|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,caitlín Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:10 PM My question is a fair one and it has still not been answered. Not allowing any changes to be even proposed for six-year periods of time means the people in power get to stay in power without being challenged. It does not mean that Comhaltas is unstable. Brendan's answer does not even address the issue. If he doesn't know the answer, there are people in that organisation that do - but they are not telling us. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of democracy. And it's a question I still want an answer to. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Howard Jones Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM If the Head Office was concerned that the project was running into financial difficulties and didn't have confidence in the local branch to sort it out, then I can see why it felt it had to intervene. What does seem to be in question is whether the way it intervened was appropriate. Breandan argues that the local branch didn't want to discuss it, the local branch seems to be saying that Head Office wasn't prepared to listen. It is also understandable that the local branch was defensive about what it no doubt saw, and still sees, as its project, whereas Head Office sees it as a Comhaltas project. There was clearly always going to be a gulf between the two sides. Perhaps dissolution was the only step open to Head Office, I don't know. Even if it was, the way they have gone about it seems to have widened that gulf, and drawn in many people who were not previously involved. Whoever is right or wrong, the whole thing seems to have been handled pretty badly. The question now is whether the mess can be sorted out. At the moment its not clear that either side is very interested in doing so. So far as the VAT refund is concerned, in my view its a red herring. The correct amount of money ended up back where it belonged. The issue seems to be that it did not go through the proper channels. No doubt that has put someone's nose out of joint, but it doesn't appear to me to be a major problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM " Any union leader taking such liberties would have ended face down in the Mersey,", so have you got the heavy squad ready, what a silly statement to make, cool down Jim a hot-headed remark like that, shows your true nature. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM Come on geek!!! How can caitlín be nit picking? She is perfectly correct in pointing out the differences between the two phrases. There is a big difference and an important one. You CAN have stability with lots of change - something we badly need in C.C.E. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Nerd Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:54 AM Caitlin, Your need to shout "wrong" in all caps underlines the weakness of your argument. My point about "stability" is not "spin." It's just good English, being offered to you by a professional writer, editor, and English professor. "Stability" means, among other things: "Immunity from destruction or essential change; enduring quality." and "Permanence of arrangement; power of resisting change of structure." Status quo means "The existing state of affairs." "The existing state of affairs" is what will be maintained if change is resisted. Ergo, Stability MEANS the tendency to maintain the status quo. That is one of the main definitions of the word "stability." Shout all you like, but you will not change this. Language, too, has a certain degree of stability. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,caitlín Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:18 AM And your point is...? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Geek Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM Oh COME ON!!! Caitlin, you are nit picking!!! Piaras, spin away! spin away! You are both alond with your many counterparts spinning in circles. you don't like comhaltas,you don't like labhras. You do like Comhaltas, you don't like labhras. As perviously stated, either do something about it, or just get on with your lives. oh! PLEASE!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,caitlín Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:20 AM > stability" and "maintaining the status quo" are just two ways of saying the same thing WRONG. They're not. Maintaining the status quo means 'we don't want things to change from how they are now' usually voiced by those who already have the power. Stability simply means it's not unsteady or in danger of collapsing. They are not the same thing at all. Saying that one equals the other is 'spin' too, Nerd. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:27 AM " time I was out of here." ard mhacha Following snide remarks like your last one, - at last - something we on agree upon. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM Breandán, am I correct in thinking that previously - and not that long ago- the time period between rule changes was just 4 years and not 6 years as it is now? I'm sure it wont be difficult to find out if this was the case and when the new period came into play. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Nerd Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:38 AM Well, I haven't spoken up yet, but I have to say I'm pretty convinced by Breandan's arguments. CCE is not a "democracy," in the sense of a government, it's a charitable corporation. Many such corporations are far less democratic that Comhaltas, and have a non-elected board of trustees that reigns supreme. Both governments and membership organizations have rules that keep them representative up to a point. Neither is completely representative, because you only have the opportunity to change officers, or change the rules, every so often. Neither holds individual referenda on every issue. In this case, the elected members of the national committee apparently voted to dissolve the Clontarf committee. That is constitutional, and it was accomplished by a full roster of duly elected representatives, not a "kangaroo court" as some have alleged. If you don't like the way your representative voted, you do have recourse: vote for someone else next time. You can also change the constitution. It's no good getting mad at Breandan because the constitution can only be changed every six years. He did not make that rule, and CCE members have seemed to be pretty happy with it, since it survived the last opportunity to change it. If you think it's a bad rule, start agitating for that rule to change as soon as you can--but don't whine about it, or accuse anyone of ill-will or wrongdoing; no one, not even your opponents on this issue, can do anything about the constitution outside of the sixth year window. One big difference, by the way, between a government and a charitable corporation, is that no one is forced to be a member of a charitable corporation. So if its laws seem undemocratic, you can use your membership to change the laws--as you can in a democratic government. But you can also leave CCE and found your own organization. Or just play music without an organization. By the way, it can't have escaped anyone's notice that "stability" and "maintaining the status quo" are just two ways of saying the same thing. The only difference is your attitude to change. So if Breandan is "spinning," so are his opponents. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,piaras Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:17 PM Breandan, are you getting the head staggers from all that spinning? You're pushing it a bit when you state that what "is causing such a kerfuffle here" is the noise being made by what you refer to as "the former committee." The brazen action by your own paymasters to unilaterally disband the branch and then to tell us that their self-appointed committee is legitimate is what has caused the row here. These actions are what offends the sensibilities of the majority of the people the "new committee" now claim to represent. Why do you think it is that, as you admit above, most people simply do not believe your/Labhras' position here? I can assure you it's not simply because Comhaltas is a "biggish organisation". You tell us you had a vote in the US primaries. Are you from Florida? They know a thing or two there about twisting the democratic wishes of the majority! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,caitlín Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:14 PM Re Brendan's 6:47 message -- Stability? Oh come ON. That organisation is not under any threat of instability. And all those long comparisons with the US government are irrelevant. The US government has to coordinate 50 separate states, all with different laws, some of them pretty heavy (divorce terms, death penalty or not, etc). There no way you can compare a huge country which has a population of something like 200 million very different groups of people with one organisation in one city dedicated to one particular culture. I simply do not believe Comhaltas' stability would be threatened by giving its members a fair say in amending the constitution. > How to weigh that stability against the needs of democracy The needs of democracy are for fair representation. Don't try to muddy the issue with bringing in irrelevant comparisons with the American governmental structure. If you don't know why the 6 year rule applies, someone there must. (So do we. Preserving the status-quo.) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM Comhaltas itself is registered as a charity, registration #8762. I have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund - they haven't shared those documents with the Ardchomhairle. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: domo Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM Brendan, In one of the threads, the Clontarf Branch claims they were registered as a Charity Organisation, obviously for refund purposes. Are they the only branch that are registered as such? Is this in keeping with the constitution? Is this "stroke" not what caused the VAT refund problems? From reading the threads, surely the word charity is not in Larry's vocabulary. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:47 PM Caitlín, I don't know why the constitution can only be amended every six years. I assume that the point is to encourage stability in the organisation. How to weigh that stability against the needs of democracy is a legitimate debate, and I suspect that the correct answer could be a different number these days. Remember, the US Constitution also allows amendment, but the process of actually getting an amendment passed is hugely complicated and time-consuming. Again, for reasons of stability. Much as I'm a fan of (most) of the amendments to the US Constitution, I'm also glad that the process is a difficult one. The result is stability. You could argue that the Founding Fathers (and the original Comhaltas founders) should have allowed for more direct democracy, and that the Electoral College and the Ardchomhairle are, in some ways, one step removed from direct, in-your-face local democracy. That argument could be made. When governments and high councils do particularly stupid or just controversial stuff, it's easy to call for amendments to the governing structure and to the governing documents. I'm not sure that's always in the best interest of democracy in the longer term. I suspect that the lack of comment on "my side" has to do with the relatively few people involved in the theatre project. It's also much easier to rally people to a cause, fighting for justice, than it is to talk about capital structuring and administrative process. "My side" is dull, technical, and depends on knowledge that very, very few people have. Most of the people who know what went down are on the former Clontarf committee, and even many of those guys are keeping silent, leaving the outraged shouting to rank-and-file members who have been fed selective facts by their committee. And the outraged shouting is very credible - I have no problem admitting that. As I've said before, I'd be pretty outraged if my branch went away for reasons that I could neither understand nor control. That said, some of the comments here are pretty definitely aimed at me, not at Comhaltas. I guess that's OK - I mean, it's the Internet, after all - but I try my best not to make Stalinist or "ethnic cleansing" references about those who disagree with me. I've spent some time in Eastern Europe, and I'm pretty sure that most former Soviet republics these days would welcome the relatively benign politics of an organisation like Comhaltas. Ineffective, often. But neither greedy nor malicious nor self-serving. I mean, in this whole thing we're talking about a fight between two committees of volunteers who play folk music, for heaven's sake. Yes, I hear the fury. Yes, I hear the outrage, and I sympathise. To answer your other question, Labhrás was appointed as Director-General in the early 70s, I believe, after serving in various volunteer positions. But he could be instantly replaced at the next Ardchomhairle meeting with a 2/3 vote if he lost the support of the membership. The fact that he's still there means that most people in Comhaltas think that he's doing a pretty good job, the job he's paid to do. Those of you in Comhaltas: if you want to change your leadership, just elect new guys to lead you. It's pretty simple. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,caitlín Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:30 PM ard mhacha wrote >when a barrage of one-sided criticism is directed at one person namely Brendan The barrage is aimed at Comhaltas, not Brendan. And the reason that 'one person' (who is a CCE employee remember) is having to work so hard is because no one else seems to be on that side. Not his fault, but if that were a popular viewpoint he'd have all sorts of other voices chiming in with support. Ask yourself WHY this criticism is one-sided. The comment about Jim Carroll is a cheap shot, ard mhacha. If you're the sort of support that Comhaltas attracts in this argument, no wonder it's one sided. So far this discussion has been pretty clear of pointless personal insults. Let's keep it that way. And if it's a joke it's not funny. Brendan, question for you though it has already been asked-- WHY, if they have general meetings every year, are proposals to change the constitution only allowed every 6 years? And don't just say because it's in the rules - Comhaltas's rules. I want to know how they can possibly justify it. There's NO WAY that's fair. You say (I don't doubt you) the regular members of the dissolved Clontarf branch are welcome to rejoin the new officially-approved one. What on earth makes you think they'd want to? Read some of those posts above who are obviously from locals. Can't you hear the fury in their voices? This action has done huge damage to that community, a split that will take years to heal if it ever does, and all their kids will all have to grow up in it. Great job you're doing, Senator Murphy. A real man of the people aren't you? What specific year did he first become head of Comhaltas? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM As I said, now that the theatre project is back on track, I think that reconciliation with the old committee would be absolutely the first priority. If Maurice and his crowd were to take positions in the new branch, I don't see why they wouldn't be welcomed. After all, it's the noise being made by the former committee that is currently causing such a kerfuffle, and isn't good for either side, frankly. Them being in the new branch would mean that we had some reconciliation, obviously. In any case, people seem to have made up their minds. It's extremely easy to believe bad things about any biggish organisation, and so I'm not surprised that every fact presented is interpreted in that frame. It's been shown that people will believe the most extraordinary things in order to adapt a fact pattern to fit what they already believed as a matter of faith. I guess I'm a hopeless idealist - I voted for Obama in the primaries, after all. I'll let you guys know if the new committee makes a public statement. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM Be very careful or Jimmy Hoffa, sorry , Jim Carroll will have his opponents"face down in the Mersey", time I was out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,the white rabbit Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM The more Breandain defends the legitimacy of the ard comhairle's dissolution the more transparant the whole process becomes. The members of the dissolved branch can apply to join the new set up branch. Then why dissolve the branch in the first place? Its clear that only some will be admitted to this bogus set up. Otherwise why bother? Its an old fashioned purge as was popular in stalinist times with the added complication that the elected committee of the dissolved branch carry the confidence of the vast majority as was evidenced at 3 general meetings. The members of the bogus ctte (and I mean bogus in the sense of its function not whether it meets the criteria to call itself a branch) would not get much respect never mind votes for the role they played in this sordid excercise in so called democracy, where you are tried and sentenced in your absence. I have'nt experienced anything so cynical for as long as I can remember. The democratic process Breandain defends is a mixture of stalinism and Alice in wonderland 'Sentence first trial later in your absence' |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Howard Jones Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:35 PM Breandan, are you saying that if the members re-affiliate with the new branch and then re-elect the "old committee" members to the "new committee", then CEE Head Office would be perfectly happy with that? Call ME cynical, but I think not. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:35 PM "There is nothing whatsoever preventing all such members from immediately joining the new branch and electing whomever they want." Then they can build new €multi-million premises, get expelled and so ad-infinitum. Nothing wrong with Cohaltas as an idea - in practice it's a beurocratic nightmare (as Breandan Breathnach once remarked, an organisation to which a beheading wouldn't go amiss). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,fursey Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM News stations and websites are reporting that Bertie Ahern,the Taoiseach (Prime Minister)of Ireland has today announced that he will be "stepping down" next month....The usual cliches abound... "for the good of the party", "in the interests of stability", "to avoid further rancour" ...etc are typical of the reasons cited for the Fianna Fail leaders resignation. Leaving aside the fact that the Taoiseach's resignation comes in the midst of his appearances in front of the ongoing tribunal of inquiry regarding corruption in high places, one wonders if the Ardstiurthoir of Comhaltas has himself made provisions for the transfer of power within his own organisation on his eventual retirement? How old is the Senator now? Certainly he's above the age when he'd be long retired if he was a civil servant or a teacher? What will his legacy be? When will he follow the example of his party leader and cash in his chips? I reckon the clash over Clasach will be as nothing compared to the inevitable scramble for position, power and privilege that will occur when, perish the thought, the Senator finally decides to ramble back to retirement in Cashel. Come to think of it, perhaps that's exactly what's going on right now with the jockeying and spinning that surrounds this particular power struggle in Clontarf. Is it a precursor to an even greater power struggle to come -one for the control of Comhaltas? Are some of the main players in Monkstown even now staking out their claims to be the next Ardstiurthoir? One glance at the bastion of cutting edge commentary on all things Gaelic and pure in Irish music that is "Treoir", the quarterly printed publication of Comhaltas, will confirm that it appears to be still very much an "uno duce, una voce" scenario in the higher echelons of CCE. Smooth transition of power is the mark of the clever, caring and conscientious leader. Who, one wonders, is "the annointed one" in CCE now that the Senator is over the age of the pension. Hardly one of those who is rumoured to be at the forefront of the smash (the branch) and grab (the property)attempt in Clontarf, And now, in the spirit of levity and good humour that has marked this debate from the outset I have compiled a quiz. A prize of the entire Comhaltas CD output to the person who can answer the following. What's the most numbers of photographs of Labhras O Murchu to appear in one issue of Treoir? What do the Dear Leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung and Senator Labras O Murchu have in common? (Answer a,b,c in order of preference) a. A devotion to openess, transparency and clarity in all public dealings. b. A mutual love of B/C box playing c. The same hairdresser. d. One is supreme leader for life of a ruthless, stalinist-type organisation while the other..... I'll get my (green) jacket. Has "democracy comhaltas style" driven a |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:29 PM Frances, if there's anything that I can clear up for you, I'd be happy to help. But most who know me wouldn't describe me as "cynical." |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Frances Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM Breandan is busy spinning - like the bureaucracy in the HSE - full of contradictions and misinformation. And every bit as cynical as them. Keep at it Breandan - your posts don't intend to answer the questions ,u do just as your paymasters require u to. Clontarf members are rightly outraged about the treatment they have received from CCE HQ - a national organization claiming to represent TRADITIONAL IRISH MUSIC - an organization that receives substantial public money. Now that Bertie has gone it might give more people the confidence to get rid of labhras and reclaim the organization for the membership. The expulsion of the Clontarf branch is shameful and should be rescinded immediately. They have a more legitimate place in CCE than Labhras and his followers. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM The branch committee has been dissolved - individual members of the Clontarf branch have emphatically *NOT* been expelled from Comhaltas. Everything possible is being done to make sure that members of the branch have the full privileges as members of Comhaltas that they had before, whether they choose to re-affiliate or not. There is nothing whatsoever preventing all such members from immediately joining the new branch and electing whomever they want. I'm not sure of the exact by-laws of the branch concerning the recall of officers or the calling of elections, but whatever procedure that is in place can be used. Actually, from the point of view of Comhaltas and the Ardchomhairle, now that funding has been secured for the theatre and the construction is back on track, everyone joining the new branch would be the best possible outcome. And if they want to elect the committee again, that's fine too. This wasn't a problem with the branch's *existence*, obviously -- everyone thinks that Clontarf has done a fabulous job as a branch over more than 40 years of affiliation. The contention was around the financial management of one very high-profile project by one particular committee. Now that the project is back on track, I'm positive that any duly elected committee of the Clontarf branch would be more than welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Howard Jones Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM Everything seems to refer to the branch having been dissolved. Have the individual members of the old Clontarf committee, or the ordinary branch members, been expelled from membership of CEE? If not, what's to stop them all joining the new branch, calling for new elections, and re-electing them to the new committee? As a complete outsider, I am watching all this with fascination. So unlike the home life of our dear EFDSS. I can't imagine anything like Clasac ever getting built here in England. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:37 PM Yes, the branch was notified in writing and given the chance to present their case. They were also required to convene a general meeting of the membership during this time, which they did not do. Representatives of the Ardchomhairle attended other meetings that were called before and after the notice to listen to the branch's concerns, and the materials prepared by the branch were read. Some of the requested documentation concerning the VAT refund was not provided by the branch despite being requested in writing. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the defending side is not generally in the room during the discussion itself, which lasted 8 hours and was fully attended by the 31 members of the council. Irish music is not organised to the extent that US labour is, so there isn't the equivalent to the NLRB. Since we're talking about a private non-profit membership organisation, the only (and therefore worst) penalty that can be imposed is expulsion from the organisation. It is a penalty of last-resort, used just a couple of times in the 50+-year history of the organisation, and is imposed only after a period of more amicable discussion has broken down. In this case, over a long period of time the Clasac committee ran with the project while not taking the advice of the Ardchomhairle and trustees of Comhaltas. While branches are largely self-governing, they are still under the jurisdiction of the central council when it comes to money. (One wonders, actually, why it is that if Comhaltas is so terrible why the ex-committee is trying so hard to get back in, and to agree (again) to abide by the rules and procedures of Comhaltas.) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick 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? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM Maggie, that's the right page, just keep scrolling down. http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/comhaltas_constitution_bunreacht/ The reason it's marked "for reference only" and so forth is because I can't swear that it includes all changes that have been made at annual congress and so forth -- but it's correct as far as I know. As far as appeals, the Ardchomhairle is the highest level of government in Comhaltas, so any appeal would be from a lower level up *to* that body. Since it was the elected governing council itself that made the ruling on dissolution, there are no further appeals possible. Like a case that was decided by the US Supreme Court - it could be sent back down to an appellate level by the high court (just as the Ardchomhairle could delegate to a provincial council if it wished), but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, that's it. Both in procedure and in hierarchy, this structure is extremely similar to many other membership-based organisations, including professional associations, unions, international standards bodies, political parties and so forth. And as Mick says, it's very common for the democratic links between levels (the delegates) to be ignored until there's a problem, at which point suddenly everyone wants to question the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:34 AM Thanks Observer, I have tried there before. Despite it saying "AN BUNREACHT....This online document is a copy of the English version of the Bunreacht (Constitution) of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, and is provided for reference only" the only information it seems to access is how to pronounce 'bunreacht'! Breandan, I'm sure as webmaster that you can help with this - and, regardless, I'd very much appreciate a response to my question above (1st April 8.09) about your statement "the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle" Thanks Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Observer Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:20 AM You'll find it at http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/comhaltas_constitution_bunreacht/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:51 AM Where can we see a copy of this Constitution? Surely it's available for public viewing. How does one get to read it? And if it's not accessible, why not? If this info is given above, I've managed to miss it though I briefly reread the thread, and did word-searches for Constitution, copy, and Bunreacht. Nothing on the website either. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:58 AM "I believe that there has not been the slightest hint of impropriety or corruption with respect to those funds on either side" We have no way of knowing if that is the case - it's all been done behind closed doors. Why do the terms 'kangaroo court', summary justice' and 'self- interest' keep springing to mind? As you say, you weren't in West London - that was done behind closed doors as well. If it had been an employer in the work-place behaving like this, he would pretty soon find himself before a tribunal facing a charge of wrongful dismissal - is there anybody here who believes that 'justice has been seen to be done' - apart from Breandán and ard mhacha, that is? The fact that there is no recourse to appeal flies in the face of natural justice- feudal or what? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM Hello Breandan, I am baffled by your statement here (1st April) to Jim i.e. "the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle". Is not 'ardchomhairle' the Central Executive Committee? Who else would the the branch wish to appeal to other than those who have ejected it, the governing body of CCE? Have I got something wrong? Please explain. If, as you say - and I have reason to believe - that there is provision in the Bunreacht to appeal to the ardchomhairle, then the branch should know about it, and be allowed time to act on it. Their website states that they were given no right of appeal. Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM 2014 - the millennial anniversary of the original Battle of Clontarf. - How appropriate. While a rule change looks as if it would be a good idea, one is not required to resolve this controversy. What is needed is some generosity on the part of the Ard Comhairle to bring about a situation where the former Brnach members are no longer disenfranchised and control of Classach ie returned to a set of represntatives who are acceptable to those members. Anything else is a denial of democracy, no matter what the rules say. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM WHY do they only allow changes to be proposed every six years? That sounds draconian. What's the reason for not allowing this safeguard annually? Oh, wait, I know... Because the Constitution says so. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,knight_high Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:47 PM Regarding amendments to the Constitution if you want to submit an amendment you better hurry. See this rule _____________________ 10 Proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall be put before Congress in 1996 and at six yearly intervals thereafter. ______________________________ I make that 2008. If not then the next opportunity is 2014!! Most Co. AGM'S are over by now. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:07 PM Knight: You are correct - the county board also has the right to dissolve a branch. If that decision is appealed, it goes to the Provincial Council. Though it is not explicitly specified, an appeal from that body would presumably go to the Ardchomhairle. However, no matter the powers explicitly enumerated to the County Board, I believe that the quote I mentioned (explicitly giving the Ardchomhairle jurisdiction over "all matters of discipline") is pretty unambiguous - the Ardchomhairle, as the highest body, definitely has the right to take that step. Regarding natural justice, as it happens, I believe that all branch members have been notified about the new branch being formed, and of the opportunity to participate. I wouldn't personally be at all averse to the new branch deciding to hold special elections, just to enhance the legitimacy of the new group. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,knight_high Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:51 PM Ah Breandán please!!! You quote one rule and conveniently avoid another - exactly as I said in my previous post You posted this: _____________________ "The CEC (ardchomhairle) shall be the supreme governing body of An Comhaltas from Annual Congress to Annual Congress and the sole and final authority to interpret the Rules and Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall extend over the whole Organisation in all matters of discipline as well as those that pertain to funds, investments and property of An Comhaltas. It shall carry out the proper exercise of this jurisdiction through its Trustees." _____________________ And ignored this: ________________________ 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 ___________ At no stage is it mentioned in the Bunreacht that any other body can suspend or dissolve a branch. I assume it would be in the interests of natural justice to give the (ex)membership of the branch proper notice to reestablish a(the) branch in the Clontarf area and give those hardworking parents, musicians and all involved, a chance to elect the committe to represent them. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:18 PM Aye Frances I could write a book on the happenings up here in God`s country, so I am not unduly put out by the goings on in Clontarf. I still say Brendan has presented his case very well, the original board must take the blame for the financial blunders, well that is what they look like to me, going in over their heads by the sound of it, so you let them continue on their merry way?, I don`t think so. I would be pleased to hear some of the old branch come on hear and try and explain the reason why. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:34 PM On the question of the Ombudsman, the Comhaltas is a private organisation and doen not come in the remit of the Ombudsman, who is charged with investigation of complaints from members of the public into Public Service organisations. I'm sure there are many figures from within the traditional music community who would be able to act as an arbitrator in seeking to resolve the dispute if the Árd Comhairle were prepared to go down that road. However they seem to be so convinced that their actions were correct that I think it is unlikely they would be preared to do so. I'm glad to see that Breandán acknowledges that there is no implications of financial improprietry on either side. However the wording of the Comhaltas statement is such that it could be interpreted as implying that there were. I think it would be useful for the Ard comhairle to clarify their position on this. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:08 PM Representatives to the ardchomhairle are elected in the usual way, yes, with a nomination, a second and a vote. And as I've said, I would invite anyone with a suggested amendment to make to the Comhaltas constitution to bring it before the annual congress, when representatives from all branches can present and vote on such amendments. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:02 PM Big Mick - You have a very good point about the democratic process. But I think the real point is that the core structure of the rules needs to be changed so that NO governing body has such absolute power. A final authority that allows no redress is too out of balance. The high council may have been democratically elected by the grass-roots members (or maybe not - I'm not sure how the selection process is actually structured) BUT once in power the committee can then do what it likes. I think that power needs some limitation. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:59 PM Jim, as I said, the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle. However, as you say, there is a huge impetus to make sure that justice is done, and the ardchomhairle recognised in their statement that the members of the branch had not had a chance to exercise their constitutional powers of voting. According to the ardchomhairle statement, it is because the Clontarf committee did not convene meetings, while according to the Clontarf committee, it is because the ardchomhairle ignored them. Either way, there are two sides here that need, somehow, to be brought together. I would personally support bringing some members from the old committee into the new one, and to quickly constitute the Clasac theatre's board with the number of members from Clontarf that were tentatively agreed at the time. This outcome is not outside the realm of possibility, I'm told, and would probably ease the tensions a bit. Anyway, while there are large sums of money involved here, I believe that there has not been the slightest hint of impropriety or corruption with respect to those funds on either side. The issue is around management of the construction project, which is a local issue. I would think it unlikely, therefore, that this will turn into a legal case, since the proper ownership of the building and the use of the grant money has been stipulated by both sides. What I do hope will happen, though, is that a bridge can be constructed between the divided members of the Clontarf branch. That's what would be best both for the musicians and students involved, and for the reputation of the branch and for Comhaltas generally. (As an aside: as I heard the story, the West London imbroglio was about statements made in the press by the branch, not the Pearse campaign itself. But I definitely wasn't there, nor do I know much about it. Most organisations are pretty sensitive when it comes to public statements made by local units that are critical of the parent, including trade unions, professional associations and so forth. But like I said, I wasn't there.) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Frances Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:43 PM I find the response of Ard Mhaca to the gross injustice suffered by the Clontarf branch is patronising to say the least. If you have any association with Ard Mhaca as your web name suggests you should know what it feels like to be kicked around, as the nationalist people of Ard Mhacha have been in the past. Well that's exactly what has happened to the Clontarf Branch - an injustice is an injustice wherever it occurs. It would appear that some people's opinions on the Clontarf dissolution are coloured by Labhras' nationalist credentials, right wing as they are. While this should not be of any importance in this discussion I believe it does influence some contributors. I do not remember Labhras speaking out when released republican prisoners were being hunted down and extradited like animals across the border as occurred on numerous occasions despite the widespread knowledge that prisoners were being brutally mistreated in the north. Times may have changed but injustice whatever its source has not, and it should be rejected by all decent minded people. A kangaroo court is a kangaroo court whosoever administers it. Yes, we can all enjoy our tunes but let us not patronize or obscure what has happened in relation to the dissolution of Clontarf Comhaltas. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM Simple question Breandán- does the Clontarf branch have a right to appeal the expulsion decision (decided on in camera)? If it does, what is it - if it doesn't, why not? There certainly was no such right in West London - but as somebody said, that was a long time ago. When the West London Branch was expelled it was a (crude but) simple case of them refusing to have O'Murchú's politics thrust down their throats - never any pretence that it was ever anything else. Here is somewhat different, with large sums of money and property involved. In the present climate here in Ireland, of corruption tribunals which go right to the top of the pile, is it not in the interest of CCE that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, especially when much of the money in question comes out of the public purse? So far, the whole affair has been conducted with the secrecy of a Freemason's Lodge, which indicates that the leadership appears to believe that they are not answerable to the membership on such an important decision as a branch expulsion (or maybe they feel that the subject isn't so important!!!. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM PJ, I would say that I am more in your court than not, but are not the members of the Ardchomhairle not elected from the branches by popular vote? And are they not accountable back to their members for the decisions they make? One of the things that drives me nuts in democratic processes is when folks don't take an interest in, or take seriously the elections for delegates to governing bodies, and then when that body acts on its constitutional duties, they cry about returning the organization to the members. This is a generic gripe, because I have seen it in many venues. Seems like it fits here. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,PJ Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:21 PM >these procedures were legal according to the Comhaltas constitution. I don't doubt that the procedures were legal. But legality does not mean justice. It simply means there's no law against it. That doesn't make it right. Constitutional? You can bet your bloody boots they were constitutional. "The CEC (ardchomhairle) shall be the supreme governing body of An Comhaltas from Annual Congress to Annual Congress and the sole and final authority to interpret the Rules and Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall extend over the whole Organisation." No kidding. I do doubt that they were democratic by any definition of the word except the one Comhaltas chooses to put on it. Democratic means by the will of the majority. "Does not specify an appeal procedure" is a fancy way of saying that there isn't one. That last CCE post boils down to "We can because we say we can." Of course it's legal. The whole point is that they can do something like this and GET AWAY WITH IT. What this shows is that it's time to make the balance of power more fair. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,fursey Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM Hearty congratulations to Senator O' Murchu on his astounding success in thoroughly alienating some of the most significant families involved in music in Dublin - the O'Brien's,O'Connnors, Kelly's, Glackin's, Mulligan's.... The line up for the Concert in The Teachers Club, Parnell Sq, Dublin on Friday next to support the(wrongfully dissolved) Clontarf Branch includes musicians from these legendary northside Dublin families along with many other fine performers. By their friends shall ye know them! |
| Share Thread: |
