Not being a member but having read all the posts I think I have gained an understanding of the publicly-available info. From a lifetime of involvement (at all levels) with voluntary organisations it seems all too familiar.

From an Oz perspective (which means I'm ignorant of specifically Irish legislative details that might nullify my comments) it seems the following could be explored.

1 Getting the locals of Clontarf (meaning Reel Clontarf, now known as Ceoltoiri Cluain Tarbh) back into a situation where they have some proportionate management of the facility they helped establish seems to be a local priority. Surely the Dublin City Councillors (the Local Government controlling the land on which the CLASAC is sited) can be lobbied/pressured/convinced politically into changing the details of "to whom" it is leased, so that the locals can be the major partners in running it.

From the info above it seems the CCT have a lot of people with a lot of abilities who could cover a major part of its future activities; if Monkton/Comhaltas/HQ were "needed" to run particular aspects they could be invited to be (probably 'minority') members of the Board of Management, with Clontarf (CCT) members a similar minority and the Dublin CC administration represented with "balance of power" numbers.

From the posts above I gather that the Senator (how come an elected parliamentary represented can have a paid outside job, let alone avoid accusations of "conflict of interest"? -sorry, I'm living in Oz) has a reputation and history of refusing CCE participation in entities it can't control. If he won't come to the party I'm sure other cultural institutions would be lining up to join in and provide the locals with the required expertise and functions.

2 Getting CCE to be more "accountable" in the way many have recommended. I'm aware that many institutions we think of as "public" are in fact private (and, indeed, multinational) corporations; the ICRC has already been mentioned but Greenpeace is another example of the genre. Several prongs need to be employed, probably at the same time.

2a Political pressure could be applied to have the Parliament (Dail?) legislate that institutions that are not part of govt but are recipients of govt funds conform to a series of model "rules". It might be a stretch to insist (of a "private" organisation) that its constitution meets the requirements of a minimal model, but that has been applied to similar organisations in most states in Oz for the last quarter century. Such "rules" could, however, require an organisation to publish (or make available to all members, as well as the govt) its Annual Accounts, AGM Minutes, procedures and records of Equity, EEO, Grievance Mediation, Disciplinary rules, activities and determinations.

2b Changing the particular representation of the grass-roots membership when there are four layers of appointed elected representatives will take time and persuasion. Given the Clontarf (CCT) members were able (with a reported 400 members and a 95% majority) to outnumber the CCE-appointed committee, some old-fashioned "branch-stacking" might be in order at the local Clontarf level. If the "we have your names" approach is used to exclude particularly "useful" potential members, it would be necessary to convince others to become members and change the local "official" branch committee so that the troublemakers could be allowed back in. If they were still excluded by the Senator, then suggestion 2a would need to include "Rules of membership" and the application process in the Model Constitution.

I hope these suggestions are useful.

Cheers, Rowan