Breandán,

Obviously, you have a different version of the Bunreacht than that which was issued to me.

The County Board does not have the right to dissolve a branch. It has the right to suspend a branch under Section 3 Rule 6(c) with the branch then having the right to appeal to the Provincial Council. Clontarf was not afforded the luxury of appealing suspension because they were not suspended by the County Board.

The Ardchomhairle on the other hand do not have the right to suspend a branch. However, Clontarf were notified in writing by the Ardrunaí that it was the Ardchomhairle who had suspended them. A copy of the letter (Feb 6th 2008) can be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm. I believe that, in coming to their decision, the Ardchomhairle were not aware of the facts because Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú and the other members of the Buanchoiste had prevented them receiving the facts from the branch.

The Buanchoiste also denied the branch the opportunity to state their case directly to the Ardchomhairle as can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter which was e-mailed on 31st Jan 2008, a copy of which can also be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm.

Breandán, you seem to be aware of what correspondence from the branch was received by Ardchomhairle members (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM). Perhaps you would enlighten us as to how many of the documents submitted by the branch for the attention of the Ardchomhairle members, during the 2 months prior to the branch's dissolution, were actually distributed by Labhrás & Co to the Ardchomhairle members.

The Buanchoiste also instructed the County Board not to accept the branch's correspondence or to allow their representatives to attend County Board meetings, thus ensuring that the true facts could not make their way through the channels of County Board, Provincial Council, Ardchomhairle which is how the Ardrúnaí had stated we should make our case in his letter of 31st Jan 2008 referred to above.

Breandán, you say (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM) that you have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund. That seems odd to me as Comhaltas HQ worked closely with the branch in agreeing the VAT application process and they supplied most of the information required.

Domo, you say that in one of the threads, the Clontarf Branch claims they were registered for charity. This is incorrect. Jim Carroll (16 MAR 08 - 04:30 AM) from Clare said that was the story as he knew it. Jim is not a member of the Clontarf branch and the Clontarf branch was not registered as a charity. In general, however, Jim does seem to have a very good grasp of what has happened and is a lot more accurate than Breandán whom, I suspect, has been a lot more closely involved than he lets on with his honest broker routine.

There was nothing irregular with the claim for VAT refund submitted to the Revenue Commissioners by the VAT entity set up by the Clontarf branch. The Revenue Commissioners agreed that they were entitled to the refund and approved the claim. When the Buanchoiste notified the branch in their letter of 5th Feb 2008 that they were seizing control of the Clasac project, it was clear that the VAT entity set up by the branch could not trade and, therefore it was deregistered for VAT purposes and the VAT refund returned to Revenue. The Revenue Commissioners confirmed in their letter of 04 Mar 2008 that the branch had acted appropriately.

As can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter of Feb 6th 2008, the only issue which the branch was asked to regularise was the VAT refund which the Trustees directed should be transferred to them.

In the days prior to dissolution of the branch, the Ardrúnaí confirmed by phone that the only issue for which the branch was under threat of dissolution was the failure by the branch to transfer the VAT to the HO account. For this reason, Howard Jones and Declan, I disagree with your assessment that the VAT refund was a red herring. It is the only issue that the branch were asked to 'regularise'. HO knew that the branch had acted appropriately in relation to the VAT at all times. They also knew, because the branch advised them of the expert tax advice that it had received, that it would be illegal to transfer the VAT to HO. Yet, they dissolved the branch for failing to do so.

With regard to your claim, Breandán, that the project was mismanaged, I would like you to give specifics. I am sure that I can answer to the satisfaction of others out there, any doubts that you might like to raise.

With regard to your numerous claims about the democratic nature of the Ardchomhairle and Senator Labhrás' position, you have an advantage over me in that, when I asked HO for details on the Ardchomhairle, I was informed by the person on the phone that she (I won't name her) was under instruction not to give out details of the Ardchomhairle members. She would not say who had issued the instruction other than 'management', nor would she tell me who in HO constituted 'management'.

You say (01 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM) that 'the council is composed of 31 elected voluntary officers who are accountable to their home districts'.

What do you mean by 'their home districts'? Please specify the home districts.
What do you mean by 'accountable to'? Please specify how they are accountable to their home districts?
Can you tell me who elected the 31 voluntary officers?
How many members were co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle?

I look forward to your response.