Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,trad
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM

That sounds cold, as usual.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:11 PM

Bonnie, you get a prize for being the first to use "opposite of autocratic" to describe the Comhaltas decision-making process. I'll count you as a firm supporter in future. :-)

Anyway, Comhaltas has (finally) released a statement on the affair. You might want to take a look, parse away, and let me know if there's anything I can clarify.

http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:32 PM

Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. I probably should have said "communally". In any case I didn't mean it in the critical sense, only as the opposite of autocratic. It was purely casual usage. (How many bodies outside of governments can even afford to be bureaucracies?)

Still waiting for an answer, Guest -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:23 PM

One thing about Comhaltas, interestingly, is that the actual running of the organisation is extremely un-bureaucratic. There is a tiny handful of full- and part-time staff who handle day-to-day operations, with Labhrás Ó Murchú one of probably 10 staff for an organisation providing services to 30,000 members around the globe.

All of the policy and decision-making for the body, along with the vast majority of event planning and all of the teaching programme development is done by volunteers, elected at local level.

At the head office of Comhaltas, we don't really have much in the way of memos, staff meetings, departments -- probably we're missing most of what you'd describe as a bureaucracy. The governing council, the ardchomhairle, is made up of elected volunteers, and is entirely and deliberately separate from the professional staff.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

I can't speak for the others, but in my case I was utilising his name as a sort of shorthand for headquarters and the committee in power, rather than singling him out individually. As he's the visible figurehead in all the PR, so he also tends to get used as an abbreviation which includes the faceless others working behind the scene, whom we don't see in the promotional material. I have enough experience with similar organisations over many years to know how bureaucratically they are run.

Politicians and leaders do stand out as the representatives for their organisations, and as such they have a public profile. (That old adage about heat and kitchens comes to mind.) I think most people are aware of this.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:45 AM

The original "frame" of this discussion was around theft - plain and bold-faced theft of resources amassed by an idealistic branch of Comhaltas. I made my comments with that in mind, and it seems I've been successful in showing, at the least, that there's another side to this matter.

Now, as you say, the conversation has moved to process - how, in the light of these difficulties with capital structuring, did the branch committee come to be dissolved? The answer there lies more, in my opinion, with the interlocking management of the branch and the project. Ideally, the problems with the construction project would be brought to the attention of the branch executive, who would have taken steps to resolve the problem. In this case, the management of the project *was* the branch executive, who actively screened their own membership from access to information. Needless to say, they did not suggest any changes to their own committee. In this case, the only way of getting the project complete was to put pressure on the branch, a process that was applied by Comhaltas' high council, the Ardchomhairle, working in concert with the Dublin County Board. In a stand-off between a local unit and the elected leadership of an organisation, I'm afraid that the leadership does have the right, constitutionally, to prevail, and that's what happened here. No matter the generally autonomous nature of branch activities and decision-making, when the elected leadership to which the branch has elected representatives asks the branch to do something, the local unit pretty much has to comply.

I'm troubled by the assumption (implicit, and never stated outright that I can see) that Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú is exercising some kind of unilateral and unchecked power. Though as Director-General he signs the checks, the process leading up to the dissolution of the branch is not an action that can be taken by him. There is an easy tendency to assume that, because he is generally the only member of the Comhaltas leadership in the public eye, he must be personally responsible for every decision taken by the organisation. Not true. His own ties to the Government are certainly useful to Comhaltas when it comes to fund-raising, but this is a question of a higher level of a democratic government putting pressure (justified, in my opinion) on a lower-level unit of the same elective structure. Not uncommon, in any field. This unwillingness of the branch officials (elected at the local level) to accept the authority of the Ardchomhairle (elected at the provincial level) led to the dissolution.

Senator Ó Murchú's job is to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of Comhaltas, a structure of which the branch executive is a part. I have not yet seen anyone make any factual statements indicating that the Senator made a personal decision to attack the Clontaf branch, and yet many seem happy to assume this to be the case.

I admit that this is, in part, a deliberately defensive posture on his part. By absorbing all of the public flack for the decisions and actions of Comhaltas, he is doing his job and protecting other levels of the organisation. While I appreciate that quality of his, I do find it annoying when it is automatically assumed that the good outcomes of Comhaltas are created by the idealistic grass-roots and that the negative or controversial outcomes are the result of naked autocratic power, exercised by a single man. It just doesn't work like that. If the Ardchomhairle wanted to replace Senator Ó Murchú, they could do so at their next meeting. That says something about where the power actually lies.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM

You're right, Ard Mhacha (hey... we agree!) - it's a very important question indeed, and I am just as interested as you to know the answers. One can always learn something. But it's just too easy to anonymously whisper that there's "a scandal" and leave it at that.

Guest, if you have an allegation to make, MAKE it. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us who you are?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:06 AM

Good on you Bonnie that`s me told off,but our old friend Guest-guest asks a very important question, any answers?.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM

Breandan's comments surly brings to mind that old musical proverb"He who pays the piper calls the tune"

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM

http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM

Ah yes, the Lord of Obfuscation raises his ugly head. For the clear view, refer to Bonnie Shaljean's post. Despite attempts to shift the premise, I believe the real issue is the one of process. As I pointed out earlier, there is no question that a parent organization has an obligation to watch out for the interests of the rank and file, and make sure there is no malfeasance in how their local organization is being run with respect to finances and delivery of services. That is one of the prime duties of all parent organizations which are run by dues and grants. But the fundamental issue here is not about that. That is what it appears CCE would like you to focus on. What I hear from Jim, Bonnie, and others is about process being denied by an autocratic leader who seems to use his position to bludgeon folks who don't agree with him, and reward those that go along nicely. Classic carrot and stick. Stay to it, Bonnie, because your point is an important one. The attempt to shift the discussion to the financial problems is an attempt to get away from the one of process. The financial discussion is only relevant in the actual appeal process, where the facts of the reasons for dissolution should be discussed. But the appeal process, and the discussion of the legitimacy of the Chief Officers actions is what is at risk here.

Sorry, friend ard mhacha, but I believe that using the length of time since 1979 would only be legitimate if the player was different, and if the same circumstance were not in evidence. I am sure that in the intervening time there are likely many more examples of heavy handed tactics that could be found.

Once again, these are simply the observations of a person who is interested and very far away. I await other details that will influence me, but this is how it appears to me.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:33 AM

All of the Officers of the dissolved Branch have opted to keep quiet I wonder why.Yes there is a financial scandal, what surprises me is how could anyone appear to be shocked.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 06:55 AM

"1979 was a long time ago" - ???!!!! Oh. So that makes it all right, then?

The whole point is not when it happened, but that it happened at all. The fact that a branch can arbitrarily be dissolved simply because they don't agree with the political opinions of the leader, on a topic that has nothing whatever to do with their group aims and objectives, was, is - and shall remain - unacceptable. The organisation is about MUSIC, which by its definition transcends political views, race, religion, gender and all else.

The point is that it clearly shows a behaviour pattern and abuse of power. I was THERE in London at the time, and though I lived in another part of the city (North London Comhaltas was our local) there was widespread shock and fury when it occurred. What makes you think that this sort of thing becomes "OK" simply because a number of years pass? And now the abracadabra-you're-history thing is happening again. Well, and why not? It sure works. And don't kid yourself, Labhrás ó Murchú's political affiliations with Fianna Fáil - the party in power, whose leader is currently under investigation for corruption - do him no harm at all.

Just for the record, I didn't know Jim Carroll in those days, and in fact have never met him at all except online, through this forum and the Ir-Trad email list. Therefore we are not personal acquaintances. I did know Maggie Boyle very slightly back in the 70s, pretty much on a hi-how-are-you basis in assorted sessions or backstage at various concerts. So, although it must look like we're a coterie, we're not. These are, in fact, independent views of the same situation, by people who witnessed it. Dissolving that branch over an opinion that differed with the leader's and had NO relevance to music was wrong then AND IT'S WRONG NOW. And it seems to be happening again.

I don't understand why you keep stressing that Comhaltas is still going strong. Of COURSE it is!! No one - and I mean no one - would wish it otherwise. But that is totally beside the point being discussed here. Whereas Jim's post is all too horribly relevant. Dissolving the opposition - because you can - is the most blatant injustice and abuse of power.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:25 AM

Jim I believe that Brendan put over his opinion very well, not an insult in sight, also 1979 is quite a long time ago, in the meantime Comhaltas hasn`t fallen apart.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:19 AM

Breandán,
Sorry - I really don't buy any of this - just what is Comhaltas policy on expulsions (branch or individual) - does anybody have the right of representation or appeal?
I refer you back to a posting I made some time ago regarding a previous 'head rolling' session - this time concerning the West London branch expulsion (for not toe-ing a political (political) line).
Are we likely to have more expulsions of those who don't support Bertie in his hour of need?
Jim Carroll

"I wasn't associated with the West London Branch at the time of the expulsion, but the events went something like this (my information was gleaned from my friend and neighbour, the late Paddy Boyle, father of Maggie Boyle who posted above).

Labhrás ó Murchú decided that Comhaltas should raise money for a commemoration to Padraig Pearse; I think it was the centenary of his birth which would have made the date around 1979. Branch members in West London objected, claiming that it was not the job of an organisation devoted to music to participate in political events. A letter was sent saying as much and Larry replied saying (in so many words); "do as you're told or else". The "or else" was expulsion and the branch was expelled.

The expelled members continued to operate as a very active branch (I think they called themselves The West London Irish Music Association) and ran regular sessions at the Hibernian Club, Fulham, where they recieved the support of players such as Bobby Casey, Raymond Roland, Roger Sherlock, Danny Meehan, John Carthy, P J Crotty, John Bowe, Fergus McTeggart, The MacCarthys and many others, in other words, the cream of London/Irish music.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM

Thanks again for all who are posting with the way they see it & with the info they have. There are never enough views nor enough info, that we can't use more of it.
I await 1st hand reports of how this is being dealt with during this upcoming weekend's North American Convention. I suspect that the cat's got to be let out of the bag by this point & that there'll be some sort of public announcement/statement along with a hopefully better way at bringing this to a healthy solution that all interested parties can be happy with. After all is said & done it's the music that's the most important priorty & we all would love to see this in the future as only a past footnote in the continuation of a musical tradition that we all love, honor & respect.

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM

Very astute post, Declan. Thanks for capturing it so well.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM

I'm not trying to question anyone's credibility here either. Just trying to ascertain the facts, so I can make up my own mind as to the rights and wrongs of the situation. The lack of trust of Comhaltas leadership shown by a number of people here is not groundless and comes from various experiences with CCÉ as an organisation.

One thing that I don't quite understand. If the Classac project was being run by a separate committee, albeit apparently with a fair amount of overlap with the Cluain Tarbh Branch Committee, the why was it the Cluain Tarbh BC that was dissolved rather than the Classac committee. It would seem that 400 people have effectively been wiped out of the organisation (albeit apparently with the right to come back in if they would choose to do so (I must say I wouldn't)) because of the alleged incompetence of a few committee members.

And I am delighted to hear that the new members will be allowed to use the facility which they worked so hard to help create, but it seems to me the essential issue here is one of control.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,sparkles
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM

Or when there are two versions of what's going on for us not to know about.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:38 PM

Mick, I certainly wouldn't include you or ard mhacha in that characterisation - sorry if I implied otherwise!

If it's useful for anyone as far as credibility, I'm certainly not claiming to be just a Dublin musician. I'm employed part-time at the moment by Comhaltas - I designed and am the webmaster of http://comhaltas.ie. My authority isn't in the area of PR, but since no-one was speaking out and I happened to know a lot about the controversy, I'm posting kinda on my own. No-one asked me to post; but then as the "tech guy" around the office, I'm one of the few who's aware of the Internet.

I don't mind if people criticise Comhaltas or the actions of its officers or officials -- I spend plenty of time doing that myself. But before we can get into motivations, it seemed that there was/is an awful lot of misinformation (bred and reinforced by mistrust) out there.

I'm posting on my own time (and neglecting my studies!), but also chatting casually to staff and elected representatives who I happen to know. I've been in the room at Head Office when a lot of this went down over the past year, though (again) it's not really in my area. I designed some killer sound and light systems for the new Clasac theatre, and I can't wait to work some shows in there. I enjoy meeting the members of Cluain Tarbh at the Dublin Fleadh and at the Fleadh Cheoil, though my own branch is different one in Dublin.

Anyway, to refer to the very first post, where Jim says:

"It would appear that the leadership of CCE has taken over the premises which was built with money raised by the local branch, and has expelled the branch in order to finalise the dirty deed."

There's a lot there that's simply not true. It's not Jim's fault - he heard it on the radio, and then read Cluain Tarbh's website. But the leadership of CCÉ haven't taken over anything -- it always was a Comhaltas-owned building. Money wasn't raised mostly by the branch - the local branch raised about 2% of the money. The branch wasn't expelled to finalise the takeover of a theatre - Comhaltas' high council suspended and then dissolved the executive committee of the branch, because the project was in jeopardy and a year of negotiations hadn't resolved it. And fortunately, the branch executive has re-formed itself quickly with an experienced committee.

Personally, I think that the branch members should have been kept better-informed of the money issues. I also think that the branch shouldn't have let the theatre committee be run by the branch executive. I also personally wish that there had been another way to get the project back on track, and I wholeheartedly agree that the mechanisms of communication and public relations (even when talking to the branch) were severely neglected by Comhaltas leadership. Doesn't mean it was a mean-spirited greedy power-grab, though.

Anyway, those are the facts. I think that it might be quite productive to discuss funding or politics in arts-based non-profits. State sponsorship of traditional arts raises all sorts of interesting issues of governance and representation. It's also interesting to speculate on the Ardchomhairle debate. But none of that can be done meaningfully when people don't know what's going on.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Snuffy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:22 PM

By your leave Larry Grogan,
Enough has been spoken,
It's time to give over your sonnet, your sonnet;
Come listen to mine sir,
Much truer than thine sir,
For these very eyes were upon it.
It is of a buck slain,
This very campaign,
To let him live longer, 'twere a pity, 'twere a pity:
For head and for branches,
For fat and for haunches,
Exceeding the mayor of a city, a city.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM

Two sets each and now going into the final set, can the oul legs of O`Murchu stand the pace or will the young Turks finally win the day, watch this space.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM

***LOL***, ard mhacha. This is getting to be an interesting intersection to be sipping a cuppa on, indeed. Back and forth, but one can see the various positions and how they are coming at it. I hope Breandain doesn't include you or I in the attacks on his character or integrity, but I do think it is obvious that he is more than what we first thought. It does appear he is putting out one point of view and doing it with much inside info, eh?

To be continued..........and I am really enjoying this, sad as the situation is.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY-
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM

A tale without a tail is not a tale at all --our newly written lamentation "The Power Struggle" a thugtar, is a classic manifestion , as caoine, of the falsely concepted hostilities that are born of mistrust and misdeeds that have been engendered by lack of adequate forward planning and major communication deficiencies--
Its beyond time that someone raised the white Cockade

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:26 PM

Clontarf/Cluain Tarbh is Irish for "The Plain of the Bull"

Thereby hangs a tail:
Comhaltas took the bull by the horns and dismantled the branch. The branch in turn accused Comhaltas of behaving like a bull in a china-shop while Comhaltas accused them of making up cock-and-bull stories of the whole affair. Who is bull****ing whom?

(I'll get me coat...)
Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY-
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

Would Dustin or Judge Mahon or some respected persona arbitrate on this ,and get on with a few tunes & primary agenda stuff --- we have just written a tune called "The Power Struggle "

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

Well, now that is news regarding the make-up of the committees, the plot thickens, what do you think Mick?.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:44 PM

If you will permit a follow-up post:

Diarmaid: though I appreciate the work you have put in as Secretary, I submit to you that a serious error was made by the branch in allowing the same persons to fill the Chairperson and Treasurer positions of the Cluain Tarbh executive committee and the Clasaċ sub-committee. When financial matters went unresolved with Clasaċ, the net result was to put the Cluain Tarbh branch itself in jeopardy, which needn't have been the case. The year-long intransigence of the committee eventually precipitated a last-resort action by the Ardchomhairle which resulted in fear and confusion within the branch, and an obvious public confusion and outcry which serves neither nor the branch nor the larger organisation.

The dissolution, though a terrible last resort, was felt necessary by the elected council of the Ardchomhairle (after 8 hours of debate) in part because the ordinary branch members did not know what was taking place in their name. With the interlocking directorships of the branch executive and the theatre sub-committee, there was no independent voice within the branch capable of applying pressure on the theatre committee to develop a proper plan for addressing the funding shortfall.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM

Though I am understandably reluctant to wade back in here, I do feel compelled to correct a couple of misconceptions which have taken hold in the popular imagination.

First, though the dissolution of the branch on 14 March, 2008 has understandably come as a shock to outsiders and even to those within the branch who were not kept abreast of events, it should be kept in mind that the Clasaċ management committee was aware of the 2 million shortfall in February 2007 - this was minuted at the time. Since that time, including at 11 meetings taking place between Sep 2007 and Dec 2007 between representatives of the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas and the Clasaċ committee, continued concern has been expressed at the handling of the project and the need for additional funding. Though a bank loan was eventually brought forward in Dec 2007, it was not one that the trustees of Comhaltas could guarantee while maintaining their fiduciary duty to safeguard the other property of Comhaltas. The reasons for this are technical and I won't get into them here, but the fact is that the branch had a very, very long time to address these issues before things came to a head this spring. The committee were perhaps just in over their heads.

Second, while I do not wish to minimise the contributions of the Clontarf branch to the inception and public awareness of Clasaċ project, it should be borne in mind that the branch raised approximately €150,000 of the €9,000,000 project. This is still a huge achievement, but it should be remembered that the Clasaċ committee was charged with managing what was mostly other people's money. Comhaltas had a very clear interest in ensuring that the usage of the Dept of Arts, Sports and Tourism money that went into the Clasaċ theatre was being properly used and administered.

Third, I do think that it is relevant to discuss the experience of the new branch committee which has been formed. This executive committee includes the three ex-chairpersons of the branch for the last 20 years -- the same ones who painstakingly built the excellent reputation of the Clontarf branch. By contrast, the committee which was dissolved has been in power for only the last two years. The "real" committee, it could be argued, is the newly-formed one, whose members were members of the original 4-person Clasaċ development committee for 13 years and were involved first-hand with every fundraiser that took place.

Fourth, regarding the future of the branch. There has never been even the remotest suggestion that all members of the Clontarf branch would not be making use of the facilities of the new theatre. It is also important to note that the first act of the new committee was to ensure that all classes would continue and that all payments made for these classes would be honoured; all teachers employed would be paid; all Fleadh entries for 2008 would be accepted as normal Comhaltas entries, even if in the longer term the person did not wish to remain a member; all current ordinary members would have their membership honoured; and of course no penalty would be imposed on ordinary members, who had no active part in the circumstances leading to the dissolution. This has been approved by Dublin County Board and by Leinster Council. I have seen suggestions that adult members are somehow now being excluded from the Clontarf branch or from Clasaċ, which is not the case in the least.

I await with interest further attacks upon my credibility and character.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:51 PM

Wonderful pictures.

Yeah, Declan, that is kind of where I seem to be leaning. I think it is telling that since the counter story was run, and some pointed questions were raised, we have not heard from Breandain. I would have preferred to have the dialogue go on between knowledgeable folks so's the rest of us could come to informed opinions.

But no matter what else is presented, no matter how plausible it seems, there is a disconnect when one comes to the process and dissolution. It seems to have been done as a thief in the night. That certainly colours my view of all that has been said.

Very difficult from afar, eh?

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM

It seems to me that even if the Cluain Tarbh Branch were making a total mess of the project,(and nothing I read outside of Breandán's posts suggests that this is actually the case), that the Branch still should have been given some form of due process before the branch was expunged with the stroke of a pen.

Whether the Ard Comhairle were legally within their rights to do what they did their position is morally indefensible. And in morality if the members of the (real) branch are not going to have the use of the Classac centre then the money that was raised by the branch towards the project should be refunded to the branch for distribution among the membership. Why do I get the feeling that that will never happen?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:28 PM

Great set of pictures Gulliver.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:05 PM

Apologies for the thread drift in this engrossing saga (something like this crops up every year or two in an Arts organisation in Ireland, with both sides going at it hammer and thongs), but I have to take issue with "Guest, Aine in Dublin", who says: the Fleadh is in good part a drunken jamboree from Friday evening to Sunday night. It is certainly not a conducive atmosphere for appreciating a session. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into a session you can hear - most people appear to have a vague interest and are largely there for the 'craic and the booze'. I was at the Fleadh in Tullamore last August and my friends and I had a wonderful time. We visited and played in many of the 27 pubs, not to mention hotels, street sessions, dancing, etc. Yes, it was a bit difficult getting into some sessions, as the space and seats were limited, but then we just continued to the next one--there were well over 50 concurrent sessions on Sunday alone. Sure, I saw a few drunks--what do you expect with thirty or forty thousand people on the streets? And her statement that parents of young children largely stay out of the town over the weekend is untrue as can be seen from my photos, which are available here. Happy kids and happy musicians.
Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Folkiedave
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM

What followed was an angry stream of correspondence in the letters page between Labhrás Ó Murchú and his supporters and various critics of the Report – Tom Munnelly, John Moulden, Terry Moylan, Nicholas Carolan, Fintan Vallely and Matt Cranitch. The letters continued to appear up until late May.

If that's a list of his critics it tells me an awful lot about which side to be on!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM

> how do we find the opinions of the rest of the Branches throughout Ireland on CCE?, it is not an unreasonable question, then we can all know how things stand.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your question! I thought you were asking for the opinions of the rest of the branches -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM

Thanks Bonnie but it would take me a hell of a time to go around each Branch,it is up to everyone concerned to contact CCE HQ and explain your position.
The point is Comhaltas is not on its last legs, everything will be humming along to-morrow night at our local Branch, and no need of drink to produce the music.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:23 AM

Neutral?

It just sounds like enthnic cleansing to me, trying to solve a problem by eliminating any opposition. It's one thing to have a disagreement between two sides on an issue, but one of those sides is doing their best to make sure the other side doesn't exist. That is NOT FAIR whatever the points of argument are. They seem to think they can do anything they want just because they decide to do it.

That 1999 report people mentioned is interesting. Google "Oireachtas report Comhaltas 1999" and it brings up what looks like a PDF copy of the 1999 Oireachtas Report though it's in Irish.

It also brings up this --

From The Journal of Music in Ireland site dated May/June 2002

http://www.thejmi.com/article/73

(part way down the page) The creation of a 'national State council for the development and promotion of the traditional arts such as native music, song, dance, storytelling, etc.' was first proposed by Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú (Director General of Comhaltas Ceóltoirí Éireann) in the first ever Oireachtas Report on Traditional Irish Music, which he compiled for the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Heritage and the Irish Language in January 1999. In the Irish Times on 9th March 1999, the Report was described by reporter Mic Moroney as follows:

By any standards, this report is an extraordinary partisan document, which shows scant signs of research. Instead, it gives a romanticised and rather out-dated picture, which concentrates on the virtues of only one organisation: Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.

What followed was an angry stream of correspondence in the letters page between Labhrás Ó Murchú and his supporters and various critics of the Report – Tom Munnelly, John Moulden, Terry Moylan, Nicholas Carolan, Fintan Vallely and Matt Cranitch. The letters continued to appear up until late May.

Following this debacle, the Report appeared to be shelved...


continued on the link above. And more if you google--

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,neutral 'i think' party
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:21 AM

This whole episode is sad to see.
As usual, the same figures/parties rush out to defend or attack Comhaltas.
There are elaborate arguments being made on both sides from something that initially appeared quite straight forward.

I take issue with the following:

"You continually assert that you are not trying to muddy the waters but you make vague sweeping statements implying things that are not so. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to pretend you do. If you do know what you're talking about, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Breandan, has put forward the other side of the story, in a clear manner. Maybe you disagree, maybe it isn't all factually correct, but he appears to know more about what he is talking about than the majority of contributors to the Joe Duffy show. I am sure you wouldn't be so quick to jump on a post stating "Labhras, the president of ceoltas has stolen away a building from the clontarf branch, the biggest branch in the world".

"However, as we don't work at this full time, you may have to bear with us."
- a subtle dig?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,George Henderson
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:01 AM

Wow, and I thought the 1999 report was a disaster. What has happened here is incredible.

Has any body any suggestions of anything we can do about this?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:52 AM

I'm not sure the branches are privy to any further information than what we've been told here. And no one's going to publicly post grapevine gossip -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,sparkles
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:37 AM

But the branches didn't get to vote on this, did they? From what I can read, only the internal High Council got to do that.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:01 AM

You can click on the map icons too, which will bring up contact details of each one.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:58 AM

You can contact each one individually and directly from the info on this page:

http://comhaltas.ie/locations/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:36 AM

Diarmid and Jim, Points read and digested, the question is, how do we find the opinions of the rest of the Branches throughout Ireland on CCE?, it is not an unreasonable question, then we can all know how things stand.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:51 AM

I started this thread because I was angered at what I believed to be an outrageous act of injustice on the part of an organisation which purports to act on behalf of the music I have been involved in for the greater part of my life - traditional music. Little I have read so far persuades me that I was wrong to do so. I am left with the feeling that, left in the hands of the incumbent leadership, this matter, as with other similar incidents in the past (West London Branch), Clontarf would end up as another trophy on the wall of head office. Even the most repressive regimes in the world go through the motions of democracy to justify their behaviour - not the case here!
Sorry Mick - I too was involved in Trades Union activity - head office only EVER intervened as a last resort - not the case here, where, it appears, the branch (nor the rest of the organisation) - has not even been consulted. Any Union leader taking such liberties would have ended up 'face down in The Mersey.'
I live in the West of Ireland where, at the present time anyway, traditional music is thriving - without, and some would say "in spite of" CCE. There are good, healthy sessions and youngsters are taking up the music in droves - for the love of it - and not a competition in sight.
There is little doubt that CCE has played a part in the past, but that is no longer the case, and that fact has to be come to terms with.
A popular saying in the sixties was "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Diarmaid
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:50 PM

Breandán, perhaps you should get some of your facts straight. I think you should come out and say that the only details you know are those that are being fed to you by your paymasters. You have so many inaccuracies that I could not correct them line by line and still give a sense of what actually happened.

Your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM
You say there were cost overruns of 2 million euro. UNTRUE. It was known that there would be a shortfall of approx. 1.8 million euro. Labhrás was aware that a bank loan for this amount would be required and a loan was negotiated with the bank for this amount with Labhrás' approval and encouragement- perhaps, he forgot to tell you.

I assume the reason the contractors were ringing head office is because it was a head office employee who was managing the project. Is this who you refer to when you speak about stonewalling?

At a branch EGM to which Labhrás and members of the Buanchoiste turned up, a motion was put forward by the branch calling on the Branch committee and Comhaltas to work together to resolve the difficulties. Only 2 people voted against this motion with no abstentions.

The successful EGM motion was sent to HO and it was hoped by the branch that we could move forward together.

At this stage, Comhaltas HQ started spinning their story. They sent a series of letters in which the truth was distorted (for instance claiming that the branch was divided at the EGM). In hindsite, I think the branch should have more fiercely rebutted the allegations made but we were still hoping that we could work with Head Office to resolve the problem. Although we stated our case to the Buanchoiste, they refused to pass our correspondence to the other Ardchomhairle members or to allow us to present our case.

On 5th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that they were taking control of Clasac.

Once HO took control of Clasac, it meant that the entity registered for VAT, had to deregister as, in effect, it had never and would never trade. The VAT refund then had to be returned to the Revenue Commissioners.

On 6th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that the branch had been suspended for failing to transfer a VAT refund to a HO account.

The branch was given seven days to 'regularise its position in relation to the VAT refund'. As far as the branch was concerned, the position was regularised by returning the VAT to the Revenue Commissioners. HO were informed of same and the branch received a letter from Revenue stating that we had done the right thing in the circumstances.

The branch was told at all times that the reason for suspension and threat of dissolution was because of the VAT. As far as we were concerned, we had taken the only course available to us because of the fact that the Ardchomhairle had taken control of the Clasac project.

Breandán, you say that 'some members of the branch who know what's going on have formed a new committee'. If they knew what was going on, why did they not enlighten any of the other members of the branch at the number of full branch meetings which have been held since the New Year? Also, you failed to state that the committee was formed when a new Cluain Tarbh branch was created before the existing committee or branch had even been notified that they had been dissolved. This new branch was formed at a secret meeting to which the majority of the existing members were not invited and when some members found out about it they were informed that they could not attend as it was a 'private meeting'. Now, there's democracy in action! On the Liveline Radio program, the newly elected chairperson claimed that they had a quorum. I take it, by that, there were five people there which is the number required to set up a new branch.

A letter was then circulated by a member of the Ardchomhairle basically stating that they would give membership to our kids if they entered competitions on behalf of the new branch. The rest of the membership would not be entitled to branch membership, presumably because that would also entitle them to a vote.

Breandán. You say that the VAT refund is a side issue. Why then was the branch dissolved over this? I realise that we were not allowed to present any defense in the matter, also that we were not allowed to appeal any of the decisions made against us, but now you say that it didn't matter whether or not we complied with the Trustee's directive on VAT because we were going to be dissolved anyway.

You say that you believe that the 'Clontarf membership' would have no objections to continuing the project more or less as originally envisaged.

Are you referring to the disenfranchised members of the dissolved Clontarf branch. If so, I tell you again that what we asked of the Ardchomhairle in our EGM motion was that they work with us to ensure the project be completed successfully and the board of Clasac be put in place as per the original agreement.

Their response was to dissolve the branch.

In your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM, you do actually have some statements which are true. Once again though, you're not telling the full truth and in many cases there is no truth in what you say.. You state that a loan could not be borrowed against the land. You fail to state that the loan which had been negotiated by the branch was to be borrowed against the building itself and was ringfenced so that no other assets of Comhaltas would be at risk. Therefore, because the building is vested in the Trustees of Comhaltas, they were the only people who could sign for the loan. Labhrás/the Trustees refused to do this and instead wanted individuals in the branch to put their homes up as collateral.

With regard to the letter of dissolution, you say that it was sent out in the usual way in plenty of time.
The letters of 5th and 6th Feb regarding seizure of control of Clasac and suspension/possible dissolution of the branch were sent by registered post to both the secretary and chairman of the branch. In most other cases, letters were copied to both the chairman and secretary and in many cases were also emailed.

On this occasion, the letter dissolving the branch was not considered important enough to send by registered post. Nor was it deemed necessary to copy it to the chairman. Despite us being told initially that a copy would be emailed, we were later informed that this was not considered appropriate. Instead, the letter was sent out by standard post. Oh, did I mention that they sent it to the wrong address? But, of course, you'd know that Breandán because you have the inside track.

To the best of my knowledge, apart from Labhrás threatening to sue, there was no correspondence between HO and Joe Duffy's show other than to send the letter of dissolution to them. The letter, by the way, stated that the branch was dissolved with effect from the date of the letter (14th March) despite numerous assurances to us that the branch would not be dissolved until the letter had been received.

This conveniently allowed HO people to set up the new branch with their own committee on the 15th before we had been notified of our dissolution.

You refer to the moratorium. HO's letter of 6th Feb states clearly that the moratorium was to allow us the opportunity to sort out the VAT refund. Are you telling us that what they said in their letter was untrue?

When you talk about the new committee, you say that once the branch is in place, others will be free and encouraged to join it.
Why then have they only offered membership to our kids?
Why would they wait until October to offer membership to others?

I believe the reason to be that they are in cahoots with head office to get their members on the board of Clasac so that Labhrás can say he has abided by the agreement on that. The members who set up the new branch are basically those members who voted in favour of the Ardchomhairle motion that Cluain Tarbh hand control of Clasac to HO. When they didn't get their way, their friends in HO helped them out by dissolving the branch and allowing them to set up a new branch with themselves as the self-appointed committee. Isn't democracy wonderful!

You say that the decision to dissolve the Clontarf Branch was made by two elected boards: Dublin County Board and the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas.
Clontarf Branch was dissolved by the Ardchomhairle. I doubt the County Board had any hand in it other than being informed that we were being dissolved.
Any decision made by the Ardchomhairle was not an informed decision as we were not allowed to present our case to them and the Buanchoiste refused to pass our correspondence to them.
Dublin County Board were instructed not to hear our case or accept our correspondence and were also instructed not to allow our reps to attend the County Board meeting.

You continually assert that you are not trying to muddy the waters but you make vague sweeping statements implying things that are not so. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to pretend you do. If you do know what you're talking about, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For anyone interested in the truth, I would urge you to check out the branch website www.cluaintarbh.net

We are trying to put as much info as possible on the website including copies of documents. However, as we don't work at this full time, you may have to bear with us.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

Aine, I wouldn`t argue with you on the shambles at the present day Fleadhs, the earlier Fleadhs I attended were a pleasure, todays society will use any excuse for a booze-up.   Aine what do you do to change this/.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:47 PM

I am saddened to hear of your troubles Aine, but I can only give an opinion of what I am seeing and hearing with our thriving Branch.
I would be more informed if other Branches throughout the country give their opinions.
As I said earlier I am completely in the dark regarding the bile on this Thread on CCE, are all of the remaining Branches in the Dublin Comhaltas in agreement with you?, I am not being critical here, just curious.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

Aine, did you read Breandain's posts? I don't quarrel with the facts as you state them, as I am not present there. But his explanation of the financial problems, and the HQ's handling of that seems completely in line with what any parent organization is expected to do. It is not unlike Trade Unions in the States. The Local Unions are autonomous bodies and can run their affairs as they see fit. But if they fail in the proper exercise of their fiduciary and constitutional duties, and the HQ can demonstrate that(and their are rigid and formidable burdens of proofs for doing so), it is entirely proper for them to take over, or trustee, these Locals. We then restore their finances to a proper place, correct the inequities caused by the malfeasance, and then restore the Local to its members by holding new elections.

Your post seems to mix many problems into one stew. The taking over of the branch, if Breandain's information is correct, seems the appropriate action. Before you say it, I am not naieve on these matters and I am sure there are some politics involved as well, as my previous post states. If you have specific information on that which mitigates the information we are receiving, I am very interested in hearing it.

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

Being a CCE expellee, it won't surprise anyone that I have often heard him slurred. I won't repeat those things here; but I'd like to bring attention to the fact that he was known to many as "President for Life" as far back as the late 60s. I was extremely young then, and just accepted it as a fact! And so it has come to pass...
CCE branches do great work, as did we at the (ORIGINAL) West London branch, before we had the temerity to question the wisdom of the Executive.