Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Bemused
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 08:51 AM

Blame for what??

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 03:44 AM

does not blame lie with Eamonn de Cuiv, The state senator and the government.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 03:09 AM

The story - as I have it is, the locals from Michael Coleman's birthplace Gurteen, in Sligo, raised the money and build a (rather magnificent, I have heard) music centre in the town.
They organised a fund-raising event and invited the relevant Government minister Eamonn O'Quiv, who was apparently so impressed that he offered to supply the money required out of Government funds.
Shortly afterwards he appeared to have second thoughts; he agreed to supply the cash, but insisted that he would only give it to Comhaltas, who, as far as I can ascertain, had nothing whatever to do with the project (but does have a director who is a State Senator).
The building was duly signed over to Comhaltas - and that is the situation at present.
I have to say that this happened some time ago. I have been vaguely aware of the situation for some time, but I was only able to find out this much yesterday.
Would love to be told that these details are right or wrong!
Off for a couple of days break - but I'll be back!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: dílis
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

If i'm not wrong Bru Bru also had a troubled start! Does anyone know the details?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 03:17 PM

Whats this about the Michael Coleman Centre Jim?

Another Clasach in the making?. Do tell more

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 03:15 PM

Hi, Jim

I don't know the story you mean, but many theatre and music promotion organizations have found that the best way to ensure their chosen art form has a venue is in fact to own the venue. Otherwise, they are constantly competing for space in existing venues. So the two are not incompatible. Of course, if the organization loses focus and begins to just manage real estate, that becomes a problem...but as far as I know, it rarely happens.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 02:58 PM

Just heard the story of the Michael Coleman Centre in Gurteen (Sligo) and am beginning to wonder if Comhaltas hasn't shifted from music to real estate!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 06:11 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but had the takeover of the project not happened before the Branch was dissolved? The dissolution of the Branch was over the VAT issue, which people on both sides of this debate have agreed was somethoing of a red herring.

The only justification I can find for the dissolution was that the Árd Comhairle were upset that the Branch didn't comply with the direction to give the refund money to the Árd Comhairle. Can someone who does speak for the Árd Comhairle please explain why this was such a big issue as to warrant dissolution?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,the white rabbit
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM

It took a very long time to make up the charges, and now we've had to revise them yet again. Maybe this time sometime will believe us. Good job we got the sentence in first.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: dílis
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:47 PM

Do I sense a shifting of the goalposts yet again by Breandán and HQ in Monkstown?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:45 PM

There's no question of bankruptcy or evading responsibility for debts. The former committee was dissolved because it consistently mis-managed their side of a joint construction project, refused to take advice on financial resolution, and was deemed to put Comhaltas as a whole into disrepute. While I have enormous sympathy for the branch members caught in the middle, it was their elected representatives who put the branch into jeopardy. The branch members voted to "work with Comhaltas", yes, but without the executive committee coming up with an arrangement to share both responsibility and debts for the project, contractors were remaining unpaid. The resultant months-long stand-off was not good for anyone, including the reputation of the branch.

As I've said before, I believe that a fundamental error was made by the branch in allowing the recently-elected executive committee to also run the construction project. That conflict-of-interest meant that when things got out of hand, there was no restraining influence within the branch to put things back on track. By thinking of the theatre project as exclusively "their project" rather than as a shared responsibility to manage other people's money, a mindset developed whereby Maurice's committee stopped paying attention to what was in the best interest of the branch, the project, and Comhaltas as a whole, and focused instead on maintaining their own personal control. In the process, they failed to communicate the situation (or, apparently, even the nature of the shared project) to the branch membership they represented.

In the end, the branch committee was dissolved because there was no other choice. In the long run, that decision will probably turn out to be the right one if it gets the building operational, to the credit of the branch and the movement as a whole. It was an unfortunate, wrenching, and ultimately necessary decision.

OK. At this point, we're definitely re-hashing old ground that I believe has been covered earlier. Though I appreciate that many here disagree with my assessment of the situation, I thank you for your kind attention and (mostly) civil discourse. Like everyone else here, I will be looking forward to future developments relating to Craobh Chluain Tarbh and to the Clasaċ centre. If someone wants to email me privately off-list, I will do my best to respond.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 12:57 PM

Why does creating a new CCE branch make the so-called financial troubles go away.
well,if I might hazard a guess,could it be a legal way of dissolving responsibility for debts?,rather like a limted company going into liquidation?
I am not saying it is,just asking a question.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Tommy
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:12 AM

It seems to me that members of the Ard Chomhairle don't feel the need to reply.

Brendan has been giving an honest response considering that he has made sure to say that he's not speaking on behalf of CCE although he's happens to work for them.

I'm not criticising Brendans efforts at all. Even though most here disagree with his standpoint he is still making a valiant effort to speak for CCE HQ when no-one one on the Ard Chomhairle seems to want to.

I think it's time for the Ard Chomhairle to give reasons for the dissolution of the branch.

We are hearing stories here and there but no-one has described why the dissolution of the branch in charge of Clasac would make things better.

Why does creating a new CCE branch make the so-called financial troubles go away.

I'd love to know why the dissolution of a 45 year old CCE branch will make this all better. What can the new commitee do that hasn't been done already?

Nothing I'd say.


Tommy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 08:41 AM

Diarmud,

As I'm not on the Ardchomhairle, I don't have all the answers to your questions.

"1. How many of the documents submitted by the branch for the attention of the Ardchomhairle members, during the 2 months prior to the branch's dissolution, were actually distributed by Labhrás & Co to the Ardchomhairle members?"

I do not have knowledge of which documents were distributed and when. I know that representatives of the Ardchomhairle met many times with the branch leadership in the time leading up to the suspension, and the branch point-of-view was certainly put forward at those meetings. There were at least a dozen such meetings, I believe.

"2. How can you have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund when, as you know, Comhaltas HQ worked closely with the branch in agreeing the VAT application process and they supplied most of the information required."

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me. I am not aware of the basis on which Clontarf applied independently for a VAT refund, and I know that their action in doing so was one which precipitated the crisis. I'm not aware of any "HQ" involvement, though perhaps you could be more specific. We're not an interchangeable mass of people, after all.

"3. In relation to your claims on the democratic nature of the Ardchomhairle:
What do you mean by 'their home districts'? Please specify the home districts.
What do you mean by 'accountable to'? Please specify how they are accountable to their home districts?
Can you tell me who elected the 31 voluntary officers?
How many members were co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle?"

The members of the Ardchomhairle (central executive council) are democratically elected by the membership of the provincial councils. Provincial councils are elected from the county boards, and county boards are elected from the branches. This is a straightforward and typical hierarchal representative democracy.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking: members of the council are elected from the Leinster, Ulster, Connacht, Munster, North America and Britain provincial committees. They are accountable to each of these districts. As always, if you don't like your representation, just elect someone else to represent you. Clontarf elects delegates directly in the Dublin county board, which elects delegates to Leinster, which elects delegates to the Ardchomhairle.

There are also a few of people who have been asked to join sub-committees of the Ardchomhairle (Music, Archive, Events, etc.) based on special knowledge, reputation or skills.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 08:26 AM

Eileen,

You are correct that Clasac was never going to be "run" by the branch, in the sense that the branch would own the building or have majority representation on the board. However, I wouldn't say that the branch "wouldn't be involved". Besides using the building as their own headquarters, the branch would appoint a minority of the governing board, and probably be responsible for many of the entertainments taking place in the building. It would be Clontarf musicians and dancers, for example, who would be the nightly (paid) entertainers during the summer tourist season. The centre would also be the base for Clontarf education programmes, such as fielding and training more music teachers for North Dublin schools.

The ownership and operation of the centre, though, was agreed very early on as a national Comhaltas project. In point of fact, your chairman did not actually sign the agreement in time, so there isn't a formal agreement in place on the distribution of responsibilities between the ardchomhairle and the branch. But even under the tentative agreement (which I think will still be honoured), there was not majority Clontarf control of the building.

I recognise that the actual agreements and arrangements were not communicated at all well to the branch members, especially by the committee, whose job it was. The resultant outrage is all the more strident because of the misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 07:33 AM

From: Gulliver - PM
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:05 PM

You can discuss this controversy till the cows come home. In real life, every week around Dublin I'm listening to music being played by youngsters who met through Comhaltas. Tonight I've just returned from a brilliant session in one of my local pubs, mainly Comhaltas musicians, none of them over 20, but music to cry for. This is what it's all about. Don
Good Point.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 04:27 AM

Breandán,

I quote from your last bulletin:

"
There's no "taking the building" going on. The building is on a site leased to Comhaltas, and was always to be vested in Comhaltas. The branch committee was simply responsible for managing construction, etc.
"

Cluain Tarbh membership was unaware that our efforts over all those years was simply to MANAGE CONSTRUCTION of CLASAC.

Somehow, we were under the impression that our efforts to make the whole project happen, would result in our branch being majorly involved in the finished centre.

Your comment implies that there was NEVER ANY INTENTION of Cluain Tarbh being involved once the construction was complete.
Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your comment.

Eileen

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:05 PM

You can discuss this controversy till the cows come home. In real life, every week around Dublin I'm listening to music being played by youngsters who met through Comhaltas. Tonight I've just returned from a brilliant session in one of my local pubs, mainly Comhaltas musicians, none of them over 20, but music to cry for. This is what it's all about. Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Diarmaid
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 07:29 PM

Breandán,

Now that you're back answering questions, perhaps you could answer those which I asked on 3rd April.

Specifically in relation to the following:

1. How many of the documents submitted by the branch for the attention of the Ardchomhairle members, during the 2 months prior to the branch's dissolution, were actually distributed by Labhrás & Co to the Ardchomhairle members?

2. How can you have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund when, as you know, Comhaltas HQ worked closely with the branch in agreeing the VAT application process and they supplied most of the information required.

3. In relation to your claims on the democratic nature of the Ardchomhairle:
What do you mean by 'their home districts'? Please specify the home districts.
What do you mean by 'accountable to'? Please specify how they are accountable to their home districts?
Can you tell me who elected the 31 voluntary officers?
How many members were co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle?

I hope you're not going to spout Labhrás' line about the Ardchomhairle being elected by the general membership. How can the general membership vote for them when HQ won't even divulge who they are?
As you say that 'the membership of the central council would be public record', I'm sure you can give their details without any problem.

Once again, looking forward to answers to my questions.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,fiddleruairi
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:15 PM

fair enough, i wrote that mainly to get people back to the oint of the argument because you'll probably agree that it was turning into a bit of a bickering match! haha!

in relation to comhaltas though i just want to say coming forward though i meant really to explain why the branch was dissolved because surely the matter could have been resolved when they were still in CCE. you'll probably agree with the point that it drags unnecessary casualties into the problem you know? thats all really!
cheers!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM

Ruairi,

Many of your points have been addressed by earlier posts, so I'd refer you to them. To select a couple:

* There wasn't "5 weeks to come up with the 2 million", but rather a full year of negotiations to get the funding in place. The branch failed to do so.

* There are no plans move the headquarters of Comhaltas to Clontarf. There is no reason to do so, and it has never been discussed.

* Comhaltas itself is registered a charity, Clontarf is not.

* There's no "taking the building" going on. The building is on a site leased to Comhaltas, and was always to be vested in Comhaltas. The branch committee was simply responsible for managing construction, etc.

* Comhaltas has "come forward" with a statement. I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but the situation has been reasonably well explained at this point.

In any event, I'd refer you to those earlier discussions to get a better sense of what's going on.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:34 AM

CCE needs to come forward publicly. It is the children they are punishing, the parents only run the Clontarf branch it is the children who play in the competitions and make the branch what it is, dissolving the branch only betrays them.
I am amember of Comhaltas.
I agree,with this paragraph.I agree they should come forward publicly.Dick Miles[ member of CCE Skibbereen branch]

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Fiddle ruairi
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:36 AM

sorry the first word there is suppose to be 'Everyone'.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Fiddle ruairi
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:34 AM

Every seems to keep arguing with each other and forgetting the matter at hand. The way I see it is Comhaltas were wrong in their actions. Clontarf were 2million short of the money needed for the centre but Comhaltas only gave them 5 weeks to come up with it. How would that be possible for anyone? They are normal people with everydayjobs. How can they come up with that amount of money in that space of time.

Comhaltas say that they were contacted everyday by the builders (or contractors not quite sure) for god knows how long about getting paid. Thus comes the five week notice.

This along with the VAT refund is being used as an excuse by Comhaltas. They are using their building in Monkstown as collateral for payment as well because they know how valuable Clasac would be for them. They see it as their new Croke Park, a prime northside location and much more viable than Monkstown which takes ages to get to. This is all an issue of control, not about paying off Clasac. Comhaltas could very easily pay off the debt but they wont for the sake of covering their footsteps. CCE were given something like 6million from the government last year, and then you have the profit they made which reached up to 3million last year. CCE is modelled on th GAA but unlike them you dont see the money being pumped back into the music.

I also found out recently that the Dublin County Council gave the land to Clontarf under the basis it was a charity, maybe they didnt use that name. Normally the lease would have costed E200,000 a year but because they gave it to Clontarf branch they said pay only E1,500 a year. great, but now the tricky thing is is that now that Comhaltas has taken it they have to pay E200,000 every year for the lease because they are not listed as a charity. It will be interesting to see if they back out now that they now that. and again they may use Monkstown as collateral because they want to move (also they could easily get upwards of 20 million for that place.)

As for handling the situation. Ive been in contact with many people who attended the meeting between CCE and Clontarf. They said that the issue could easily have been sorted at those meetings but for the arrogance and disrespect shown by Labhras O'Murchu. Sources tell me that he was very patronising and proclaimed that the centre could not be run without the control of Comhaltas. The reason why it still has not been resolved is because of the stubborness of Labhras and the Ard Comhairle. The issue could easily have been sorted in one meeting. The reason for this goes back to control and moving CCE hq to the northside, hence Clasac.

Instead of trying to resolve the issue CCE dissolved Clontarf for no reason, not content with taking Clasac from them they had to disband the branch. What good will that do? The new replacement 'Craobh Cluain Tarbh' branch has no members, so what is the point of it being there. That is just another embarrassing move by CCE. Clontarf were dissolved for the sole reason of CCE being able to take Clasac, not to pay off the debts or to 'help' the branch. At the concert the other night for Clontarf they raised enough money I was told to pay for the insurance to run the classes and they did so on saturday in a school, and everyone turned up to show solidarity. And the concert itself was great, I have the feeling that CCE wouldn't have a chance of getting some of the big names that Clontarf had on show that night.

It doesn't matter whether you think that Clontarf should have come up with the money or a better way of raising it, it is the actions of Comhaltas that are disgraceful. They don't make any sense, dissolving the largest and one of the most successful branches in Ireland? Maybe they were afraid that if they were kept in Comhaltas that they would become too powerful within the organisation, coupled with the Clasac they could be extremely proactive, maybe more so than Comhaltas. The fact that CCE choose to tell them this through Joe Duffy and the fact that they havn't publicy made any statements apart from useless press releases shows bad PR, bad management and leadership and terrible communication not just with the public but within CCE itself. I've seen someone who works in Comhaltas making comments about their side of the story on this site and other comment sites but this is worthless. What is the point of communicating with people through some worker who has no authority for PR and representing CCE and by the means of COMMENTING PAGES! this is worthless stuff, CCE needs to come forward publicly. It is the children they are punishing, the parents only run the Clontarf branch it is the children who play in the competitions and make the branch what it is, dissolving the branch only betrays them. This approach was hot-headed and a 'digging-our-heels-in' effort by Comhaltas and the sooner this is resolved on the side of Clontarf the better.

And if people are wondering what I am basing all of this on (I dont know why people are so picky on these sites) I played in the concert for clontarf and I study journalism so i'd like think I can whip up a few facts seeing as it is what I do most days in college. This is a non biased view because the facts are plain to see and if no-one can see that well...I dont know! god help ye! haha!

cheers.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 03:08 AM

Nerd,
I had no intention of being dismissive.
My argument, as far back as the 70s has been, if I am a member of CCE, are the aims and activities of that organisation close enough to my own to merit my being a member.
My criteria for transparency (of the actions of a 'somewhat remote' leadership) & accountability (to the rank and file membership) is an extremely basic one - that what a member has to say is listened to and taken into consideration on such important questions as whether a branch should continue to exist, or be wiped off the face of the map (presumably on my behalf as a member).

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM

Sometimes you have to repeat yourself, because what you say is ignored. For example, I spent almost the entirety of a long post explaining why Jim's criteria of "total transparency and full accountability of action" for an organization that receives public funding were unfair: transparency doesn't mean what he seems to think, and accountability in such decisions is generally to a board of directors who act in the public's interest, not individual members of the public who might have a problem with a particular decision. (In this case, the board itself made the decision.) Beyond that, as I said, it's unclear what "total" transparency (of what?) and "full" accountability (to whom?) would even look like.

Jim dismissively replied: "My point about transparency and accountability is still valid I think."

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Winger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 04:25 PM

Since this thread centers on the alledged undemocratic actions of the Comhaltas "leadership", it is ironic that some would deny Captain Birdseye his democratic rights.

Repetition does not appear to disqualify others from this thread.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 01:02 PM

no.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 07:29 AM

OK, Dick. We hear you. It would also be a pity if this thread degenerated into bickering, which is what is starting to happen. You've made your point any number of times now. We know what you think. Can you stop repeating it now please?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 07:02 AM

Our local branch does a lot to encourage children, to play music in a non competitive atmosphere.I see many children get alot of stimulation and pleasure from this,they also get a lot of pleasure from playing in ceilidh band and grupa ceol.
Comhaltas is also the only organisation that teaches traditional music in England on a national basis.whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular case,let us not forget all the good Comhaltas has done,and is still doing.
I think it would be a pity if this thread degenerated into an excuse for comhaltas bashing.
I am not uncritical of Comhaltas,but I have witnessed first hand alot of pleasure, self esteem /skill,that children have got from being part of it.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:46 PM

For crying out loud Cap'n what happened to trust - or are you accepting that we shouldn't trust Comhaltas unless we obtain their signature?
Of course they couldn't expel us from Comhaltas - I used the (ironic) comment to illustrate how their behaviour is being viewed at present.
I didn't mention the poster which mysteriously appeared on the wall of the local session showing a CCE logo clef in a circle with a diagonal red line through it - like a 'no smoking' sign.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:08 PM

I experienced the first repercussions of the expulsion from outside of CCE yesterday.
For some time now we have been preparing the ground for the setting up of a local traditional music archive/resource/display centre, which has included working with others who are not necessarily wishing to be involved, CCE being one such.
Somebody remarked yesterday, "perhaps we shouldn't bother with them-what if they expel us and run off with our archive"!
Jim Carroll
Jim,if you wished to work with Comhaltas,surely you could draw up a legal document stating quite clearly who the archive belongs to,and only allowing comhaltas to use it under certain conditions,which GIVES THEM NO RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE ARCHIVE.
how can they expel you,if you are not members of Comhaltas,what utter drivel.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:29 AM

Bebo sites (Don mentioned one abov) probably set up by the kids of our branch.

I know many of the kids in our branch well (am a parent of two in our bands and know all their friends in the branch, know most of the current children from my time helping to organise the Saturday morning classes over the last few years).

Kids are kids, and do not get bogged down in procedures and policies. They are not impressed with recent developments and are probably expressing their feelings on bebo, just as we are doing here. However I can safely say, they will continue to meet and play music together as often as they can. We adult members will do everything we can to facilitate this for them. All our teachers are staying with us, the parents will continue doing what we were doing, the venues remain the same, we survived without Clasac up until now.

The repercusions will be down the road, when it is these kids' turn to take up the mantle of passing on the music. I'm sure they will be influenced by the treatment our branch is receiving at the moment by HQ, and I cant imagine the comhaltas route being their own first choice in the future.

One thing that strikes me strongly about the new committee.
I know they see themselves as the voice of reason and experience, coming in to save the club from us "young things" (in our 40s and 50s!!)
Is this the right thing to do? If your children grew up, had children of their own, and you watched their parenting methods and didnt agree with them (not the same as in your day). Would the best line of action be to cast them aside and take over parenting your grandchildren yourself, to "save" them from your children???
I think not. You've had your chance, move on and allow progress to take its course as nature intended..

Eileen

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:17 AM

I experienced the first repercussions of the expulsion from outside of CCE yesterday.
For some time now we have been preparing the ground for the setting up of a local traditional music archive/resource/display centre, which has included working with others who are not necessarily wishing to be involved, CCE being one such.
Somebody remarked yesterday, "perhaps we shouldn't bother with them-what if they expel us and run off with our archive"!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:40 PM

good reply Jim,
about time I castled,or it will be checkmate in 292 moves.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:33 PM

"would advise everyone who lives in Ireland[including the posters on this thread, to join Comhaltas],you can only change the otrganisation if you join,many of the people on this thread who criticise Comhaltas are not members,if you seriously want to change Comhaltas,I believe you will only do it by joining."
If we join CCE in order to change it, when are we going to get time to play or listen to music, as you have so often advocated.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Dick; we join thing we agree with, otherwise we'd be members of every organisation going.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:08 PM

Dick, I hope you didn't get me wrong--I meant I agree with the following: before I come to any decision regarding who is right or wrong,I would like to hear/see both sides of the story,in the meantime I shall carry on playing music.

I think that despite the accounts (not to mention accusations), etc., made by both sides, there is more going on here than meets the eye--everything seeming to be hunky-dory since the beginning and then the sh*t hits the fan like this? IMO (I worked for many years as a project manager), It just doesn't add up.

Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:29 PM

And then waiting for six years.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:27 PM

Dick Miles has never defended CCE for expelling the Clontarf branch.check my posts
I would advise everyone who lives in Ireland[including the posters on this thread, to join Comhaltas],you can only change the otrganisation if you join,many of the people on this thread who criticise Comhaltas are not members,if you seriously want to change Comhaltas,I believe you will only do it by joining.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM

Woops. I mean

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/comhaltas-bosses-to-face-a-grilling-by-city-councillors-1339717.html?r=RSS

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

The second half of that news article is especially interesting. Clickie of Don's link showing the full URL below, in case anyone needs to copy-&-paste.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/comhaltas-bosses-to-face-a-grilling-by-c

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:56 AM

A friend emailed me the URL of a support group (for whom, you might ask!) on Bebo:

Support-Cluain-Tarbh-CCE

(mind you, I'm with Dick Miles on this--LOL!)

Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:25 AM

From today's Irish Independent web site:

Comhaltas bosses to face a 'grilling' by city councillors

Comhaltas Ceolteoiri chiefs are to be hauled before Dublin City Council to explain its handling of a major row with its largest local branch over a multi-million euro centre of excellence.

The body charged with the promotion of Irish traditional music, which received over €6m in state funding last year, is in hot water with the council over the bitter ongoing feud with the Clontarf branch.

The Sunday Independent has learned this weekend that unhappy councillors regard the dissolution of the local branch and its exclusion from the new €11 million Clasac building in Clontarf as a breach of its lease.

More at Irish Independent web site

Wow!

Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 08:50 PM

Bonnie,

As I said before, it won't actually do any good to know WHY the rules can only be changed every six years. And it is possible, given the way by-laws are written and passed by committee, that no one knows or remembers why it was set this way. All outrage aside, even if the leadership were to come out and say "it's so you lot of stinking plebs can't mess about with the rules very often," there wouldn't be much you could do about it--except change it next time the six year window opens. So I suggest people who don't like the rule put their energy into changing it, not finding out why it is as it is.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 04:33 PM

"Guest 04:21" is me, An Pluiméir Ceolmhar, gan cúicí.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 04:21 PM

I would be disposed to be prejudiced against CCE HQ - after all, could anyone trust a man who has not only his hair but even his eyebrows tinted lol! - but my guiding principle is always "audi alteram partem".

So congratulations are due to Breandán for his patient and open efforts to put the other side, and for not rising to the bait on the few occasions when some people have questioned his good faith, sometimes more aggressively than necessary in what has been a remarkably even-tempered thread.

CCE's communication on this has been disastrous, and will reinforce hostility to the organisation where it exists - and many neutral observers will see this episode as autocratic mismanagement.

When I became interested in traditional music, I joined Na Píobairí Uilleann which was seen as in some senses a "splinter group" (we used to tease Dan O'Dowd who remained a member of CCE Clontarf Branch for "consorting with the enemy"). The NPU view of CCE was heavily coloured by Breandán Breathnach's characterisation of it as an over-structured organisation which spent its time debating motions about the restoration of the uilleann pipes rather than doing anything practical about them. Whatever about its specific failings in relation to the pipes, that view was in general rather unfair to an organisation which has undeniably done so much to strengthen Irish traditional music, even if at the price of a competition culture which I find unappealing.

In spite of my reservations about CCE, I supported suggestions by some people here in Brussels that we should consider setting up a branch here as a way of securing some financial support for trad music here, especially for the children who live here as expatriates (we no longer have an Irish clubhouse at our disposal because of declining membership of the Irish Club). One of the advantages that I saw in this was that it might be easier to secure sponsorship if we were a branch of a well-known national organisation. But in the light of all that I've been reading about Clontarf, I wonder if we could realistically expect any interest from CCE in our small-scale operation, never mind financial support, in the present climate. And I don't know if many Irish-related firms would even want to be associated with CCE at the moment.

I have an awful feeling that, sooner or later, resolving the conflict will lead to more money being diverted from promoting Irish music into the pockets of our learned friends in the King's Inns than we spend on the music itself. Unless, of course, Bertie is asked to deploy his legendary skills as a mediator once he steps down from the office of Taoiseach!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:25 AM

I agree the treatment does seem to have been unnecessary,unless there was a legal reason,for CCE head quarters acting as they have done,.
That doesnt mean CCE are morally right either.
If I knew the different people involved I might be able to decide who is right or wrong,but as I dont ,I can only extend my sympathy to the members of the Clontarf branch.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 08:07 AM

Captain,

Of course the members of the "reel branch" can continue to play music as an independent organisation. Given the standard of Friday night's concert, they would, I think continue to attract great musicians to their events, and their clases would still be popular given the standard of their teachers.

But (also speaking from what I heard on Friday - I'm not a member) they want to stay in Comhaltas even after what has happened, as they enjoy the cameraderie with the other Branches, the ability of their members to compete in Fleadhanna Cheoil etc. And, as an independent grouping, they would have to forego the use of the Classac building which they worked very hard to put in place.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 05:44 AM

Jim,in my opinion your title does suggest a bias.
I still dont know enough about the situation to be able say who is right or wrong,it seems to be pretty complicated.
Comhaltas claim[Ithink I have this right]that a number of tradesman would have been unpaid,presumably they have now been paid by Comhaltas headquarters,.
I would have thought this more important than the dissolving of a branch,all the people in the dissolved Comhaltas branch are not going to stop playing music,They can form their own club, independent of Comhaltas,teach music, put on concerts.
many people throughout Ireland,play and teach music without Comhaltas involvement.
what really pisses me off is when people/tradesman are not paid for their work.
off thread,but if your concerned about justice try googling Equitable.a little more important,than this storm in a teacup I think.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 03:55 AM

And I notice that six-year question has still not been answered. It's perfectly legitimate to ask why the existing rulebase cannot be challenged or amended more readily. Power does need to be kept in balance. The fact that there's no way to change things except within this time frame doesn't mean that the issue should not be addressed.

But it's been blanked. That's the oldest politician's trick in the book, just don't answer until it goes away. (If Breandán doesn't know, somebody does.) And then we become the bad guys for asking. But it's a fair question about an unfair situation and silence is not an answer. It's a dodge.