Caitlín, I think it is rather a stretch to say that not providing for yearly amendments to the organisation's constitution "means the people in power get to stay in power." Elections are held yearly. If the membership wishes to replace their representatives, they are free to do so at any point. The organisation itself does require stability, and you are incorrect if you think that frequent rule changes would produce a happy result.

Also, for what it's worth, I believe that my analogies to the US Constitution and to other governing bodies is a perfectly suitable way of illustrating what can be a complex subject, now that we've headed away from capital structuring and into the realm of representative democracy. Many of the external constraints and even the underlying ideals are similar in the two cases, and such documents and governing structures have been formulated with similar results.

I note that the conversation has moved now from the bare-faced theft of a building at the start, through to a discussion of the constitutionality of dissolving a branch, and now finally to the governing structures and documents of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann itself. I can only assume that the lack of any coherent defence by the old committee indicates that the essential facts surrounding the mismanagement of the theatre project are not contested.

I'm interested to know exactly what is being proposed as a more suitable conclusion than that which occurred. If the high council had not intervened, the project would still be stuck with not enough money and no way to raise more, vendors would still be unpaid and a beautiful new arts centre would be sitting on the Alfie Byrne road with no water or sewer connections. While I understand the frustration of the branch members, especially those not on the executive committee, is it seriously being argued that such a result would be better for all concerned? I honestly don't see how that outcome would enhance the reputation of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.