|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 May 08 - 04:27 PM Eileen This is the logical conclusion of an earlier posting which read: "Every member of Comhaltas should be working on behalf of Comhaltas otherwise they should not be members of Comhaltas". Comhaltas should be working on behalf of the music and its leadership should be answerable to its members - not the other way round, as is obviously the case here. Good luck with your petition. Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Fiddle ruairi Date: 14 May 08 - 03:20 PM That letter reads like a Sinn Fein congress meeting talking of 'Irish Ireland' and what not. Gimme a break, such drivel! It goes to show how misinformed Comhaltas as an organisation is about the whole situation. This letter is just another level in the self promotion that is Labhras O'Murchu. Notice that there is no mention of how great the music is and how the music is held in such a high standing, only Comhaltas and Labhras because in their eyes the music didnt exist before them. I wouldn't be the first to say that Irish music isn't all CCE but for people who know nothing about the music they are going to look to them for guidance and I certainly don't want to be represented by an organisation like them. I didn't like them before this whole debacle, so don't say I don't like them because of just this. Its terrible, just look at the mostly tripe Fleadh programs that were just on. I can count on one hand the number of good pieces of music I heard, the rest was very poor and filled with the 'The fleadh is great' vox-popping. That series has just ended, and immediately afterwards The Full Set is starting again with Frankie Gavin and Martin O'Conner. Its like going from Ryanair to Singapore Airlines, or more plainly from 'Fleadh music' to 'actual Irish music that people want to hear'. Or something along those lines. I didn't think the organisation was so deluded until I read that, so now people I guess we can just forget about it. Democracy just doesn't work in the trad world I guess. The ard comhairle are basically just suits that are out of touch with the traditional world, their 'ideals' are of a bygone era and havn't evolved to the necessities of current society. Get rid of Labhras and bring in Bertie. Ha ha! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor Date: 14 May 08 - 01:29 PM I received an unsigned three page missive by post today. I would like to share one of those pages here on Mudcat, as follows: COMHALTAS CONGRESS SAUTES ITS ARDSTIURTHOIR The Annual Congress of Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann, meeting on the 2nd May, 2008, with delegates from all over Ireland, Britain and North America in attendance, unanimously adopted the following statement and gave the Ardstiurthoir a prolonged standing ovation: That this Congress salutes and acknowledges the outstanding leadership which Senator Labhras O Murchu, Ardstiurthoir of Comhaltas, has given to our cultural movement over the last 40 years. Through his dedication, idealism and integrity, coupled with his vision and professionalism, he has guided Comhaltas to its present world status. Comhaltas and the Irish nation owe him a huge debt of gratitude. His standing in the movement at home and abroad and his record in Seanad Eireann are testimony to the appreciation, admiration and affection which he enjoys nationally and internationally. We deplore the recent personal abuse to which Labras was subjected. We deplore the vicious anonymous letters sent to his wife Una. Neither Labhras nor the Ardcomhairle were prepared to preside over matters which would harm the good standing and credibility of Comhaltas and bring it inot disrepute. As was required of us by the Bunreacht, the Ardchomhairle unanimously took the appropriate action and dissolved the Clontarf branch of Comhaltas. Labhras enjoys the full support and confidence of the Ardchomhairle and of the general membership with 400 branches in 15 countries on 4 continents. His legacy to Comhaltas and Irish Ireland has guaranteed him an honoured place in our history. May he be with us for many years to come. Thank you, Labhras, for your friendship, leadership and inspiration and may God Bless you and Una always" I rest my case!!! Eileen |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor Date: 13 May 08 - 04:46 AM Hi Knight High, Re. membership of CCE. Thats a very good question. We are receiving mixed message about this. We were charged the members' fee for fleadh entry, so that must mean we are members (I know I paid my family membership fee in September 07, so unless I ceased to be a member on 14 March 08, dissolution date, I reckon I am. Thanks for your good wishes and support. I'd just like to ask all our supporters again to sign our petition on the following link: www.ipetitions.com/petition/clontarf all the best, Eileen |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 12 May 08 - 09:09 AM Maybe its the posh area on the North Side. You know the one competing against D4 !!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: dílis Date: 12 May 08 - 08:10 AM A great lot of musicians in the competitions at the Dublin fleadh were announced as being from Deetree where is this? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST Date: 12 May 08 - 07:59 AM It was interesting to discover how many committee members from the other dublin branches were so misinformed about what HQ has actually done,esp people who would'nt bother with the internet! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 12 May 08 - 07:37 AM Great to hear that Eileen and best wishes as always. The music is what matters in the end. I am just curious about something else. These are the entry fees for competitions as per Comhaltas website. Fleadh Entry Fees are ; - U-18 = €2 : O-18 = €4 - for CCÉ members, per person, per competition, in Solo Duet & Trio. All Bands are €15 each and Grúpaí €20 each. (Non - Members = €10 & €20 per person, per competition in solo, duet or trio.) Just wondering were your competitors charged the membership rate or the non membership rate!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor Date: 12 May 08 - 04:35 AM Hello all, Just to report we (the reel branch from Clontarf) had a great weekend at the fleadh. All our bands and groups got through to the Leinsters. It was a little disconcerting to see our groups lists in the fleadh programme as "Grupa Ceoil" U12, U15, U18. Our individual competitors were listed under their home addresses. It felt wrong not to be listed as Cluain Tarbh. The practise room assigned to our members was given the name of a branch member, not the club and all of this hurt. However, the music was brilliant, and as I said the results speak for themselves. We can be cast out from the fold, but it doesn't change the quality and unity of our musicians and members who will continue to do what we do best, i.e. play music. Thanks to Kinsealy branch for all the work put in to making a great fleadh weekend. Eileen |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 09 May 08 - 07:09 AM > the people who have contributed hugely to the building of this centre should reap the rewards. Hear, hear. Imagine living in the area and seeing Clasac sitting there in all its magnificence and NOT being able to use it, after many years' worth of working towards it. For me, that's the bottom line, however hard HQ tries to justify taking it away from them. And a "reconstituted committee" is not an answer, it's just a slap in the face, whatever excuse they give for it. The people of Clontarf obviously CAN function without the resources of Comhaltas, but why should they????? How many hours of unpaid work have they and their children contributed in good faith over the years? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,North Dublin Date: 09 May 08 - 05:24 AM Maggie I couldent agree with you more and sorry my points were not clearly made. I was responding to Dublin2 comments that Clontarf doesent need Comhaltas and that the Classac Committee was not working on behalf of Comhaltas. I was making the point that the building is and always was owned by Comhaltas which some people find hard to comprehend. I also feel it would have been better to involve other branches in the wider Dublin area from the beginning and perhaps the whole project could have been kept in check. Of course the people who have contributed hugly to the building of this centre should reap the rewards. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: magb Date: 08 May 08 - 09:24 PM dear guest North Dublin Your issues are not very clear but.... the branch wants to be re-instated because it should have not been chucked out in the first place. And much as they might be eminently capable of paddling their own canoe, they should be able to reap the benefits as part of a large organisation that they have contributed hugely to. No organisation in receipt of public funding should be the domain of just a few people, that's illegal. All members should have 'ownership' and every right to direct the actions of the organisation. Comhaltas equals thousands of people, and I'm sure that Clontarf CCE - like most branches - has always worked on this behalf. Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,GUEST North Dublin Date: 08 May 08 - 08:07 AM Dublin2 For a person who speaks about getting facts right, I have to take issue with you on a number of points.Every member of Comhaltas should be working on behalf of Comhaltas otherwise they should not be members of Comhaltas. The Clasac building is owned by Comhaltas and I understand that it was always expected that Clontarf Comhaltas would be very involved in running it and providing the entertainment there and I would have expected that all that wonderful talent in the wider Dublin area would also perform there.You say this committee was made(was it not democratically elected?) and had to be a seperate entity but was not the Chairman also the Chairman of the Branch and were there other branch committee members on it. If the Branch is working perfectly normal without Comhaltas why does it want to be re-instated. I want to see Clontarf Comhaltas Branch and all those wonderful people back as members of Comhaltas and working for the good of our great tradition. I would like to see Clasac open with Clontarf CCE involved but also involve other branches and members of the large Comhaltas organisation. If it is your opinion that Comhaltas needs a complete overhall because it's become rather disillusioned and idealistic and detached from the public, the time is right to show good leadership and if you are so passionate about your idea's I am sure you will get an opportunity to demonstrate them in a proper democratic setting in the future. I would love to see all this energy that is being put into defending the actions of the past re-directed to the future development of the organisation. Whilst I do not wish to go out in an argumentative vain I wish to remind you that the North Dublin Traditional Music Fraternity extends outside of Clontarf and these people have a great deal to contribute, working together for the better good of Traditional Music,Song and Dance is the way forward. I wish you all a successful and enjoyable weekend at the Dublin Fleadh. Go n-éirí ligh go léir |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Dublin2 Date: 07 May 08 - 10:34 AM North Dublin, the committee was made entirely to deal with getting the centre running and oversee affairs. When I say a member I mean employed by CCE and told by CCE to oversee affairs and let them know what was happening. Some members of the committee were members of the branch and there were people who had a background in this sort of area in organising centres and the like. There was only one person working on behalf of Comhaltas, the committee was working on behalf of getting the centre running and partly from the branch but this committee had to be a seperate entity because of the work and the amount of specialist work involved. And of course the branch wouldn't be there only for CCE, I think anyone could tell you that. I am talking about the present day. The branch is working perfectly normal without the help of CCE at the moment. It is one of the most succesful branches in Ireland with hundreds of members and many volunteers. There is also huge support from other musicians. Personally I believe that despite the amount of work CCE has done since its inception, it really needs a complete overhaul because its become rather disillusioned and idealistic and detached from the public. And the branch DOES have good leadership, how do you think it is being run at the moment. That is a story being peddled by CCE in an attempt to derail the process of trying to actually have a meeting with the Ard Comhairle which they have so far been stubborn in allowing. And its hard to work to achieve a solution 'within the organisation' when you are not in it anymore. That is why an independent mediator is being sought. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Guest North Dublin Date: 07 May 08 - 07:05 AM I have been reading comments on this site for quite a while and I must agree with Frug but what is Guest,Dublin 2 talking about getting facts right. He says that the funding was petitioned and received by the committee that was put in charge of getting the centre going. WERE NOT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE MEMBERS OF COMHALTAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF COMHALTAS ?. He says Clontarf dosent need Comhaltas but the Clontarf Branch would never have existed without Comhaltas. A lot of the Committee and members of Clontarf Comhaltas left smaller Branches around Dublin to join Clontarf Comhaltas and good look to them because their children were very successful when the competed in verious competitions and Fleadh's down the years. The Dublin Fleadh will be held this weekend and I am sure that the competitors who were members of Clontarf will do very well. I am also sure that they will be made very wellcome and by everyone who is interested in promoting and developing Traditional Music Song and Dance in the County. The members of the disolved Clontarf Branch deserve better leadership so get your act together and work within the organisation to get this mess sorted out. The members of Clontarf Comhaltas can then concentrate in the development this fine tradition of Music, Song and Dance in the local area. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Dublin2 Date: 06 May 08 - 11:25 AM I agree... |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Frug Date: 06 May 08 - 10:27 AM Guest Tyrone there has been a very good airing of both sides of the argument here, if you accept Brendan as some kind of rapporteur for Comhaltas. Notwithstanding this there appear to be a lot of unanswered questions which need addressing not least of all is why Comhaltas did not act sooner in the piece if things were going so badly wrong. Don't forget according to Brendans posts Comhaltas did have somebody involved with planning etc and surely they were in a position to report back on progress or problems. I'm not sure whether I subscribe to any conspiracy theory, but the initial lack of action by Comhaltas followed by their precipitate action in dissolving the branch does beg questions as to motive. There is inevitably a convoluted politic involved with community based initiatives and Government funds, made more difficult when you have some form of umbrella organisation. I know from experience of working within such a system myself the perils and pitfalls over definitions of responsibility and accountability and ability to act. Seems to me that the whole Comhaltas model needs a review to establish clearer pathways etc. Won't help the current crisis too much but may avert similar in the future. I feel only resolution to the Clontarf situation is an independent review of what happened, not necessarily to apportion blame but to identify way forward with key partners..........that includes both previous clontarf members and Comhaltas. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Dublin2 Date: 06 May 08 - 10:12 AM Talking about getting facts right 'Tyrone' you're a bit far off the mark there. And if you actually knew the people involvesd you would know that it was the families directly affected that contacted Joe Duffy, not exactly 'sensationalist reporting' seeing that it is a talkshow. And who is brandishing these threads as truth? It is a discussion page and people are allowed to have their opinion, if anyone is brandishing the thread as truth it is Brendan as this is the only correspondance that CCE has or rather an employee has used to communicate with people apart from the 'woolly' answers we get in press releases. Read the article from the Irish Times from the weekend to see the wall that CCE has put up in relation to the whole affair. CCE silence only adds speculation, they have got themselves into a hole and they're making it worse by not communicating with the public in th hope that this all goes away. The funny thing about this whole mess is that Clontarf doesn't need Comhaltas. It is successful enough to survive without CCE, unlike most music promoted by CCE it is quality music, they also have the support of a huge amount of well known musicians, you only had to be at the gig in April to see that. In terms of trad music Clontarf would be far more restricted by CCE. Yes a lot of the funding came from the Government but it wasn't given to Comhaltas, it was petitioned for and received by the committee that was put in charge of getting the centre going. The committee did however have a representative of Comhaltas on it and this was to oversee affairs. That was the extent of their involvement up until last year when the whole affair of VAT and the bank loan came into play. And I wouldn't exactly call what was raised by the branch as pittance, maybe if you had gone to one of the MANY concerts that were held you would get an idea. But at least we can agree on one thing, checking facts. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,George Henderson Date: 06 May 08 - 10:05 AM guest, Tyrone. Not really worthy of a response but you obviously have not read the entire thread. You should note very clearly that Clontarf is not the only problem with this organiation. Have you read the report prepared in 1999? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Tyrone Date: 06 May 08 - 08:35 AM Agree with Brendan. What a load of Rubbish!! These people should check their facts before placing such libellous comments on these blogs. The majority of the funding for this centre cane from Government coffers in grants given to Comhaltas and the branch raised a pittance in comparison. The sensationalist tabloid reporting of Joe Duffy is simply that! I would advise that you check your facts and stop brandishing these threads as truth. Remember there's two sides to every story. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,George Hendeson Date: 06 May 08 - 04:18 AM i have signed up too |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: magb Date: 04 May 08 - 06:49 PM me too. it's very quick & easy maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Barry Finn Date: 04 May 08 - 06:21 PM So have I Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: The Sandman Date: 04 May 08 - 06:02 PM I have signed. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 May 08 - 03:33 PM Done. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Ceoltoiri Cluain Tarbh Date: 04 May 08 - 03:12 PM I'll try this again so that the link will be activated: If you wish to express your disapproval of the dissolution of Cluain Tarbh CCE there is an online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/clontarf |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Ceoltoiri Cluain Tarbh Date: 04 May 08 - 02:43 PM If you wish to express your disapproval of the dissolution of Cluain Tarbh CCE there is an online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/clontarf |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 03 May 08 - 01:49 PM From the Irish Times Saturday May 3rd The Clontarf branch of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has spent 15 years working on the new Clasac centre. So why has Comhaltas HQ dissolved it just before the project reaches fruition? FOUNDED IN 1951 to preserve and promote Irish traditional music, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has 400 branches in 15 countries, spanning four continents, with some 40,000 members worldwide. It has built its reputation on music teaching and competitive performance across all age ranges. But Dublin's northside traditional music fraternity has been consumed by the decision of the Ard Comhairle of Comhaltas to dissolve its Clontarf branch (Craobh Cluain Tarbh) in a row centred on the stewardship of a new flagship traditional arts centre. On March 14th, the Ard Comhairle took a decision to dissolve the 400-member branch, alleging irregularities in relation to a VAT refund. The Ard Comhairle also cited the local branch's alleged inability to fund a €2 million overspend on the €9 million Clasac building project and unilaterally appointed a "reconstituted branch" in Clontarf, which members of the dissolved branch have refused to recognise. Comhaltas's Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Its plan was to become the anchor tenant of the new Clasac centre, which, it was envisaged, would generate revenue by staging traditional music and dance productions. Clasac, located on the Alfie Byrne Road in Dublin's East Wall, includes a 250-seat auditorium, a recording studio, an archive/library, an intimate performance space and two bars. Following what the Clontarf branch views as its illegal dissolution, it has since reconvened, under the new title of Ceoltóirí Cluain Tarbh, and continues to deliver its weekly music classes in an alternative venue. Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill, secretary of Ceoltóirí Cluain Tarbh, reports that this newly-minted branch has witnessed an increase in student numbers attending its classes, despite the combative nature of its current relationship with Comhaltas HQ in Monkstown. Maurice Mullen, chair of the Clontarf branch, is disappointed at the treatment meted out by the Ard Comhairle. Clontarf branch members claim responsibility for generating the vision that has now been realised in Clasac, securing a total of more than €1.8 million towards the total cost of the project, with the balance sourced by Comhaltas HQ through a series of grants from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Mullen claims that Clasac will suffer without the involvement of the Clontarf branch; without access to a wellspring of local musical talent, he says, the centre will lack the grassroots involvement integral to its long-term viability. He cites Clasac's business plan, which is built on the two cornerstones of promoting grassroots involvement in traditional music and tackling social exclusion through the active promotion of the traditional arts across all communities. "When we conceived of Clasac 15 years ago, we asked ourselves 'how do we tap into the traditional arts to reach East Wall and other places, to combat social exclusion?'," says Mullen. "It's because of that vision that we haven't walked away from Clasac. The easiest thing for us all to do is to walk away. But we think it's essential that a centre like this is serious about achieving those aims." When contacted by The Irish Times, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann did not address specific questions relating to its rationale for dissolving Clontarf, but issued a press release stating that the branch, "following a lengthy investigation, was deemed to be in serious contravention of the Bunreacht" (constitution). Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill cites Comhaltas's dissatisfaction with Clontarf's refusal to transfer a VAT refund totalling €739,000 to Comhaltas HQ as one of two issues at the heart of this dispute. According to Mac Domhnaill, this decision was taken "notwithstanding the previous correspondence where the branch had pointed out that this [transferring the VAT refund] would be illegal and would leave the branch officers personally liable to the Revenue Commissioners for the amount of the refund. The Clontarf branch returned the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners once the Clontarf branch ceased to be the operator of the Clasac centre." The second issue, relating to Comhaltas HQ's claim that Clontarf had run up unanticipated debts to the tune of €2 million, is rejected outright by representatives of the Clontarf branch. "We knew since September 2006 that there would be a funding shortfall," says Mullen, "and Comhaltas HQ had agreed to act as trustees for a bank loan that we had successfully negotiated. When it came to the time of drawing down that loan, they refused to sign up to it as trustees." Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill is frustrated by the recent turn in events. "Clontarf have been working on this project for 15 years," he says. "I feel that we've been led up the garden path by Comhaltas headquarters, who used us to do the work, to get the centre up and running, and then at the last minute moved in, using the VAT issue as their excuse to take control." Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is hosting its annual congress this weekend in Monkstown. Members of the dissolved Clontarf branch will be present, advocating that they be afforded a right of appeal by Comhaltas. In a letter to all members of the Ard Comhairle, they have requested that an independent arbitrator/mediator, acceptable to both sides, be brought in to expedite a resolution to the current conflict. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: MARINER Date: 02 May 08 - 07:30 PM According to this evenings news on RTE expelled members of the Clontarf Branch are going to lobby delegates to the Annual Congress this evening . |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Bronco Date: 02 May 08 - 09:03 AM Heard that the Comhaltas Annual Congress is on in Monkstown this week-end. Any delegates out there know if this issue is on the agenda or will any questions be asked about it? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Danno Date: 02 May 08 - 08:58 AM Re: Dublin City Council intervention I understand that Dublin City Council North Central Area Committee discussed the motion on April 21st and has agreed to invite representatives of Comhaltas Clontarf and National Comhaltas Organisation to a private meeting prior to the next Area Committee meeting for round table discussion. It will be interesting to see how this discussion works out. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: dílis Date: 01 May 08 - 08:19 PM We havent heard much from the so called 'reconstituted' branch of cluain tarbh. Will they be entering junior ceili bands and grupai in the Dublin Fleadh? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 30 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM See the last two posts (19th April) in this related thread. Not necessarily an answer to your question, but interesting: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=110473#2318999 |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: George Henderson Date: 30 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM yes it would be good to know what heppended. I have heard that Bru Boru is a private limited company with 2 shareholders. Is this fiction or fact. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM What happened on 21st April re the motion to be put before Dublin City Council by Councillor Naoise O'Muirí? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:45 PM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Gulliver Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:13 PM Why don't you phone up Comhaltas HQ on Monday and ask them? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,London (found this on a Google Search!!) Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:15 PM It would be interesting to know what was the original building budget? design? Who approved the overspend and did the branch understand the use of the building? Who was the Project Manager? How many classrooms does the building contain for teaching Irish music? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Kiero Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:56 AM The following is the text of a motion to be put before Dublin City Council by Councillor Naoise O'Muirí on Monday 21st of April: If you are a resident of Dublin, maybe you could contact your local councillor seeking his support for the motion. It could be of significant help in resolving this dispute. "You may be aware of a recent dissolution of the Clontarf branch of Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann ? see www.cluaintarbh.net I believe the National Executive has questions to answer in its treatment of the local Branch and in order to seek resolution I tabled the following simple and straightforward Motion for Monday?s Area Meeting: " 3252. Motion in the name of Councillor Naoise O? Muirí That this Committee agrees to invite the Executive of Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann to appear before it to: a) Provide a definitive position regarding the current status of the Clasac facility in Clontarf b) Explain how the current unacceptable situation can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. " Any support you can give to the Motion would be appreciated as the situation needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: The Sandman Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:56 AM Jim,I agree with you up to a point.I am trying to say that it is not the fault of Comhaltas members ,comhaltas employees,or comnhaltas branches,but the fault of the state senator[who happens to be a Comhaltas member] , and the fault of the government minister concerned. I as a Comhaltas member was not even aware it had happened.and agree with you that it shouldnt have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 08 - 02:40 AM I assume from the reaction (or lack of reaction) to my comments about Gurteen, that my information is correct. Aren't the similarities of what as happened there and at Clontarf spooky - to say the least. Cap'n, If we need to debate the rights and wrongs of the Director of Comhaltas, who is a State Senator, taking advantage of his political position to influence an Arts Minister who has neither knowledge nor experience of traditional music in order to take over a project that he and his organisation had no part in developing - we really have nothing whatever to say to each other! The same undue influence was used somewhat cynically in preparing the report for the Oireachtas, which was originally supposed to be - and I quote - 'a report on the state and the needs of Irish traditional music'. What we got instead was a blatant piece of partisan propaganda on behalf of CCE at the expense of all the other organisations and individuals working for Irish traditional music - The report was, quite rightly, in my opinion, widely opposed and eventually shelved. I have no idea what head office has in mind for Clontarf and Gurteen, but I am not left with a great deal of hope if Bru Boru is anything to go by. Up to now I have never visited Bru Boru - I rectified that on Monday - oh dear!!!. A bland mixture of touch panel displays containing a commentary of highly suspect history and information plus pretty pictures, a film of a Fleadh Ceol with unsatisfactory and uninformative snatches of music and song, a poorly stocked bookshop (and a talking tree!!!), all housed in an extremely expensive building and sited in a prime position had me coming away with the overwhelming feeling - WHAT A WASTE. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Barry Finn Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:16 PM Here in Boston we rent space & hallsbuilding but if the matter of getting a building set up I'd be very suspicious of the future. I wonder how this effects any other branches that would've been considering there own site? Scary Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Gulliver Date: 16 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM Lucky you, Guest Emmo, that you are only "confused about one thing". Most of us are confused about the whole damn mess. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Emmo Date: 16 Apr 08 - 05:03 PM I have been following this dispute with interest. I have looked at all the arguments from both sides but I am still confused about one thing. The Clontarf branch have been criticised for getting in above their collective heads. But why did Labhras O Murchu allow the project to proceed if Clontarf did not have sufficient resources at their disposal? Such criticism does seem a little rich coming now! Surely the correct time for this criticism would have been BEFORE embarking on the construction of the centre. If the allegation is true then surely Sen O Murchu should have pulled the plug before the construction phase. So why didn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Declan Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM Glasnost, Comhaltas, despite its fondness for Government funding is a private sector organisation. If it were a public sector organisation it would be much more open to public scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Glasnost Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:23 AM Breandan, I think you have been trying to defend the indefensible. This whole affair has been badly mismanaged by Comhaltas HQ and if a private-sector organisation managed it's affairs in the same way, it would be out of business long ago. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Eileen Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:53 AM Breandan Thanks for purposely misinterpreting my last question too. You have many of the answers and must be close to the centre of HQ, Please answer the following: What date is the CLASAC theatre opening? Will the staff be appointed by open competition? If not, Who will be CEO? Who will be musical director? How will the musicians be selected? Who will provide the dancers? Eileen |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST Date: 14 Apr 08 - 09:01 PM Breandán, In your last contribution, you state twice and I've noticed it in some of your previous contributions, that the Cluain Tarbh committee was dissolved. Is this the latest spin being put on events by Head Office. You are well aware that the branch as a whole was dissolved rather than simply the branch committee. You are also aware that the CLASAĊ project committee was not the same as the branch committee although it did share some members. The project manager was, and is, a head-office employee. There was no mismanagement on the part of the branch although it seems that head office may well have made a mess of things with regard to how they handled the VAT and subsequently dissolved the branch in an attempt to cover their tracks. The branch members voted for the Ardchomhairle to work with the branch to resolve remaining difficulties and complete the project. The Buanchoiste under Labhrás Ó Murchú's direction refused to meet with the committee, and on the advice of Labhrás / the Buanchoiste, the Ardchomhairle took control of CLASAĊ and dissolved the branch. At all times, the branch executive acted with the interest of Comhaltas in mind. That is why we pleaded with Labhrás and the Buanchoiste to seek expert tax advice of their own, rather than blindly instructing us to transfer the VAT into HQ's account, an action which we were advised might leave Comhaltas as a whole open to huge tax liabilities. It seems, however, that Labhrás is not one to listen to advice. I take umbrage at your reference to 'Maurice's committee', whatever implication is meant by it. The committee was voted in by the members of the branch at our AGM. We are all volunteers (apart from 1 member who works for HQ), giving our time, effort and money to build the CLASAĊ centre. Admittedly, I was naïve enough to think that our efforts would be supported by HQ. I will never again be so naïve in relation to Labhrás Ó Murchú or Comhaltas HQ. Whereas we are volunteers, you are paid by HQ. Should I refer to you as Labhrás' Breandán? When you say 'the branch committee was dissolved because there was no other choice', do you mean Labhrás gave the Ardchomhairle no other choice? Perhaps if our correspondence had been passed to them, or if we had been allowed meet with them as the branch had requested, there would have been another choice. I'm sure that they had very little choice based on the story as they were told it. I would point out again, however, that it was the branch that was dissolved and not just the branch committee. You say that the elected representatives put the branch in jeopardy. How? We were instructed to perform an illegal action in relation to the VAT and suspended and dissolved for failure to do so. Since then, Labhrás and others, such as you Breandán, have made ridiculous claims about mismanagement, financial irregularities and various other allegations. If Head Office were aware of such matters, why did they never contact the branch or the branch executive to make them aware of them? Because these allegations are total fabrications! If anything I've said is wrong, enlighten me – but give details instead of your usual sweeping generalities. In relation to your posting of 11 APR 08 – 08:41 AM, you asked that I be more specific regarding HQ's involvement with the VAT claim. Labhrás Ó Murchú strongly advised the CLASAĊ committee to pursue a VAT refund claim on the same basis as had been done successfully by Comhaltas in the past. The branch was specifically directed to the HQ financial advisor for help on the VAT process and the branch then worked closely with HQ and its financial advisor in processing the VAT registration and claim. Apart from that Breandán, I'm still waiting for details of the Ardchomhairle membership. How many members are elected from each of the provincial committees? How many members have been co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle? Please supply names of the Ardchomhairle members. You stated that it was a matter of public record who they were. If you won't give me their names, can you tell me what public record they can be found in? Diarmaid |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:41 AM Made some enquiries re Gurteen and from what I have learned, the people of Gurteen (i.e. Coleman Heritage Centre) are very resistant to relinquish the building and perhaps more importantly, the valuable archive, to CCE HQ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: The Sandman Date: 14 Apr 08 - 09:48 AM the blame for having their building taken away from them[them being the people of Gurteen]. |
| Share Thread: |
