The original "frame" of this discussion was around theft - plain and bold-faced theft of resources amassed by an idealistic branch of Comhaltas. I made my comments with that in mind, and it seems I've been successful in showing, at the least, that there's another side to this matter.

Now, as you say, the conversation has moved to process - how, in the light of these difficulties with capital structuring, did the branch committee come to be dissolved? The answer there lies more, in my opinion, with the interlocking management of the branch and the project. Ideally, the problems with the construction project would be brought to the attention of the branch executive, who would have taken steps to resolve the problem. In this case, the management of the project *was* the branch executive, who actively screened their own membership from access to information. Needless to say, they did not suggest any changes to their own committee. In this case, the only way of getting the project complete was to put pressure on the branch, a process that was applied by Comhaltas' high council, the Ardchomhairle, working in concert with the Dublin County Board. In a stand-off between a local unit and the elected leadership of an organisation, I'm afraid that the leadership does have the right, constitutionally, to prevail, and that's what happened here. No matter the generally autonomous nature of branch activities and decision-making, when the elected leadership to which the branch has elected representatives asks the branch to do something, the local unit pretty much has to comply.

I'm troubled by the assumption (implicit, and never stated outright that I can see) that Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú is exercising some kind of unilateral and unchecked power. Though as Director-General he signs the checks, the process leading up to the dissolution of the branch is not an action that can be taken by him. There is an easy tendency to assume that, because he is generally the only member of the Comhaltas leadership in the public eye, he must be personally responsible for every decision taken by the organisation. Not true. His own ties to the Government are certainly useful to Comhaltas when it comes to fund-raising, but this is a question of a higher level of a democratic government putting pressure (justified, in my opinion) on a lower-level unit of the same elective structure. Not uncommon, in any field. This unwillingness of the branch officials (elected at the local level) to accept the authority of the Ardchomhairle (elected at the provincial level) led to the dissolution.

Senator Ó Murchú's job is to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of Comhaltas, a structure of which the branch executive is a part. I have not yet seen anyone make any factual statements indicating that the Senator made a personal decision to attack the Clontaf branch, and yet many seem happy to assume this to be the case.

I admit that this is, in part, a deliberately defensive posture on his part. By absorbing all of the public flack for the decisions and actions of Comhaltas, he is doing his job and protecting other levels of the organisation. While I appreciate that quality of his, I do find it annoying when it is automatically assumed that the good outcomes of Comhaltas are created by the idealistic grass-roots and that the negative or controversial outcomes are the result of naked autocratic power, exercised by a single man. It just doesn't work like that. If the Ardchomhairle wanted to replace Senator Ó Murchú, they could do so at their next meeting. That says something about where the power actually lies.