21 questions and supplied answers by the "reel" Clontarf Branch. It makes interesting reading.

1. Why was Clontarf Branch Dissolved?
Comhaltas HQ notified Clontarf branch of its decision to suspend and ultimately dissolve the branch on 6 February because of its refusal to transfer a VAT refund to HQ, notwithstanding previous correspondence where the branch had pointed out that this would be illegal and would leave the branch officers personally liable to the Revenue Commissions for the amount (€739,000) of the refund. HQ went ahead with the dissolution, and in its formal notification of 14 March, listed a host of other spurious reasons for dissolution not originally notified to the branch at the time of suspension.

2. What is the VAT issue?
The operator of any commercial business that is registered for VAT is entitled to a refund of VAT in defined circumstances. As part of its plans to run the Clasac centre, Clontarf branch registered for VAT and applied for the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners, which it was granted. Where the terms of a VAT refund change, e.g. where a business ceases to operate, or a business changes hands, the refund has to be repaid to Revenue, otherwise penalties accrue. It is of course open to the new operators of a business to apply for a VAT refund in their own name. Once Clontarf branch ceased to be the operator of the Clasac centre, and the body to whom the VAT refund had specifically been made, it was under a legal obligation to repay the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners. Having taken expert tax advice, the branch Executive Committee decided on 9 February to return the VAT to the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with Section 12(4) VAT Act 1972. The Revenue Commissioners subsequently confirmed in writing that the branch had followed the correct course of action. The dissolution of the branch in the circumstances was, to say the least, perverse.

3. Did the branch register for VAT and claim a VAT refund on its own initiative as claimed by Comhaltas HQ?
Absolutely not. At a meeting on 11 September 2006, the Ardstiúrthóir advised the branch to pursue a claim for a VAT refund on the same basis as had been done successfully by Comhaltas in the past for other Centres. The branch was specifically directed to the HQ financial advisor for help on the VAT process. The branch then worked closely with HQ and its financial advisor in processing the VAT registration and claim. However, when the branch received the VAT refund HQ demanded that it be paid to its own account. In addition to the issue of conflict with the Branch's legal obligations, such an arrangement would also have diverted funds needed to offset the costs of Clasac from the branch to HQ.

4. Were there changes to a VAT return as alleged by HQ in the news media?
Absolutely not - no VAT returns were changed. As requested by the Ardstiúrthóir, the chairman of the branch and Clasac Development Team signed the construction contract. The contractors' invoices therefore should have been made out to "Clasac Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann" but HQ incorrectly proceeded to get the invoices issued to themselves. Accordingly, the contractor agreed to a request from the branch and HQ to correct his invoices to show the proper name and address of the Clasac entity. No other invoice details of any nature were changed. The malicious accusation of impropriety by HQ in relation to VAT is an example of the campaign they have conducted against the branch and its officers in an attempt to justify their own improper actions in dissolving the branch.

5. Was there a double claim of VAT as alleged by HQ?
No, not by Clontarf Branch. Although HQ advised the branch to make the claim for a refund of VAT for Clasac, it was only after Clontarf received the refund that HQ flagged a possible duplication in its own claim to the Department of Arts, Sports & Tourism for payment under the capital grant. The branch wrote to HQ on 13 December suggesting that the matter be brought immediately to the attention of the Department and their advice sought to clarify the issue. HQ instructed the branch not to approach the Department on the matter, and subsequently informed the branch that it had obtained oral advice from the Department, including that the Department had insisted that the VAT refund should be transferred to a HQ account, rather than be retained for the benefit of the Clasac project. Requests to HQ by the branch for sight of correspondence or notes of discussions with the Department on the issue have been ignored.

On the face of it, either HQ made a duplicate claim in error, or it had the intention in any case that any VAT refund granted to the Clasac centre would be put into a HQ account rather than used by Clasac to make payments to contractors

6. Why did Clontarf not put funding in place to pay contractors?
Clontarf branch successfully negotiated a bank loan facility needed to meet all its obligations to contractors. This loan was part of the Clasac business and funding plan agreed with HQ from the outset. At the last minute, HQ refused to support the branch by guaranteeing the loan, as provided for in the Comhaltas Bunreacht, using the Clasac building itself as collateral for the loan, as had always been envisaged and is normal practice for bank loans of this type. This was a complete turnaround as HQ had been a party to the bank negotiations and had up to then led us to believe that they were supportive.

In addition, a €2m interim overdraft facility that HQ agreed to make available to the Clasac project pending the bank loan was also inexplicably withdrawn. Had this been made available while the bank funding was being finalised there would have been no delay of payment to suppliers. The actions of HQ also put Clontarf branch in the position of being unable to make any further payments to suppliers.

7. Did HQ propose any other options for providing collateral for the loan?
At the branch EGM on 8 January, Buanchoiste representatives suggested to the branch members that they should put up their own houses as collateral for the loan. Even at this stage, HQ insisted that any bank loan would become a charge on the general assets of Comhaltas even though the bank had already agreed in writing that the loan would be ring-fenced to the Clasac building.

8. Did Clontarf branch neglect to fundraise as claimed by HQ?
Clontarf branch secured very significant funding for the Clasac project. It was also a major player in putting together the Comhaltas Development Plan and in securing the major public funding for it, covering the Clasac project and other Comhaltas centres. The branch has been working on the Clasac project for 15 years. It secured two direct grants amounting to some €1.5M from the Government, it fundraised over €100,000 to cover all the initial planning and design costs of the centre. It secured the site (worth about €3m) on a 99-year lease. We also secured the required €2m bank loan and, as late as December 2007, the branch also raised a further €240,000 from Dublin City Council.

9. Was the project mismanaged resulting in significant cost overruns?
The project was not mismanaged in any way, and HQ's allegation that the cost of the project "doubled" is completely without foundation. The project Architect supported by the Quantity Surveyor confirmed to the branch EGM on 8 January, attended by representatives of HQ and the Buanchoiste that project costs were very well managed and the final cost was in line with the original projections.

10. What was the original cost estimate?
The projected cost in April 2005 was in excess of €7m. On 11 September 2006 the branch representatives were informed by the Ardstiúrthóir that the project was earmarked to receive €6.9 million in public funding over 3 years. The branch and HQ also agreed at that meeting that bank loans would be necessary to cover any shortfall between the €6.9m grants and the final cost.

11. Were there any additional costs on the project?
Additional costs arose in autumn 2006 when the architect advised that the cost of removing contaminated soil from the site, the provision of waste and water services and necessary additional engineering services would cost an extra €1.375m. These extra costs were part funded by an additional grant of €0.9 million for the project approved by the Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism. The estimated final cost at the time came to about €8.8m, which compares very favourably with the final project cost of €8.98m.

12. Was funding taken from other Comhaltas projects to cover Clasac costs?
Clasac didn't need or take any funding from other projects. In a meeting with the Department of Arts Sport and Tourism on 2 June 2005, Comhaltas sought a grant of €6m for Clasac. This €6m was part of an overall request for €9.75m for a total of 6 Comhaltas projects, i.e. over 60% of the public capital funding originally sought for the development programme from the Department was earmarked for Clasac. The Department also subsequently approved a further €0.9m to cover the additional costs referred to in question 11 above.

13. Did the branch promise funding to a supplier and then fail to pay?
On approval by the Revenue Commissioners of the claim for a VAT refund, the branch contacted the main contractor and arranged that they be paid as a priority out of the refund proceeds. In the meantime, HQ decided that there was a conflict between the grant claims which they had made to the Department of Arts and the VAT refund, and they told the branch to pay the VAT to the HQ account. Clontarf immediately informed the supplier in question of the situation and said it would make the payment once the bank loan, currently being finalised, was in place, and the contractor was happy with that. However, HQ's subsequent refusal to guarantee the loan using the Clasac building as collateral as had previously been agreed, and its withdrawal of a previous offer of an interim overdraft facility, effectively tied the hands of the branch and prevented it from access to any funds to pay suppliers.

14. Did the branch make its case to the Ardchomhairle and County Board?
Clontarf branch made numerous attempts to inform the Ardchomhairle (AC) and the Dublin County Board of the facts of its position, to correct the misstatements and allegations made against it, and to appeal the decision to suspend and dissolve it. Correspondence detailing our case was given to the Ardrúnaí for distribution to the AC but was withheld, and all our requests for meetings were turned down or ignored. The branch representatives to the County Board were asked not to attend meetings, and again our correspondence was not allowed to be distributed. This amounts to censorship and a fundamental absence of justice and fair dealing. Some very serious decisions were taken against the branch and we got no hearing at any level.

15. Was Clontarf branch given any right of appeal?
Although the Comhaltas constitution provides for appeals, no avenue of appeal was allowed to the branch. This is an extraordinary denial of natural justice and a basic right to the branch and raises huge questions about the actions of the Ardchomhairle and the way the whole Comhaltas organisation is governed.

16. What about the investigation undertaken by the Buanchoiste?
HQ has said that such an investigation was carried out, but the branch was not aware of any such investigation at the time, nor has it seen any subsequent report. We have no knowledge of what it was about, who carried it out or what the outcome was. We would have expected, in all fairness, to have been involved if there was an investigation on any issue relating to the branch, and particularly as accusations are now being made against us on the basis of it. The branch solicitor is seeking a copy of the investigation report from HQ. Requests for copies of relevant minutes of Ardchomhairle meetings relating to actions taken against the branch have been turned down on the basis that they are "secret".

17. Has the Executive Committee of the branch kept its members informed?
In the letter of dissolution of 14 March, HQ accused the branch of a serious breach of the Bunreacht by the Executive Committee failing to bring key correspondence to the attention of a full meeting of the branch. Aside from being another questionable reason for dissolving the branch put forward after the event, this allegation is purely mischievous. The branch Executive Committee (composed of 19 members) discussed all correspondence from HQ in detail and during the 10 week period from early January to mid March the whole branch met on 4 separate nights to discuss all matters. Unprecedented numbers attended on all occasions and there was overwhelming support for the Executive Committee. The unanimous vote of confidence in the branch Executive Committee at the general meeting on 19 March undermines HQ's allegation.

The openness of the Clontarf Branch is in marked contrast to the secret, closed activities of HQ, which since early January has rejected or ignored all branch requests for meetings

18. Has the branch prepared plans for running Clasac?
Yes. The branch's Clasac Development Team prepared a robust Business Plan with the assistance of professional consultants, CHL Consulting. This was the sound basis on which public funding was secured and the bank loan was negotiated. It is ready to be implemented, and a team of volunteers from the branch is also ready to ensure the success of the centre. A fundamental element of the Plan is the full participation of the reservoir of artistic talent and performance experience of the Clontarf branch in the presentation of first class shows aimed at the tourist market, and the revenue generated from these will support other "community activities" delivered from the centre.

The agreed Board arrangements should also be put in place immediately as this is the best way of ensuring the successful start-up of the centre.

19. Who are the so-called "reconstituted" branch?
A so-called "reconstituted" branch has been formed following a private meeting at which democratically elected Clontarf members were excluded. This unelected committee, supported by HQ and Dublin County Board, is comprised for the most part of persons related to members of the Ardchomhairle and HQ staff. The members of Clontarf branch, including all the teachers, have overwhelmingly rejected this group as divisive, undemocratic and opportunistic.

20. What has happened to Clontarf branch since dissolution?
The Branch is continuing all its activities, as unanimously decided at a general meeting of members on 19 March, which also mandated the existing Executive Committee to continue. Our teaching programmes and all other activities are back in place. The branch also organised a very successful benefit concert on 4 April last at which all the great traditional musical families in Dublin performed to show their support. Messages of support from a great many branches at home and abroad and from the community generally have continued to flow in, for which we are most grateful.

21. What does Clontarf branch want to happen now?
The branch wants the dissolution rescinded and to be back driving the Clasac project. Even after all that has happened to it, the branch still believes that Comhaltas on the ground, which comprises the vast majority of members, is a truly great organisation. However, we also expect the management and leadership of such an organisation to respect, value and support its committed volunteer members and to treat everyone with dignity and fair play.

The appalling treatment meted out to our branch regrettably sends out a very clear message to our members, the traditional music world, other branches of Comhaltas, and particularly to the thousands of young Comhaltas members that bullying, harassment, exclusion and malicious and false accusations is acceptable and will succeed as a way of carrying on business. This diminishes the organisation and its standing as a real force for good in 21st century Ireland.