Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 03:21 AM

Cap'n,
Twice now you've suggested I might have a 'hidden agenda' in raising the question of the Clontarf branch, each time using my titles for this thread as evidence.
The first title 'Battle of Clontarf' was innocuous enough and failed to get to much of a response, so I used a stronger one, which appeared to do the trick. Wish I could claim 'Comhaltas Interruptus' as my own creation, but it's a fairly popular one which came about around the time of the waves of protest at Labhrás' report in 2000.
I have never made any secret of my disagreement with certain aspects of Comhaltas policy, particularly regarding competitions; I have argued the toss with you often enough on Mudcat.
Nor have I attempted to hide my dislike and distrust of the leadership – this latest incident only serves to confirm my opinion of them.
However, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the work done on behalf of Irish music by many of the branches.
Many of the rank-and-file members are friends and have done much to boost my pleasure and increase my understanding of a music I have been involved in most of my life.
As far as I am concerned, it is they who are being handed the crappy end of the stick by a leadership who I suspect might have a 'hidden agenda' themselves.
Can I suggest that if you disagree with any of my arguments, you concentrate on them rather than tilting at imagined windmills.
Gulliver;
It appears to be fairly common knowledge that Labhrás drafted the 2000 report, which was 'nodded through' by the committee - they were then forced to take the unprecedented step of 'inviting submissions' from the many objectors - after it had been accepted!

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

I had the second and third, each way 20 to 1 and 16 to 1.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:12 PM

At the concert last night someone on stage (can't remember who) made a joke that the name of a horse running in the Grand National today nicely summarised the ultimatum received by the Branch from the Ard Comhairle - Comply or die.

I'm off to the bookies to collect my winnings.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:52 AM

So sorry I couldn't attend the concert last night. I had to be at our Garda Club session, as two of our mainstays couldn't make it.

Just a correction on an item that has cropped up from time to time: Labhrás wasn't responsible for the report to the Oireachtas on traditional music in 1999 (though he may have written parts of it and later defended it). This was the output of an Oireachtas committee chaired by a Fianna Fáil politician whose name escapes me at the moment. Labhrás's assistance was sought to carry out "research". I read the report last week in the Traditional Music Archive and parts of it are laughable, but the whole committee and in particular the chairman should shoulder the blame for producing it.

Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 07:34 AM

Delighted to report a fantastic concert in the teachers' club last night, very inspirational. Thanks a million to all the performers for sharing your talent and your support with the "Reel Clontarf".

Also delighted with the turnout at the Saturday morning classes today. All 21 teachers and 200 pupils present. Brid and Diarmaid at the desk (as always). Sorry to have lost Marie Connaughton. Around 60 parents turned up at 8.30 as well in a vote of confidence again in our democratically elected committee, a good gathering.

No sign of the new "revitalised" committee who I thought were going to show to try and run our classes. Thank God, it would have been awkward to say the least.

Business as usual at St Gabriels tonight for our U-12, U-15 and U-18 bands and groups.

I dont think the new branch is going to work. Nobody wants it.

By the way Breandán, I feel your loneliness. Did you ever see the film "Dances with Wolves"? Would you consider "goin native". You know you want to..

So happy days everyone. Cluain Tarbh mar a bhí, mar atá agus mar a bheidh go deo.
beannachtaí
Eileen

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 06:52 AM

jim,I think the sooner they respond the better.
when I have nothing more important to do,I intend to visit comhaltas website,where I have been told there is a response.

I would agree with a lot in your last post.,particualarly your last paragraph.[the public purse is not handled very responsibly by Bertie Ahern,WITNESS Berties Bowl,a much bigger waste of money,millons wasted,the battle of Clontarf pales in to insignificance]
In my opinion the way you have worded your thread,indicates your dislike of Comhaltas,Comhaltas is an organisation that has done much good although thereareaspects of it that I would be extremely critical of.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 04:00 AM

Cap'n,
"I am surely entitled to keep an open mind, until I see a response from the people in CCE who have dissolved the Clondarf branch."
And if they don't respond........? They certainly have had enough time to do so - how long are you prepared to give them?
As far as I'm concerned, Breandán has presented the official line clearly enough for me to draw a conclusion.
Nerd,
Re charities. point taken, misinterpretation on my part, not deliberate. My point on transparency and accountability remains valid, I think.
It seems clear to me that the nub of this dispute is whether the leadership of CCE should be answerable to the membership - or vise versa. I have to say that Eileen O'Connor's description of the 'dressing down of Clontarf Branch echoed perfectly the West London experience and leaves me in no doubt who should be responsible to whom as far as 'them upstairs' are concerned.
Whether the participants in this discusion are members of CCE or not is totally irrelevant; anybody interested in Irish music, or traditional music in general, and is concerned about its future has a view worth listening to, as far as I'm concerned.
In the same way, any Irish resident has a right to be assured that money coming from the public purse is being handled responsibly and openly and in the interest of Irish culture as a whole.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 02:15 AM

Jim: actually, your focus on my use of the word "charitable" was a red herring. Nothing I said had anything to do with whether the organization is an active charity. My point is that it is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the promulgation of Irish traditional music, not a government. There are many ways in which such corporations are structured. Some are more democratic, some less. Most of the ones I have worked for have been less democratic than CCE.

Comhaltas actually seems to be structured in quite a democratic way. According to Breandan, whom I have no reason to doubt, the decision to dissolve the Clontarf branch was made by a committee of elected representatives. According to Eileen O'Connor, at least one of those, who apparently agreed with the ardchomairle, was in fact a member of Clontarf branch. So the branch itself was represented on the committee that made the difficult decision to discontinue the branch. Whatever anyone says, this sounds less and less like the autocratic power-grab of a mad Labhras, and more like there was at least some culpability in the branch.

Receiving public money does require a certain degree of transparency, but it's unclear what you meant in that sentence (in fact, there's no verb in the main clause: "One thing that all 'charities' music or otherwise, who are dependent on public support, from within or without,[Need? Must Have? Should Provide?] is total transparency and full accountability of action – not the case with the Clontarf affair, I believe.")   

I suspect you're overstating this. My experience is in the US, not Ireland, but it's not even clear what "total transparency and full accountability of action" means. Generally, transparency means: can the government and citizenry find out where their money went, and verify that it was not misappropriated? If you want to write to Comhaltas, request their annual reports, etc., you're likely to find that the answer is "yes," they are meeting the standards they have to meet for transparency. But it's always possible you'd catch them out. Good luck; it's not something you can find out on the Mudcat.

As for "accountability," I don't know about Ireland, but it's not the case here in the US that a board of directors of a corporation that takes public money is accountable to anyone outside the company for internal affairs such as the constitution of committees or even the hiring and firing of employees. As long as such activities are carried out LEGALLY (ie the hirings and firings and dissolving of committees are not actually illegal under US law for reasons such as racial discrimination), there is little "accountability" to the public required.

That said, if your organization seems to be behaving erratically, the Arts Council or whichever government office is the source of your funds can certainly take that into account when deciding on the next grant cycle. If you meant accountability in this limited sense, then I agree CCE needs to be careful--but they need to explain themselves primarily to their government funding sources, who represent "the people" in the question of whether and how much to fund CCE.

Sparkles: how would it do any good to know why the constitution only allows amendments every six years? No matter what the answer was, there would still be no way to change it, except by normal constitutional procedures, i.e. within the sixth-year window. It might be that there's some sinister reason of bigwigs trying to "maintain the status quo," as others have ominously put it. Or it may be that whatever organization CCE based its first draft of the constitution on had a six-year frame, and no one has ever changed it. Or it might have been hashed out in committee (eg. some people wanted four years and others wanted eight years, and six was the compromise).

It's very plausible to me, having been on committees that have established by-laws and constitutions for such organizations, that no one actually knows or remembers why six years was chosen. Given that, it's not necessarily sinister that no one is coming forward to justify or defend that decision now. And as I said, the reason is actually pretty irrelevant--if we think it needs to be changed, we should start now regardless of the original reason.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:47 PM

I would like to publicly and unreservedly apologize to Dick Miles for the tone of my post. I was a bit on edge this afternoon, which doesn't excuse a damn thing, but I offer it as an explanation.

And, techically, he is right. We do not have the "official" explanation, although Breandan has delivered what it is pretty well.

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:41 PM

If any good can come out of a sorry situation like this, it was tonights benefit concert in the Teachers Club. Great music from start to finish and huge support for the 'reel' Branch committee from some of the top names in Irish music in Dublin and in general.

The faily names involved in the concert - Glackin. O Brien, O Connor, Mulligan, Kelly to name but a few have all been associated with Cluain Tarbh over the years and all showed up to show their solidarity tonight. Other major names fromn the trad music community including Fintan Vallely, Mark Kelly and John Blake also contribnuted. Standing room only in the venue from start to finish. Not to mention the existing musicians and teachers from the Branch. A great show of support all round.

There isn't any doubt that the Branch are staunchly behind their elected leadership. Brendans scenario of the exiasting membership joining up with the unelected branch will never happen. The Branch is determined that they will be back in Classac and I for one wouldn't bet against that as an outcome.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Guest Mr. P
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:49 PM

Power battles within voluntary organisations rarely make for pleasant viewing & this is no exception. Situations like this, generally when organisations have to face external issues are usually irreconciliable. Emotions inflamed beyond the point of return: 1979 is a long time ago but clearly the upset remains in that case and this thread is living proof of how brown site regeneration, VAT refunds and the ability to make constitutional amendments once every 6 years unhappily collide with the pastime of traditional Irish music.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, I installed Microsoft Word on the office computers ... I should really look at changing the default entry in the Address Book ....

I didn't have anything to do with drafting the letters, obviously!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Frank_Finn
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:08 PM

I wish the people involved in this dispute would get together soon and sort it out. It is doing lots of harm to the organisation

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:49 PM

Jasus!! Breandán Knowlton is listed as the author of other letters from HQ re this affair. He should really sort that out.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:26 PM

And so the question would be, were all the steps followed, including those that give the branch its opportunity to put forth its position? Also, is there any point in the process in which the appeal is heard by an independent voice? The parallel in the civil setting would be a civil court, or in US labor, the NLRB?.
Good Idea,Mick.
solicitors would benefit as they have done with the Mahon tribunal,C

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,OLD -TIMER
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:47 PM

This stuff must now,at this stage, be about to break all International records for indoor & outdoor Yawning records----- Gold Medal Boredom Award goes to-------- nominations please-----????

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:36 PM

I was looking at the Cluain Tarbh branch website and download a MS Word document , which as you can see below is the directive issued re the VAT. The interesting thing about this Word document is that when I looked at the properties of the file, Breandán Knowlton is listed as the author. m m m!!!!
Breandán would want to look at those computers in HQ and get his name off the one on which that document was created - unless of course Breandán was actually the person who drafted the document

Mr. Maurice Mullen                                                        26th January 2008
Chairman
Craobh Chluain Tarbh
82 Sonesta
Malahide
Co. Dublin

Dear Maurice

In accordance with the authority vested in us, as Trustees General of Comhaltas, by the organisation's Bunreacht, we now direct Craobh Chluain Tarbh to deliver to us the refund of VAT money which your branch obtained in relation to the CLASAĊ project.

Please comply with this directive within seven days.

Is sinne,



Pádraig Ó Ceallaigh
Colmán Ó Muimhneacháin
Labhrás Ó Murchú

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:35 PM

apologies for spelling error should read Clontarf.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM

Big Mick,I have been reading the thread.
I have yet to see a response,from the people responsible for dissolving the Clondarf branch.
at no point have I suggested that this discussion has been full of rancour.
I am surely entitled to keep an open mind, until I see a response from the people in CCE who have dissolved the Clondarf branch.T

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY-
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:09 PM

Any one know a tune called "The Rights of Man " ?

Give me an Ahhhh minor and get on with it ----enough shite have been spoke,

Mo naire thu go leir,

MA FLANNERY

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:37 PM

Attention, Dick Miles

If you would like to hear both sides, I suggest you try reading the thread!!!! Your comments don't come off well when the entire thread has been a (for the most part) discussion by the sides, and done with passion, but not rancor.


Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 12:18 PM

Kinda feels like it, doesn't it? No, my full-time job right now is to finish my MA at the University of Limerick. I waded into this discussion because I felt that the information publicly available was presenting only one side of the picture, and having worked on the Clasaċ project (on and off) for the past year, I was aware of some salient facts which should be aired.

As it happens, it would appear that we've wandered into the areas of structure and governance of Comhaltas, other subjects which are generally neither well-discussed nor understood outside the organisation. Speaking for myself, even when I was an elected member of my own branch's committee, I had only the vaguest idea of how Comhaltas was actually governed. To me this speaks mostly of Comhaltas' communications capabilities, which are not great. Of course, there are idealistic people trying to change that, over time.

I'd probably withdraw from the discussion at this point and work on my essays, except that if I did the first unanswered question would be taken as an admission of defeat. :-) Though I don't represent the ardchomhairle in any way, it does seem that mine is a lonely voice at the moment submitting that the decisions of that body are not, as a matter of firmly-held belief, both venal and self-interested.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:52 AM

I should have mentioned a third point in my contribution above, i.e.

The vast majority (95% at a guess) fully intend to continue to support the elected committee who we all voted for at our 2007 AGM. We will continue to work together, and do NOT RECOGNISE the self-appointed "new" committee in any shape or form.

So, Breandan, while I welcome your prediction of 5 of the original branch becoming part of the Clasac board of management, I do not envisage a reconciliation being reached within the "NEW" branch. We have been treated despicably by the ardcomhairle, and would not find it easy to trust the "hand of friendship" offered by their wives and friends who elected themselves onto the new committee.

Pity you'll miss the gig. I was wondering, is your full time occupation representing the ardcomhairle on this site at the moment?

Eileen

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:10 AM

I also wish you well, Eileen. If I were in Dublin, I would certainly attend the concert as well. As I will not be, I hope that it goes well. It's a fantastic line-up, as you say, and I've heard your U18 group many times.

If I were to venture a prediction, I would expect that the Clasaċ theatre board will be constituted with representation from the branch, as originally agreed. I see no reason why that would not occur. I suspect, though, that the dissolution will not be reversible, for reasons that have been discussed above. I am hoping that a reconciliation between factions can be reached within the new branch, and that the branch will continue its excellent teaching, touring and outreach programmes.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:47 AM

Well said Eileen. I am also a member of Comhaltas and also unhappy with the leader and leadership shown.
May I wish you all well in Clontarf and enjoy the concert.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen O'Connor, member "Reel Clontarf"
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:13 AM

There are many details to the long saga of how Clontarf branch lost the Clasac Theatre and got dissolved.

However, be assured that the membership who have worked and played together over many years will survive and grow stronger out of this crisis.

There are many ordinary members of CCE out there who are unhappy with the leadership of head office. I had the "pleasure" of meeting some of the ardcomhairle at Clontarf's EGM where the members were treated to a spectacular dressing down from Labras. We were in shock and dismayed initially. At our next couple of branch meetings we had had further scorn and disrespect showered on us by another member of the ardcomhairle who, amazingly was a member of our own branch.

We, the ordinary members started to recover from the shock of the treatment meeted out to us over the following weeks. We now realise that the "leadership" was WRONG to treat us in this manner. We are rising up from the ashes of this crisis and will campaign to re-establish our right to 5 of our members to be elected to the board of management of Clasac.

We will also seek the reversal of the unjust dissolution of the branch by the ardcomhairle.

I look forward to the concert in the Teachers' Club tonight and intend to thoroughly enjoy the brilliant music of our Under 18 band, our fabulous teachers, and all the eminent musicians who are performing in a show of solidarity with our dissolved club.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:05 AM

I am a member of Comhaltas.
before I come to any decision regarding who is right or wrong,Iwould like to hear/see both sides of the story,in the meantime I shall carry on playing music regardless.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:33 AM

I'll be happy to do a more detailed response to your post, Diarmud, though I'm actually somewhat incredulous that you are not more aware of the governing structure of Comhaltas. And while I'm sure our receptionist wouldn't have given you telephone numbers, the membership of the central council would be public record.

First, though, Jim raises some fascinating questions, which I think are quite relevant to the debate.

1.       (Somewhat impenetrable) rulebook and financial disputes aside - do you believe that the leadership have handled this affair well?

That would be a qualified "no." I think that the council took a difficult decision in the face of a difficult and complicated problem. Because they followed the rules and did what was necessary to get the project back on track, I think they acted correctly. However, in several areas there is much to learn from.

Communications between the Ardchomhairle and the Clontarf membership have been extremely unhelpful, from what I can see, both in person and in writing. To a certain extent, the Ardchomhairle will say that it isn't their job to talk to the membership - that they deal with the branch committee. And they're right, technically. From the perspective of goodwill, though, I think that animosities on both sides had been allowed to harden before any real communications occurred, and what we heard from both sides was excessively legalistic and stiff, exacerbating an already touchy situation. And as I've said elsewhere, I would have preferred that this action be originated at County Board level, escalated to Provincial Council and then to Central Council, if only to make sure that Clontarf felt they had been listened to at each step. I doubt that the outcome would be different, but a longer process (initiated earlier) would have addressed these questions of representation.

My choice would have been to initiate an action in Dublin County Board after the arbitrated agreement to pay contractors in December was defaulted, and let it go up the system from there. While the Ardchomhairle clearly has the right to do what it did, and while they were correct that some intervention had become necessary, I do feel that a process could have been followed which would have made it more clear to the membership of Clontarf what was happening and why. I believe that the council waited too long, hoping that the committee would start taking advice, and the disagreement became a very tragic game of chicken which could only be resolved drastically.

As I've said, though, I'm not an elected representative of any part of Comhaltas, and I was not privy to all communications back and forth. There may have been no alternative. But my own sense of process and fairness would have been better served by a more locally-originated debate. While constitutional, the acts taken made the Clontarf membership understandably upset, and certainly didn't do the organisation any favours in the area of public relations.

2.       Do you think that this affair has helped or hindered the cause of Irish traditional music?

This particular spat is definitely hurting, because it is contributing to a popular conception that whenever the government or a private organisation tries to get involved in culture, something gets screwed up. I don't agree with that - while I accept fully that Irish culture is no longer in danger of extinction or marginalisation, I believe that this continues to be in part due to organisations like Comhaltas. Note that I said "In part." The fact that Comhaltas has become sufficiently ubiquitous so as to fade into the unnoticed infrastructure of Irish life only underscores the point, not refutes it.

Yes, obviously people around the world could and should enjoy Irish music completely untethered to any structure or organisation. I'm glad that this happens. But the power of Comhaltas is in training the next generation of players, and ensuring that in any given area there will be a sufficient critical mass of music and musicians that the spontaneous ensembles and sessions and dances can take place, to the benefit of many. It is easy to underestimate this particular goal, and to assume that it was and always will be this way.

However, I think that a critical look will show that Irish culture still benefits from such support. For example, though Breton music and Moris dancing are still popularly performed by amateur musicians, we don't see nearly the involvement around the world by musicians who, day in and day out, focus much of their social energy on the amateur exchange of tunes and ideas. Spanish music has done well, but has largely become part of a performance-based tradition. Much of the indigenous music of the Middle and Far East survives throughout the diaspora, but has become relegated to marking major life events only. Irish music enjoys almost a unique status in the level of ongoing amateur support it receives, and I believe Comhaltas to be a part of that network. This far-flung network builds communities, fights cultural decay and provides focus for children and adults who are looking for a modern and collaborative answer to unidirectional mass-mediated culture.

Right now, the services of Comhaltas are heavily skewed toward children, which is in keeping with the educational goals of the movement. In the longer term, I hope to find new and better ways to facilitate the needs of adults within Comhaltas, through new collaborations, through better information exchange and through other community-building projects. But all of the potential for good work is hampered when there is division within the group.

It's understandable that people fight, and fight hard, for the structures with which they choose to align themselves. It's a sign of the strength of the Clontarf branch and of the movement as a whole that people are so passionate about this debate. I applaud the passion and energy. But when people feel ill-used, when the debate leaks out in to the public sphere, when the debate becomes acrimonious, the thing that we all believe in is damaged. The more it looks like Comhaltas can't get its act together, the more the aims of the movement are impeded.

So while the theatre and teaching centre itself will be a very good thing for the traditional arts, this particular argument is definitely hurting the cause.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:14 AM

Well, WE didn't drive that wedge into it.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:03 AM

I agree you have a right to an opinion as have I.
I am not questioning that.
Even if our opinions are based on false assumptions they are still only opinions.
I am commenting on the organisation being told what to do by non-participants. Not advice - instructions.
But again, just my opinion as an interested observer.
I think it a great pity when any organisation has a wedge driven in no matter the rights & wrongs.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:51 AM

Black Hawk, I'm quite prepared to admit that I'm not a member of Comhaltas. What's more, I'm an Englishman, living in England, and I'm unlikely to use or visit the Clasac centre. So perhaps I have no right to comment.

But this is more than a matter of internal discipline within a private club, it has ramifications which go far wider and which may affect traditional music outside the confines of Comhaltas. I submit that anyone who enjoys and takes an interest in Irish music has a right to an opinion on this.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:41 AM

What stands out to me is that the majority of people on this thread who are criticising (either party) are not (or not admitting to be) members.
Any club / society I am a member of has rules which the members follow, contest, amend, add to etc.
But to have 'outsiders' telling me how my adopted club should be run is unacceptable.(advice is acceptable)
This may be the reason for the silence of certain parties re. this forum.
In any 'club' there will be conflicting views but I have found that it is rare that 'outsiders' ever get the true facts, leading to false conclusions.
No matter the truth or final outcome, this affair will leave a bad taste in many mouths for decades (as said in a previous post)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Sparkles
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:16 AM

Why is Breandan the only one speaking for Comhaltas? Why, when he doesn't know the answer to a question, it just doesn't get answered? Comhaltas is made up of a whole group of people and don't tell me they're not reading this. Why are they ignoring questions they don't like by leaving everything to Breandan? That 6 year thing has still not been explained. It just keeps getting sidestepped. So let's try again:

WHY is there no provision in place for amending the constitution more often than every 6 years? 'I don't know' just isn't good enough. If Breandan doesn't know, get someone who does to come on board and justify it. If they can.

An institution that does not allow enough scope for its governing rules to be changed is unfair. The possibility of reform needs to be made more available because it's one of the ways you keep power in balance. It should be a basic right.

And I'm not talking about yearly elections. I'm talking about the constitution. So often in this thread when a question gets asked the only answer is Because the constitution says so. That may be a reason but it's not an explanation. Maybe the constitution needs an overhaul? Tough. You can't. Not for years yet. That's NOT FAIR. The only real answer on this has been silence. What does that tell you?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM

Diarmuid, Declan has summarised my view on the VAT issue. It was clearly a significant factor in the decision to involve the branch, but it should not have been. Whilst it may have contravened internal financial processes, the money has ended up back with the Revenue, and indeed the Branch states that it has been advised that legally it could not have done otherwise. To dissolve the branch for putting the law of the land above internal processes seems excessive.

That's what I meant about it being a red herring. It seems to be just an excuse to give an additional reason for dissolving the branch, rather than a genuine issue.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:08 AM

All very good Jim, the gutter remark was in your post so I would be grateful to you if you cared to read some of your earlier posts, I see plenty of spite in them.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:23 AM

So far, this dispute has taken place articulately and, to one degree or another, politely; much passion and heat, even anger at times, but at least people on both sides of the fence have listened to the points of view of their opponents and attempted to answer them.
While I disagree with Breandán, I am very aware that he has appeared to listen to what I have to say and has attempted to deal with my questions politely and carefully – too seldom the case in such arguments.
I would be grateful to Ard mhacha if he didn't use a flippant remark of mine to drag this discussion down to gutter level.
Nerd; the classifying of organisations such as CCE and EFDSS as 'charities' is, I believe a nominal one, done for the purpose of convenience rather than definition. The roles of these and, say Oxfam, Save The Children and ISPCA are very different and require different relationships between those at the head of the organisations and the foot-soldiers.
Not only do I do believe that a democratic structure is not out of the question in our music organisations, I think it is essential if all members are to make a contribution.
One thing that all 'charities' music or otherwise, who are dependent on public support, from within or without, is total transparency and full accountability of action – not the case with the Clontarf affair, I believe.
Somebody said they couldn't imagine this happening in the U.K.; I beg to differ. It wasn't so long ago that EFDSS made the front pages by having to call in the Fraud Squad over the proposed sale of Cecil Sharp House; an affair which not only exposed EFDSS to ridicule and disrepute, but tore the organisation in pieces, a state from which, I believe, it never fully recovered.
Public organisations need to be aware that they are constantly in the public eye and largely dependent on public support and good will.
I don't know how the (rightly discredited IMO) 2000 report by Labhrás to the Oireachreas on the state of music in Ireland was received within Comhaltas; I do know it stirred up a hornet's nest of protest outside, which eventually led to it being shelved. The aftershocks of the affair are still being felt; I still have the scathing 'Pillars of Society article on Labhrás; not exactly helpful to him or CCE.
Breandán; thank you for answering my simple question and satisfying my curiosity, if not my cynicism. As I appear to be on a roll, hope you don't mind if I try another couple.
1.        (Somewhat impenetrable) rulebook and financial disputes aside - do you believe that the leadership have handled this affair well?
2.        Do you think that this affair has helped or hindered the cause of Irish traditional music?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM

Diarmuid,

I meant that the VAT refund was a red herring to the extent that, assuming the Ardcomhairle would have acted legally, that the VAT refund would have been returned to the exchequer in any event whether the money had been returned to Revenue, or via HQ and the Deprtment of Arts etc. The branch, in returning the money to the state's collection agency, from whence it came, simply cut out a number of intermediary steps.

It was obviously, as I have stated a few times, a major factor in triggering events in Head Office. I'm still at a loss as to why.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:46 PM

magb,

I was specifically referring to knight-high's suggestion that Labhras simply unilaterally "reinstate" the Clontarf committee. That is tyranny--in the sense that the Clontarf committee was dissolved by a representative body, not the whim of a single man. To "reinstate" it on the whim of a single man, or a vocal minority, would therefore be tyrannical. The new committee must be elected.

Breandan confirms my previous suspicion: neither Labhras nor the committee can "reinstate" the Clontarf committee. This is not unusual in electoral systems; in much the same way, the US Congress can remove a sitting President, but not install one. If they remove one, and then think better of it, it's too late.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Diarmaid
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:28 PM

Breandán,

Obviously, you have a different version of the Bunreacht than that which was issued to me.

The County Board does not have the right to dissolve a branch. It has the right to suspend a branch under Section 3 Rule 6(c) with the branch then having the right to appeal to the Provincial Council. Clontarf was not afforded the luxury of appealing suspension because they were not suspended by the County Board.

The Ardchomhairle on the other hand do not have the right to suspend a branch. However, Clontarf were notified in writing by the Ardrunaí that it was the Ardchomhairle who had suspended them. A copy of the letter (Feb 6th 2008) can be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm. I believe that, in coming to their decision, the Ardchomhairle were not aware of the facts because Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú and the other members of the Buanchoiste had prevented them receiving the facts from the branch.

The Buanchoiste also denied the branch the opportunity to state their case directly to the Ardchomhairle as can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter which was e-mailed on 31st Jan 2008, a copy of which can also be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm.

Breandán, you seem to be aware of what correspondence from the branch was received by Ardchomhairle members (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM). Perhaps you would enlighten us as to 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.

The Buanchoiste also instructed the County Board not to accept the branch's correspondence or to allow their representatives to attend County Board meetings, thus ensuring that the true facts could not make their way through the channels of County Board, Provincial Council, Ardchomhairle which is how the Ardrúnaí had stated we should make our case in his letter of 31st Jan 2008 referred to above.

Breandán, you say (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM) that you have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund. That seems odd to me as Comhaltas HQ worked closely with the branch in agreeing the VAT application process and they supplied most of the information required.

Domo, you say that in one of the threads, the Clontarf Branch claims they were registered for charity. This is incorrect. Jim Carroll (16 MAR 08 - 04:30 AM) from Clare said that was the story as he knew it. Jim is not a member of the Clontarf branch and the Clontarf branch was not registered as a charity. In general, however, Jim does seem to have a very good grasp of what has happened and is a lot more accurate than Breandán whom, I suspect, has been a lot more closely involved than he lets on with his honest broker routine.

There was nothing irregular with the claim for VAT refund submitted to the Revenue Commissioners by the VAT entity set up by the Clontarf branch. The Revenue Commissioners agreed that they were entitled to the refund and approved the claim. When the Buanchoiste notified the branch in their letter of 5th Feb 2008 that they were seizing control of the Clasac project, it was clear that the VAT entity set up by the branch could not trade and, therefore it was deregistered for VAT purposes and the VAT refund returned to Revenue. The Revenue Commissioners confirmed in their letter of 04 Mar 2008 that the branch had acted appropriately.

As can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter of Feb 6th 2008, the only issue which the branch was asked to regularise was the VAT refund which the Trustees directed should be transferred to them.

In the days prior to dissolution of the branch, the Ardrúnaí confirmed by phone that the only issue for which the branch was under threat of dissolution was the failure by the branch to transfer the VAT to the HO account. For this reason, Howard Jones and Declan, I disagree with your assessment that the VAT refund was a red herring. It is the only issue that the branch were asked to 'regularise'. HO knew that the branch had acted appropriately in relation to the VAT at all times. They also knew, because the branch advised them of the expert tax advice that it had received, that it would be illegal to transfer the VAT to HO. Yet, they dissolved the branch for failing to do so.

With regard to your claim, Breandán, that the project was mismanaged, I would like you to give specifics. I am sure that I can answer to the satisfaction of others out there, any doubts that you might like to raise.

With regard to your numerous claims about the democratic nature of the Ardchomhairle and Senator Labhrás' position, you have an advantage over me in that, when I asked HO for details on the Ardchomhairle, I was informed by the person on the phone that she (I won't name her) was under instruction not to give out details of the Ardchomhairle members. She would not say who had issued the instruction other than 'management', nor would she tell me who in HO constituted 'management'.

You say (01 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM) that 'the council is composed of 31 elected voluntary officers who are accountable to their home districts'.

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 look forward to your response.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:40 PM

To take a slightly different angle on this, it seems to me that, given that Classac was identified as a regional centre in an overall Comhaltas strategy that either:
(a) Comhaltas head office left the Classac Committee - part of a local Branch, to shoulder a large burden of responsibility of the project without providing the benefit of its expertise and assitance to the Branch in running the project or
(b) The project was being run jointly by the Branch and Head Office but HQ chose to distance itself from the actions of the Committee when things (in the HQ viewpoint) started to go pear shaped.

In either case HQ are culpable in the project going off the rails (to teh extent that it did) but the entire blame for this is being laid at the door of the Branch. HQ steps in as the white knight to resolve the situation and accuses the Classac committee of mismanaging the project. Somehting about this whole situation stinks!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: magb
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM

Don't quite follow Nerd's gripes here. As far as I can see, there have been a number of Clontarf members contributing to this thread - none of them "tyrants". I completely understand why members of the 'old committee' would not idenitify themselves as such here - thus laying them open to litigious quotation/argument distracting to their main issues etc.
As far as I can tell from all info detailed above, the CEC can do exactly what they wish, and if that included reversing their decision to dissolve the branch, I'm sure they would easily justify their decision to implement this action. (And dissolving a newly self-elected branch should surely be pretty painless compared to dissolving a 45 year old branch)
Sadly, that won't happen unless they are faced with huge dissent and legal action. I hope that the 'old' branch has the will and the means to organise the latter.
Maggie




posted earlier by knight high
POWERS AND DUTIES (of County Board)
4 (c) The County Board shall have the right to suspend any branch, and/or remove from office, a branch officer or officers, where it has been clearly established that the branch or officers of the branch are guilty of conduct which is deemed to be contrary to the ideals and objects of An Comhaltas, as enshrined in this Constitution, and is calculated to bring An Comhaltas into disrepute. Where a branch is suspended, the County Board shall for the time being be empowered to exercise all the functions of the said branch. A branch or officer so suspended shall have the right of appeal to the Provincial Council

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

Philip:

I do respect your position, and as I have said before I can only imagine how frustrating it must be right now to be a member of Clontarf Comhaltas. I'm afraid that on the legalities of things, I do see the point of the Ardchomhairle: the high council does have the right to dissolve a branch, though as you say the County Board also has that right. With regard to the loan, I have answered that elsewhere: after waiting for an unconscionable period of time to secure such a loan, the branch presented an agreement to the trustees that could only be signed if the trustees had direct control of the money as spent. A simple enquiry to the trustees at any point in the process of arranging the loan would have confirmed this. I can only assume the hope was that the by-then-precarious financial situation of the project would have compelled the trustees to act despite their misgivings.

But considering the present, at this point a loan has been secured, and with control over the remainder of the construction project the trustees have indeed committed Comhaltas to cover the amount. The branch having been very unfortunately dissolved, my suggestion was that the best opportunity of working together (and continuing the dialogue) will be in the context of the newly-formed branch of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

Declan, you're right, the way the branch handled the VAT does seem to have been a significant factor in Head Office's decision, but I find it hard to understand why the Head Office was so het up about it. The branch may not have followed the correct procedures, but the money ended up where it belonged - how could that be damaging to CCE? There's been no suggestion of financial impropriety, so far as I'm aware, and the branch insists that it believes it acted legally. A rap over the knuckles for not following CCE's internal financial procedures might be in order, but to use it as one of the excuses for dissolving the branch does seem excessive.

The financial difficulty the project found itself in is another matter. In the circumstances I don't see that Head Office had any option but to take control.   Assuming dissolution of the branch was the only constitutional way to achieve this, the question then is whether both parties did enough to avoid this, by engaging in discussions. The fact that both sides now seem to have taken entrenched positions suggests to me that perhaps they did not, although exactly who should bear most responsibility for this is not clear.

What's important now is to find a way forward. The hierarchy of Comhaltas must find a way of bringing back the disaffected members of the former branch and continuing to involve as many of them as possible in completing the project, with new controls and safeguards in place

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Philip
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:24 PM

Brendan,
Cluain Tarbh were denied their right of appeal or any hearing because the Dublin County Committee made the decision in conjunction with the Ard Comhairle to suspend the branch. This decision should only have been made by the full county committee at very least. The full county board should have been involved and Cluain Tarbh should have been allowed to present its case. As regards the outstanding money owed to the contractors etc., the loans were approved and awaiting trustee signatures to draw down the funds but the trustees did not sign. The same amount of money has now been sourced by HQ and the trustee signatures would presumably have been required for these borrowings too. This project will need good will to repay borrowings and ensure its success. Local support is vital. As a cluain Tarbh member I respect your position and feel you should respect mine. As with all difficult disputes dialogue is the best way forward.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:01 PM

I'm afraid you're correct on that score, Nerd -- I'm not aware of any precedent suggesting that the national committee can interfere in the duly elected officer makeup of a local committee, and those who are calling for such a move will probably not make much progress. The Director-General certainly doesn't have that power.

You are also correct in the separation of powers -- the act of dissolution was carried out by the national committee, while the new branch was formed under the auspices of the Dublin County Board.

The best chance of resolution that I can see is for the old committee members to run for office within the new branch. Of course, I'm hopeful that tensions will die down once the theatre opens and becomes the home of the branch. That's what everyone wants to see, after all.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:53 PM

Oddly, the supporters of the former Clontarf branch committee seem to support tyranny whenever it results in their goals being met, and to oppose it whenever it doesn't. Case in point, knight_high's call for the director to "reinstate" the branch committee, thus overturning the decision of a national committee of elected representatives. In case you haven't noticed, knight_high, a single executive overturning the decision of an elected committee would be autocratic.

A better solution would be to re-convene the national committee and see if they would consider a different approach. Frankly, though, it may not be constitutionally possible, because dissolving a branch committee and constituting a new branch committee are different actions. The central committee may not have the authority to appoint the old committee members back to the branch committee, even if they wanted to.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:43 PM

Boy you sure are batting well for your masters Breandán!!! After all the discussions that have taken place re this and you still come back and say.
"I'm interested to know exactly what is being proposed as a more suitable conclusion than that which occurred"

You have read incountless messages, what HQ have done wrong. I realise that there was fault on both sides The kernel of the dispute is the illegal dissolution of the Branch. Do you realise that in 20 years - 40 years the story of the dissolution of Cluain Tarbh will be spoken of. Instead of being a showcase performance space, Clasach will be a permanent reminder of this dirty deed. I can tell you this. The building is not worth it if it generates such bad feeling disputes and animosity for decades to come. Better if it never happened. Solve it - and quickly. Swallow you pride Labhras and reinstate the branch. Let an independent arbitrator be appointed to try and bring some peace between the parties involved.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:24 PM

Battle of Clontarf round two/ Comhaltas Interruptus.
The very naming of this thread,suggests the original poster has an axe to grind.
personally,I would like to have more information from both sides,before I could decide who is in the right.
Comhaltas do make mistakes,one example is[their system of marking for competitions with the over emphasis on ornamentation is in my opinion a mistake and is responsible for artificially altering style]
on the other hand ,through the fleadhs they have also provided a lot of people with pleasure,and been responsible for many children acquiring skill, self esteeem and musical satisfaction.
Comhaltas is in my opinion a Curates Egg.,and has a lot in common with political parties,there are many branch activists who give alot of unpaid time and dedication,and do a lot of excellent work,and then theres the bigwigs[who would best be stuck up a tree].
Dick Miles

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

"The essential facts surrounding the mismanagement of the theatre project are not contested".

These alleged facts are very much in dispute - in fact they are at the very centre of it. I don't know why the members of the old branch have not engaged in the debate here but if you read what is said on the Cluain Tarbh web site they clearly do not agree with the version of events given by the ard comhairle statement.

We are only hearing one side of the argument here and it would be useful if those who were directly involved in the project would come onto this thread and give their side of the story.

Howard I agree the VAT refund is a bit of a red herring, but the actions of the branch committee in refusing to give the monry to Head Office seem to have been a significant catalyst in provoking the dissolution of the branch.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM

Caitlín, I think it is rather a stretch to say that not providing for yearly amendments to the organisation's constitution "means the people in power get to stay in power." Elections are held yearly. If the membership wishes to replace their representatives, they are free to do so at any point. The organisation itself does require stability, and you are incorrect if you think that frequent rule changes would produce a happy result.

Also, for what it's worth, I believe that my analogies to the US Constitution and to other governing bodies is a perfectly suitable way of illustrating what can be a complex subject, now that we've headed away from capital structuring and into the realm of representative democracy. Many of the external constraints and even the underlying ideals are similar in the two cases, and such documents and governing structures have been formulated with similar results.

I note that the conversation has moved now from the bare-faced theft of a building at the start, through to a discussion of the constitutionality of dissolving a branch, and now finally to the governing structures and documents of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann itself. I can only assume that the lack of any coherent defence by the old committee indicates that the essential facts surrounding the mismanagement of the theatre project are not contested.

I'm interested to know exactly what is being proposed as a more suitable conclusion than that which occurred. If the high council had not intervened, the project would still be stuck with not enough money and no way to raise more, vendors would still be unpaid and a beautiful new arts centre would be sitting on the Alfie Byrne road with no water or sewer connections. While I understand the frustration of the branch members, especially those not on the executive committee, is it seriously being argued that such a result would be better for all concerned? I honestly don't see how that outcome would enhance the reputation of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.