I'm not being over-simple at all, Jim. In fact, I'm trying to recognize the complexities of arts management in the nonprofit world.   The oversimple thing is just saying "this situation is bad; comhaltas isn't democratic." The complicated thing is figuring out if it should be, and if so, what to do about it.

All I'm saying is that different organizations are organized differently, and that

(1) there is no legal obligation for a membership organization to be organized as a democracy

and

(2) many are less democratic than CCE.

Thus, wondering "how could this happen?" doesn't make a lot of sense. Furthermore, there are good historical and practical reasons why such organizations aren't democracies.

As the Captain points out, membership already comes with benefits, and people join in order to access those benefits. If the benefits aren't good enough, no one is forced to join. It's not like a country, where you are forced to pay the taxes even if you disagree with the government! Right now, the vast majority of members will stay with the organization no matter what happens with Clontarf, because the benefits are worth it to them.

Some such organizations give members some form of "voting" rights, others don't. Whether we should change the law to force the issue is a question for the Houses of the Oireachtas, and ultimately the voters. As Bonnie says, that option is certainly possible.

However, you are being simplistic if you think all non-profit organizations with members who contribute money should be democracies, and if you think you could create legislation to ensure that. I tend to agree with you that Comhaltas could use more democracy, not less. But that's different from saying that there's some kind of legal "accountability" requirement. If that requirement were enacted for all nonprofit membership organizations, it would be a logistical nightmare that would cripple many small organizations.

For most such organizations, "members" are really just contributors who derive some benefits from their contributions--like, say, getting a program guide from a local arts centre, or a newsletter from a local historical society. If an arts centre decides to fire a popular manager, or to move to a new building, the membership does not get to vote on this, generally speaking.

If membership DID vote on such decisions, most organizations would shut their doors. Politicians have the lure of actual power calling them to run for office. Imagine if you had to "run" for a low-paid, arts administrator job and could be voted out after a couple of years for not doing what the current membership wants. Or, imagine if you had job security, but had to enact whatever program plans were voted in by the members, so you'd just be a "rubber stamp." No one with any sense would take such a job.   

Because of this, it would not be workable to organize most arts organizations as democracies. The problem with legislating something like this separately for comhaltas is figuring out the legal grounds on which to claim that comhaltas differs from other organizations who could not survive being that democratic. This is a very complicated proposition.

Finally, I think you are once again not only oversimplifying but in fact distorting the facts in your posts. When you say that Labhras refused "the services" of a mediator, it sounds like a friendly offer of service was made by a trusted mediator. In fact, when you read the article, you find out what happened: some local politicians, including the Mayor, tried to force both sides to recognize the authority of an outside mediator. This is an "offer" that is bound to be "accepted" by whoever has lost this round of the fight (they have nothing to lose by accepting), and "rejected" by whoever has won (they have nothing to gain by accepting).

What Labhras rejected was the notion that politicians who aren't part of comhaltas should be allowed to tell the organization what to do. He is making a claim that the comhaltas constitution is authority enough. His position is understandable. One, he practically HAS to say that, or he is voting "no confidence" in the system that has kept him Chief Executive for 40 years. Two, he's probably right, legally. But anything can happen, and the more politicians get involved, the more likely he is to cave and accept mediation, especially if the politicos can make it hard for the Clasac Centre to function.

As you say, his rejecting the imposition of legally-binding mediation isn't surprising. But it doesn't prove that Comhaltas is wrong. It also doesn't prove that Clontarf is right, or even that they're negotiating in good faith. It just proves that the former Clontarf branch is trying to find a way to reverse the ardchomairle's decision, and that Comhaltas doesn't want it reversed.

Wait, we knew that already, didn't we?