities caused by the malfeasance, and then restore the Local to its members by holding new elections.

Your post seems to mix many problems into one stew. The taking over of the branch, if Breandain's information is correct, seems the appropriate action. Before you say it, I am not naieve on these matters and I am sure there are some politics involved as well, as my previous post states. If you have specific information on that which mitigates the information we are receiving, I am very interested in hearing it.

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick