Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:49 PM

To answer your question, Bonnie, at present the members of the dissolved branch are unafilliated members of Comhaltas. The Dublin County Board has indicated that all such members will be granted full Comhaltas membership benefits, for example with regard to Fleadh entries. Any who wish to remain affiliated with Comhaltas at the conclusion of the membership year in October will of course be very welcome in the new branch and its activities.

And PJ, when I referred to the committee spending too much time on the letterhead, I was referring to the dissolved branch committee. The letterhead looks very nice now, but I would have preferred that they spent some time beginning in February 2007 making sure that they could finish the building.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM

I don't like to wander too much into the land of legalese, but there are a couple of inaccuracies that I should point out in recent posts. The upshot being that while I don't personally like the fact that the branch was dissolved, the procedures followed were constitutional and democratic.

Firstly, Knight, I'm not sure where you got that particular procedure, but it certainly isn't found in the Comhaltas constitution (Bunreacht). That document actually doesn't provide any guidance at all as to what happens to a branch after it has been dissolved. And beyond providing for an appeal from the County to Provincial level, it also does not specify an appeal procedure for a dissolved branch. It does, however, make it clear that the high council (the ardchomhairle) is responsible for and has jurisdiction over the entire organisation in disciplinary matters. This is reasonable: the council is composed of 31 elected voluntary officers who are accountable to their home districts.

The relevant bit of the constitution is here:

"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."

I personally would be happy to amend these rules to require that a) the branch is directly represented in the room during the discussion, and b) that there would be the provision for a separate grievance council responsible for resolving disputes, to which the dissolution could be appealed. However, those facilities are not in place in the constitution at the moment. I invite anyone interested to submit these amendments at the next Annual Congress, composed of representatives from all branches and councils.

Also, the new branch executive was properly convened according to the constitution, and has been accepted as such by the Dublin County Board. The relevant bit for the creation of a branch is here:

"A Branch of An Comhaltas may be established anywhere, provided that:
(a) Not less than five persons inform the County Board, or Provincial Council where no County Board exists, of their intention to establish a Branch, to support the Aims and Objects of An Comhaltas and abide by its Rules and Constitution;
(b) The necessary sanction for the establishment of a Branch has been obtained from the County Board or the Provincial Council as the case may be."

So while things have certainly not turned out the way I would have wanted things to happen, these procedures were legal according to the Comhaltas constitution. I'm still hoping for another resolution, one that perhaps involves some members of the former committee. This schism in Clontarf isn't good for either the branch nor the organisation, and I'd like to see a way to resolve things amicably.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,goofy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 12:05 PM

Q

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:10 AM

Proper procedure was not followed in dissolving the Clontarf Branch. This is very obvious when we read all the correspondence. Brendán of course is very clear and reasonable in the arguements and comments he makes - except when he conveniently overlooks some vital points.

There is no provision in the Bunreacht to dissolve a committee.
The branch can only be dissolved by the County committee of C.C.E.

Even IF the Branch HAD been dissolved according to the rules, then the next step , I presume would be to:
1. Inform all previous existing members , giving proper notice (21 days), of a meeting to establish a new branch.
2. At that meeting, hold proper elections to all posts , i.e. Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Delegates to Co. Board
3. A full report of the meeting tent forward to the next level, i.e Co. Board
It is my contention that if points 1 and 2 had not been followed then the new Committee is illegally constituted and of course by extension, the Branch.
A starting point to resolve this very serious situation is to reinstate the Branch.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:53 AM

If the local executive committee *is* the branch, then what are all the people who paid dues to belong to it?

Who are all the mammies and daddies out there who bought the raffle tickets, sold the concert tickets, gave of their time and energies for free that Fursey speaks of?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:44 AM

Breandan, what are you telling us now that you haven't already said before?   

- "The only pressure available to the centralised elected committee is to exclude the local committee from the organisation". In other words, head office is allowed to kick the branch committee out and there's nothing they can do about it.   Yes, we know that already.

- "There are no other options" speaks for itself. But there should be. Having no checks and balances in an organisation allows for misuse of power.

- "There is no way to get a local committee to do the right thing". So head office gets to decide what the right thing is and apply force/expulsion if they don't get it.

- "I think the committee spent a little too much time arguing over the precise shade of blue for the letterhead and a little less time than necessary trying to get the required funding in place."

Which committee is this referring to? Do you mean the head office one? Not spending enough time trying to get the required funding in place sounds serious enough to warrant more attention than half a sentence. If they didn't do this they are at least partly culpable.

Basically this is just a re-tread of everything we've already heard. So what's new?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:48 AM

Bonnie, sorry - I was posting in response to Sean's quote, and didn't see your post until after I posted. :-)

Anyway, I believe that the new committee is running classes and so forth - I wouldn't be surprised if they want to stay out of the political fray.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:44 AM

I really wasn't trying to selectively single it out, and my apologies if I misinterpreted your meaning out of context. It just seemed to make a straightforward statement, prompting a question any of us can ask off our own bats anyway. But it still needs answering.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:24 AM

Sean, in the structure of a member-based organisation, the local executive committee *is* the branch. And like most structures with substantial local autonomy, the only pressure available to the centralised elected committee is to exclude the local committee from the organisation. There are no other options. There is no way to get a local committee to do the right thing, other than by asking nicely, which the ardchomhairle has beeing trying to do for a very long time.

Much of the project has been managed quite well, though I think the committee spent a little too much time arguing over the precise shade of blue for the letterhead and a little less time than necessary trying to get the required funding in place.

And obviously there are no plans for Comhaltas to move staff from the Cultúrlann in Monkstown out to Clasaċ, which is a performance venue and teaching space. The building was already owned by Comhaltas - there would be no reason to dissolve the branch if headquarters inexplicably wanted to move.

(I also think it's a bit unfair to single out one of my sentences, out of the thousands of words written trying to explain this situation clearly. That sentence was written to distinguish, on a technical level, between the old and new committees.)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:23 AM

Uncharitable or not, I have wondered the same thing (my post 16 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM). I don't know enough about the brief of the ombudsman - who appears in fact to be an ombudswoman - but that recourse may only be applicable to government departments and local authorities; nor am I sure how complicated the political affiliations make things (i.e. does Fianna Fáil investigate Fianna Fáil?) but there must be some external arbitrator the branch can turn to. (European Court of Human Rights?)

It's not even a deadlock, either, it's a fait accompli from what I read, which can only mean taking firm legal action. Presumably the ex-branch is formulating some plan of defense, though I suppose it's hardly surprising that they prefer not to spill it to all and sundry on the net, hence their relative silence.   

Breandán wrote "...now that we've had the duelling press releases from Comhaltas and Clontarf [,] Perhaps the new committee will chime in with a third."

Good point. WHY DON'T THEY? As usual the silence is speaking louder than the words.

Don't know if this is relevant to this case or not but:

http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:27 AM

The coldest comment so far here remains: 'The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist.' Note that Comhaltas HQ has purged not just a few individuals, or a committee, but apparently a whole branch. I have yet to get up and view the building, but I understand that the Clasach Centre in Clontarf is substantially complete, and had there been serious local mismanagement, one would have expected simply a hole in the ground or just a few walls standing. I have been in Monkstown, and admit to harbouring a suspicion that HQ might like to get its hands on more salubrious premises, but no doubt this is entirely uncharitable. Having no connection or contact with the 'dissolved' people, I reiterate my suggestion that the dissolution of the Clontarf Branch should be reversed and an arbitrator brought in. Finally, whatever the outcome of the affair, I think the establishment in Comhaltas has received something of a shock, and may now feel that it has to be more transparent in its operations, particularly with regard to its finances and salaries paid to officials.

Sean Murphy
Irish Historical Mysteries http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,jimmartin81
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM

'Fergie', I put that link on the BBC Radio 2 'Folk & Acoustic' message board (as well as the CCE HQ one), but so far, no responses from readers/contributors!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Fergie
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:39 PM

Hi all,
I just received an email from a friend that is a member of the Clontarf branch, he tells me that there is a fundraiser for the "branch" in the Teachers Club in Dublin on Friday, he provided me with this link that announced the event and also explains their take on the matter (hope the link works)

http://www.cluaintarbh.net/

Fergus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM

Big Mick, I agree with all you say, I have listened, took part and enjoyed traditional song and music before Comhaltas came to the fore, and I hope to continue doing so well into the future. Thanks Gulliver.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

Well, I'm still here, though I wouldn't have a lot to add at the moment, now that we've had the duelling press releases from Comhaltas and Clontarf. Perhaps the new committee will chime in with a third. I'm very much interested, of course, in seeing how the new committee unites the branch, or tries to. Of course, my branch always seems to lose to Clontarf in the Grúpai Cheoil competitions at the Dublin Fleadh every year, so maybe I should welcome this turmoil ... or maybe now we'll come in 3rd. :-)

Anyway, no, I didn't speak to the Indo this week, and I'd say (having read the article) that they didn't do a huge amount of research. Quoting from press releases on either side is generally pretty bad journalistic practice, and I wouldn't want them taking Comhaltas' version as gospel any more than I'd want them taking Clontarf's. Journalism should be a bit more responsible than that. They're incorrect in stating that the dissolution was a decision of Senator Ó Murchú, and there are some other details wrong, but in general they seemed to just compare the two statements and write it up.

In particular, the annual accounts quote is a bit unfair. Comhaltas' accounts are published yearly at the Annual Congress and presented to representatives from every branch, county/region and province who cares to turn up. The accounts are not made public, though - very similar to other non-profit organisations such as Na Píobairí Uilleann. Ditto with staff salaries - these aren't generally a matter of public record in any other non-profit. (Yes, I know what Senator Ó Murchú makes, and no, I'm not telling you. :-) It's reasonable for the Director-General position of a major arts organisation, though, and I made a lot more than he does before I joined the staff of Comhaltas.)

Suffice to say that this sort of thing is under the administration of the Ardchomhairle, which is a group of 31 volunteers from around the world who are not paid for their service to Comhaltas. (Yes, I know they generally get some expenses paid for when they travel to the Fleadh Cheoil. And they'll get some tea when they're meeting at the Cultúrlann.) Money stuff and salary is generally controlled by the organisation's Treasurer, of course, and almost all expenditures (including salary checks) are double-signed by a member of staff and a member of the elected executive. Having been in lots of meetings with the Senator, I can assure you that he is extremely conscious of the government auditor, and all procedures on the money side are designed to bear scrutiny on whatever level, should it arise.

Anyway, in case anyone is feeling the need for some self-importance, I can report that when I was in Dublin this weekend I saw print-outs of this thread lying around Comhaltas Head Office. :-)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

I second that, ard mhacha. I'm not a member of CCE but have friends who are (all on the south side of the city, though). Some members in HQ may have shot themselves in the foot on this occasion, but that shouldn't negate the many good activities being carried out by the organisation.

IMHO, some of the contributions above have generated more heat than light, with plainly emotional but inaccurate statements, but I always found Breadán's contributions welcome (which doesn't mean I agree with everything he says!).

I suppose that for the foreseeable future, mirroring a famous split in the past, we're going to have a Clontarf (Official Branch) and Clontarf (Provisional Branch)?

Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM

Let me join in with those urging Breandan not to leave the discussion. He has stayed the right course with his message, done so with an even temper, and his posts have been valuable.

As to the flourishing trad arts community, independent of any organization ......... what did you expect? The trad arts in Ireland have survived immigration, starvation, and oppression from a determined aggressor. They are a part of Ireland's children, and her grandchildren abroad. No organization is bigger than the music, and thus it shall ever be.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM

Bonnie don`t get me wrong I am not backing anyone, when a barrage of one-sided criticism is directed at one person namely Brendan it make sense to hear the opposing view, I think Brendan has been clear and precise.
I would have no problem with everyone agreeing to vote on this, may it happen soon, but in the meantime the oul fiddles flutes pipes, and combs in paper continue to rattle out at my local Comhaltas.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:45 AM

I think this link bears an instant-replay:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bitter-row-erupts-over-funding-for-trad-

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,fursey
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:29 AM

Finally a response from Comhaltas HQ -even if it's a belated and mean-spirited one.

The local committee, we are told, was expected "through fundraising to make a substantial contribution". The Senator tells us that, "this never materialised."

Well, that's telling us! A lesson for all the mammies and daddies out there who bought the raffle tickets, sold the concert tickets, gave of their time and energies for free. It's a slap in the face for those, young and old, amateur and professional, who played, sang and dance at the many fundraising concerts to benefit Clasach, to those who paid as punters to raise €200,000 for the local committee. Just not good enough.... according to Labhrás.

Does'nt it just make you want to re-double your efforts for the "movement"?

And then we read that CCE tells the best selling newspaper in Ireland that they have not published accounts for the last few years (was that you too Breandán?). This from yesterday's Sunday Independent in an article headed "Bitter row erupts over funding for trad centre".

"Comhaltas Director General Labhras O Murchu has been criticised by some members of the music organisation for operating a "cult of secrecy" at Comhaltas, particularly in regards to its financial situation.

Comhaltas receives significant funding from the Government. In 2007 it received €6m for its capital development programme. The Sunday Independent asked for a copy of the annual accounts for the past couple of years but was told "there aren't any". The paper also asked for details into payment of salary of senior management, including Mr O Murchu, but no information was given".

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,dubsman
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:44 AM

Dr. Paisley's free soon!!!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:35 AM

>it's time to call in the ombudsman

Someone with NO political affiliations to any of the major parties, if this is possible.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:22 AM

I agree (again - gosh, that's twice!) with Ard Mhacha. Though my sympathies are with the branch and I remain highly critical of the actions taken by HQ, it is essential to have a sane voice from the opposition explaining things with clarity, patience, and tact, and this Breandán has done. If we are to stay fully informed in this debate - which is essential - it means that communication from both sides must be kept open. That's all the more important here because this is one of the most high-profile debates about this matter on the internet, and it gets prominent display in the search engines. The fact that Breandán has managed to bat for the Away team and keep our goodwill speaks volumes of credit for him. Interesting, though, that we seem to hear only ONE voice defending HQ's actions.

In fact this thread has stayed blessedly and remarkably flame-free (no small accomplishment such a volatile issue) so all its contributors should take a bow for intelligent discussion.

My own judgement has been clearly summed up by Sean Murphy, in particular that an independent arbitrator should intervene. When one side appears to have the power to do exactly as it pleases without due democratic process, it's time to call in the ombudsman.

Jim's right too - trad music is alive and flourishing in this country, independently of any organisation. For all its wonderful services, Comhaltas needs the musicians more than they need it. Time for Larry and Co to peek out of their ivory tower and listen to what the people are saying, which we can now do instantly and internationally via the internet. A wake-up call if ever there was one.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:53 AM

Thanks again Brendan you should go into politics , no sorry, from your so clear explanations of a sorry mess, and not an angry word or insult, you seem to be too honest for such a professon.
Brendan don`t leave this Thread your contribution has been valuable.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:28 AM

That seems to be it as far as Comhaltas is concerned:
Another expulsion; a newly appointed committee, an extremely reluctant, long-coming and unconvincing explanation, full of unsubstantiated accusations - no representation by the branch, no appeal - done and dusted!
Personally I'm grateful for Breandán's guidance through the tangled, murky world that is CCE politics, and his advice on which bits of the explanation to heed and which to take with a grain of salt - "That's not what they meant to say" !!!!!
I'm also grateful for - "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" whatever it meant.
Thanks too for Ard Mhaca's - 1979 was "a long time ago".
I have to say, if I had children I was wishing to introduce to Irish traditional music, I would keep them as far away as possible from all this; soon enough they would be introduced to the cynical and ruthless world of spin, opportunism and wheeler-dealing that seems to go with this side of the music.
Thankfully, we have a healthy scene here, with youngsters coming to the music for the love of it and in several cases, taking classes themselves - all without the aid of CCE and what seems to go with it.
I hope there is a good session in town tonight so I can get rid of this unpleasant taste in my mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM

Breandán,

While I have not agreed with everything you have said in your various posts on this matter, I think you have made an invaluable contribution to the debate and would think it would be a pity if you withdrew from this thread at this stage. You have a perspective which is, I think largely coloured by your involvement in Head Office, but you make your points well and articulately. It is a pity that HQ did not employ your talents in drafting the official statement, as I think you might have come up with a form of words that make more sense. You might even know the meaning of the words modus operandi and have used them, if at all, in a meaningful context.

That said I believe that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the running of the project that the Branch Mambership have been badly treated in this case, and the dissolution of the branch, as opposed to the Branch Committee was uncalled for. I am not familiar with the specific rules of Comhaltas and therefore don't know if dissolving the Committeee only was an option. In saying this I'm not necessarily accepting the premise that the running of the project warranted the dissolution of the committee either.

One final point on the Official statement - the statement that substantial fundraising from the Branch was not forthcoming is extremely dismissive of the massive fundraising efforts made by the Branch. While obviously EUR150,000 was a small amount in the context of the overall project cost, it is not an insignificant amount of money raised by a Branch of this size. I know you have acknowledged this fact in your earlier posts, but the statement fails to do so. I'm not sure what level of fundraising the Ardcomhairle would have conisdered subsantial, but the expectation of a much bigger sum of money seems a bit unreasonable to me.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM

Completion of my suggestions, sent inadvertently without final point:

As an independent observer and non-member of Comhaltas (but occasional tune player) I suggest the following steps: (1) The dissolution of Clontarf branch should be reversed. (2) An agreed arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the differences between the parties. (3) Following the adjudicator's report, Clontarf branch and HQ should agree a new committee to complete the Clasac project in line with recommendations (sensibly both parties should nominate at least a few new faces to minimise personal antipathies).

Sean Murphy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Frances
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:40 PM

Breandain

Well I'm sure Breandan you will have a jolly good relationship with the new imposed committee. I leave you to it.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:28 PM

Clontarf branch has now issued a reply to the Comhaltas HQ press release, downloadable at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm, and from which I take the liberty of quoting:

Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music.

Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs.

For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open.

At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us.

In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required.

(End quote)

As an independent observer and non-member of Comhaltas I suggest the following steps: (1) The dissolution of Clontarf branch should be reversed. (2) An agreed arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the differences between the parties. (3) Following the adjudicator's report, an

Sean Murphy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM

Between the revolt of the GDR, the earlier "ethnic cleansing" reference and so forth, I'm starting to think that, as someone with fairly progressive politics, I must have signed up for the wrong team ...

To clarify. I have not claimed to be completely disinterested - I work for Comhaltas, after all. However, I am posting on my own time and I am certainly not being paid nor asked to speak out. I merely saw a situation in which there are probably fewer than 10 people with a true sense of what's been happening over the last year. Since most of those people are on the former Craobh Chluain Tarbh committee and are now making lots and lots of anti-Comhaltas noise, it seemed useful for me to present some facts being omitted, and also correct some misapprehensions which they seem to have no problem in allowing. For example, members of the committee have stated several times that the theatre was always a Comhaltas building, on a Comhaltas site. But the rehetoric continues to revolve around the big meanies in "head office" stealing a building from the hard-working branch. That simply isn't true.

I have some serious misgivings about what has happened, and (as I have said) would criticise especially the communications between the Ardchomhairle, the Buncoiste and the Branch Executive and Branch Membership as areas of concern. I also think that there was a disconnect between the branch executive and the membership. I'm not personally sure why this was handled at Ardchomhairle level rather than within the Dublin County Board, which would have answered any potential issues around representation. I know that it was a difficult decision. I have friends in the branch; I also have friends on the Ardchomhairle. Labhrás Ó Murchú is my direct boss, but it doesn't mean that I support every decision he's ever made. I would personally vote for an amendment to the Bunreacht (the Comhaltas constitution) that allowed for an appeal or arbitration of dissolution. But this is an area in which thoughtful people can differ, and when tensions are high, it's hard to trust even eye-witness accounts.

For example, I heard the story of the EGM in quite a different way than kevink presents. But I wasn't there, and it's obvious that people can disagree, even when they were there. I'm a full-time student in Limerick at the moment, and don't have the full inside track on what happened, especially in February. However, being aware of the conflict over a period of a year, I can perfectly imagine the branch committee digging in their heels and leaving the County Board and the Ardchomhairle no choice when it came to getting contractors paid. I personally do not think that the former committee acted in the best interests of their branch or their parent organisation.

As I have said many times, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the hard work of the Clontarf branch members. They have built and maintained an outstanding branch organisation and accomplished some very difficult large-scale projects in the past. Anyone who thinks it's easy to organise a tour of high-quality Irish dance and music in China hasn't tried it. In this particular case, I think that many members have been given false or misleading information. That, along with our shared and very natural mistrust of centralised authority, has led to a schism which I desperately hope we can find a solution for.

If you're sick of hearing from me, I'm more than happy to leave it to an echo chamber of quotes from the Clontarf website. But with so few people involved, and so few of those online, it seemed to me helpful to chime in. I'm even naive enough to hope that I can continue my relationships with those in the branch.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:58 PM

Here is the Clontarf Branch response to the CCE statement, a fuller version of which can be found here http://www.cluaintarbh.net/

Statement of Clontarf branch of Comhaltas 29 March 2008

Clontarf branch of Comhaltas rejects outright the version of events/statement issued yesterday by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. The statement is as mischievous as it is inaccurate and represents one more attempt by Comhaltas HQ to muddy the waters to cover up their own improper actions in dissolving the Branch and in taking over our CLASAC centre project.

Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music.

Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs.

For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open.

At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us.

In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required.

In making key decisions against the interests of the branch, Comhaltas HQ withheld vital information from the Central Executive Council, they refused to allow the branch make their case directly and they refused the branch any avenue of appeal. Furthermore, all requests by the branch to meet representatives of HQ to try and resolve the difficulties were rejected.

Branch members are incensed by their treatment and what they see as bullying and intimidatory tactics by HQ and by the continual distortion of the facts by them, including the latest press statement. At the most recent general meeting of the branch on 19 March the members unanimously endorsed the actions of the Branch executive committee and rejected the dissolution.

The branch activities will continue as normal, including the very significant teaching programme for children. Many messages of support have been received from Comhaltas branches at home and abroad and from the wider traditional music community

The Branch demands to be reinstated and the return of the Clasac project. Justice and fair play demand nothing less.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,kevink
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM

Over the last few days, the position of Breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as both acting out of pure motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office.

AN ECHO FROM HISTORY ?
In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR courageously commented on the events and the official version of same through the poem below,

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the officially recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch.

Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre?

In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time.

Despite the thousands of words written by Breandain on this and other sites he has not explained why it was necessary to dissolve (collectively punish) the whole branch and that is the most serious issue for all members of CCE

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,kevink
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

Over the last few days, the position of breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as acting out of purely selfless motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office.

AN ECHO FROM HISTORY?
In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily crushed in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR, courageously commented on the events and the 'official' version of same through the poem below,

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte, many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the 'officially' recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch.
Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre?
In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time.
The necessity and methods used for the dissolution of the branch is still not being explained despite all the thousands of words expended on this site and others by Breandain and this to me is the most important issue facing all members of CCE

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:53 AM

Interesting development, I see they (Clontarf CCE) are holding a gala concert shortly, interesting line-up! (see their website)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:50 AM

Declan, I don't mind at all answering the questions that you raise:

1. "Who was actually running the project?"

Clasaċ is a Comhaltas project, but one initiated and run by the branch. The branch took responsibility for the running of the construction project, initial marketing of the centre, getting a management board in place, etc. They accomplished this through the working of a sub-committee. One member of this committee also worked in Comhaltas head office, mostly on unrelated projects, and in fact he also worked extremely hard on Clasaċ day-to-day. (Full disclosure: he's a friend of mine.) However, he was not in any of the committee executive positions (chairman, secretary or treasurer). Bills were paid through Comhaltas because the government grant was subvented through Comhaltas' grant-aid. Comhaltas would pay the bill (including VAT), get appropriate certifications and submit the invoice to Government, who provided reimbursement.

2. "Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them?"

Because VAT was already being reimbursed by one Government department (Arts/Tourism), it was completely inappropriate for the branch to independently apply for reimbursement of the same money through another department (Revenue). When the branch made this application using a newly-registered non-Comhaltas VAT number, the Revenue returned the money (we're not sure why - there's a Revenue investigation under way.) Once this was learned, the Department of Sport/Tourism directed Comhaltas to recover this money from the branch and forward it back to the department to avoid double-funding. Comhaltas complied with the government directive by requesting the money back from the branch, which refused. This refusal to recognise the authority of the Ardchomhairle was deemed a serious matter. The money was eventually returned to Revenue directly, but this decision was made independently by the branch, again not respecting the directive of Arts/Tourism.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee?

The loan was presented in Dec 2007, at least 10 months after the need became obvious. The branch should have known that there was no way to "ring-fence" a loan around the Clasaċ building itself; the terms of the original grant-aid required that if the centre failed the Department of Arts/Tourism would be the first to be paid back. The bank would not have allowed itself to be the "second in line" in a default scenario, and the bank would insist on other Comhaltas assets being in play. The Comhaltas trustees couldn't have signed such an agreement without having direct control over how the money was being spent and still meet their responsibilities. If the branch had done their research (and had talked to the trustees at one of the many opportunities over the year), they would have known that such a loan request, brought by the branch at the 11th hour, would be rejected.

(5.) "We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ."

The new committee was not "chosen by HQ". When the original committee was dissolved as a last-resort measure, some more experienced hands within the branch organised themselves into a committee and applied for membership to the Dublin County Board as a branch of Comhaltas. This new committee has committed to holding a number of open meetings with the full membership in the coming months. The former committee was the one acting in a non-democratic way by not allowing the membership of Clontarf to meet and discuss these issues in a public way, at least not until the very last minute when things were already in crisis. One reason that the committee was dissolved, in fact, is that they failed to hold meetings in a timely manner involving the full membership of the branch. Non-payment of vendors, besides being an example of extremely poor management, was also deemed to put Comhaltas in disrepute.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:39 AM

What-The-Others-Are-Saying dept:

http://dublinopinion.com/2008/03/25/lament-for-the-clontarf-branch-slow-air/

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=32745

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bitter-row-erupts-over-funding-for-trad-


Note that these are Irish websites, two blogs and a news report from The Independent.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:06 AM

The official statement (as is the often the way with these things raises more questions for me than it answers. Some of the questions that come to mind are:

1. Who was actually running the project? We are told that the Classac committee was a sub-committee of the Cluain Tarbh Branch, but Diarmuid (who Breandán identifies as the Branch Secretary) states that the Project Manager was in Head Office (a statement which has not been contested) and the statement indicates that the bills were being paid from CCE HQ. It would seem that the project was not as far removed from HQ as we are being led to believe.

2. Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them? The statement seems to concur with the view that the refund wasn't properly payable in this case. The money was therefore the property of the exchequer, and ultimately the Irish taxpayer. This being the case we can only assume that the money would have gone back to Revenue in any event. While this is being played down at the moment, it would appear to me that the refund of the money directly to Revenue was the action that precipatated the dissolution of the Branch.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee? We are told there were technical reasons why the trustees felt unable to guarantee the loan and that they were exercising their fiduciary duties to protect other Comhaltas property. But statements from the branch on their website indicate that the loan was ringfenced to Classac - was this not the case?

Democracy is about people having the right to choose those who represent them. We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ. I'd hate to live in a "Democracy" run by Comhaltas HQ.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM

Thanks Maggie, for posting more of the "historical details". I for one think that in this case history is very relevent in this situation. If we don't study/examine history we are doomed to repeat it & it seems as if it's being repeated here.
Bad blood over musical issues/differences is bad enough but bad blood over political/contractual issues & differences is unexceptable. It seems that the 1979 "conflict" was cause for some bloody damage, it should've been a high priority for all involved, espically on the side of HQ that the same mistakes weren't repeated. But there's bad blood now & that's gonna have a negitive effect throughtout CCE. It seems to late for that now. The loans are in place, the project is resumed, now there seems to be blame enough to drown the spirit of the whole org in. Like a pebble with it's ripple effect in a pond, this will be a bone of contention for yrs to come just as the 1979 incident is now resurfacing again 30 yrs later. Does any one wish to relive this one 30 yrs down the line? Not knowing any of the envolved, past or present & being far away from any closely envolved it seems to me that for the good of everyone a sacrificial lamb might be offered up as a one time special for this evenings menue. Cut the head off the figurehead, (you'll get by without the head but can you survive without the heart?) isn't that where the buck stops anyway, at the head? Give him up if that'll put an end to bad blood & if that's what it takes to heal the new & old wounds. It certinlly seems that if he's not wholly responsible for poor choices in how to have handled this in a proper way he's at the least got his hand up far enough to be held more responsible that anyone else now as well as the last lasting distasteful issue & he's at the very least played an important part in both. His head seems to be the mostly likely way to start repairing the damage that's already been caused.

I hope that this does not get me expelled, I just renewed my membership after a 25 yr lapse, I won't live long enough to rejoin again.
Only the thoughts of one. Don't shoot the messenger just cause the message sucks.

Good Luck to all

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:16 PM

Hello everyone

I will try keep this bit to a minimum, as current issues are obviously more pressing, but the 1979 West London case has been referred to a few times of late. I must say that ard mhacha's comment that 1979 was a long time ago, in the context of what happened to many families and a huge social group, was thoughtless & hurtful.
I'd like to straighten up the record in relation to this 'historical' but sadly now familiar expulsion issue. It was not a case of the West London committee disagreeing with Larry's politics (many would have agreed with his causes); the committee protested that it was against the constitution of CCE to use his position to attempt to raise funds for political reasons. He was fund-raising (via CCE) for the Padraig Pearse Centenary celebrations – a fine thing to do as Chairman (as he then was) of the Padraig Pearse Commemoration committee, but not something that should have been foist on all branches of CCE, in our opinion. The dispute became a matter of public discussion and it's this that became the reason for our expulsion. We had apparently brought the organisation into disrepute via the public discussion. You need to remember that 1979 hosted a different climate, and it was important – even to the most Republican of CCE committee members in London – that the constitution points (i.e. non-religious, non-political etc) – were upheld. People were working hard to promote Irish Music in England (West London had succeeded in producing a BBC documentary about the branch), and there were numerous non-Irish committee members.
Anyway, the process adopted by the CCE Executive at the time perfectly mirrors the current solution. People who could not countenance life with out Comhaltas, or those who did not understand the subtleties of the argument – or those who just agreed with Larry's actions and did not care about the constitution – were invited to form a new committee. It worked. I estimate that 10-15% of the old membership formed the new West London CCE, which celebrated it's "50th" anniversary in 2007 (with no mention of the schism in 1979 as far as I can tell). The whole thing at the time was just incredibly sad. There were people in the middle of the whole scenario who just did not know where to go anymore. Thankfully most of us re-grouped, and that set-up is still going strong – at The Kilkenny, Tooting, every Tuesday.

To more salient issues, and the statement issued by HQ….I think that it's important for as many people as possible to view the documents on http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ My 'take' on these complex issues around ownership/loans is that – in taking possession of the building, and subsequently asking the branch to secure the loans required for completion of works – there was an impossible demand situation. How could the branch possibly be expected to secure a loan of this size with no security? They'd have to put up their homes.
The documents are lengthy, but clear. The recent statement implies that HQ borrowed 2 million euros at end of December 2007, to bail out this irresponsible branch. Why, therefore, do I see documentation of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the branch on 8th January 2008, stating "We are very concerned to ensure bank funding is put in place immediately to complete the project" and pleading their case for this not being their responsibility? And there is another letter, dated 28th January, with similar concerns about payment of contractors.

This is only one aspect of a case, the whole of which we can't hope to fully comprehend. But it's an aspect that has been very neatly side-stepped in the statement from HQ (above). Unsurprisingly, I must agree with Sean Murphy that the statement is a "rather good example of PR spin".
Please research it for yourselves.
Responses from the branch members (ex or current!) would also be most welcome.

Maggie

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:44 PM

And have they? Problems costing 2 million? HOW?

And how happy are the ordinary members with the new committee? Does anyone even know?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:08 PM

Yes, even for the very interested who take the trouble to read them, the Clontarf Branch documents accessible at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm can appear 'confusing' because they contain so much detail. However, having matched the Comhaltas official press release with said documents, I would venture the following thoughts on the charges against the Clontarf Branch:

Members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments: how far short was the Branch in the matter of funds raised?

Irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros: was not HQ aware in good time that an additional bank loan would have to be obtained, and did not delay in finalising this precipitate a funding crisis?

Took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction: was the branch not legally obliged to sort out the VAT issue without delay?

Generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ: the online documents show the branch holding general meetings, arguing their case with HQ and pleading to be heard, but ultimately being arbitrarily dissolved.

In general, the Comhaltas press release is a rather good example of PR spin, somehow contriving to give the impression that the problems with the Clasac project are all the fault of the former Clontarf branch, and that HQ and a more sensible local committee have now set matters right.

Sean Murphy
Irish Historical Mysteries http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: MARINER
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:13 PM

Maybe I got this wrong Breandán ,but are you saying that dissolving a committee at the stroke of a pen from onhigh is democratic??

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM

"That's not what they meant to say"
For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it!
"That statement could well (and should) have said, "
For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it!
Come on Breandán - decide which hymn book you're singing from and get the words right.
Everything that has happened regarding Clontarf is completely in keeping with what has happened in the past.
Democracy to Comhaltas appears to be what Western civilisation was to Ghandi - a good idea - no more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM

Yeah, I argued about that last bit - the statement sounds as if the Ardchomhairle deprived people of rights. That's not what they meant to say - it's supposed to be an indication that the former branch committee deprived their own members of the right to discuss and debate the issues around the financial mismanagement. And that the Ardchomhairle will be hoping to find a way to address that.

That's what I find a little odd about this whole argument, actually - what's happened is that a committee of a few people who didn't do a very good job managing a flagship project has been replaced by another committee of people who have vastly more experience with the whole issue, and the project is back on track. And I think you know that's what I meant, Jim - that statement could well (and should) have said, "The former Clontarf committee has been dissolved, and so does not currently represent the branch membership."

From the point of those here who care about process and democracy, that's a very good thing.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Learaí na Láibe
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 07:42 AM

Quote from statement of the Ardchomhairle:

"However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review."

Are they thus acknowledging that their dissolution of the branch was not carried out correctly.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter I find the relative silence of Comhaltas members from Ireland very strange. This is the only forum that seems to have any prolonged discussion on the subject, AFAIK - I'm open to correction. None of the popular Irish forums seem to show any interest. Is the Comhaltas 'culture' hostile to people who have outspoken views.

Beware the evil Meeja (media)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 06:59 AM

PS
Whatever the outcome of all this, the words "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" will stay with me for a very long time to come
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM

What I wish is that someone from Clontarf would log on and answer these charges. Right here in clear language, not with a bunch of confusing downloads. Those accusations are serious. Sean Murphy asked the question we all want to know - is this stuff true? And if they have an argument to put forward explaining their side, they need to do it. Keeping quiet is making them look bad.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:46 AM

In the end I suppose it's down to whose version of events you believe; the articulate, rational one represented here by the postings of Aine, Dairmaid, and the statements from the expelled Clontarf branch members, or the one that appears to have been finally elicited from the CCE leadership that has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of its ivory tower to give an explanation for, (whatever version you accept) its outrageous behaviour.
After all, it's not as if we don't have precedent to go on to help us make up our minds; though I suppose it's a sort of progress that some explanation has been given at all - (I still don't know where 'democracy' stands in all this).
During the course of this dispute I re-read the report that Labhrás gave to the Oireachtas in 1999, and some of the protest submissions, and once again I was left with the overwhelming impression of 'Empire Builders and nodding-dogs, (like those you see in the back windows of cars); the former being those who trample on members and branches to get to where they are going, and the latter who let them get away with it.
Yes ard mhacha, the 1979 expulsion was 'a long time ago' and Comhaltas 'hasn't fallen apart' - surely that's the point; nothing has changed, the dinosaurs still roam the earth, and they will continue to do so until a decent form of democratic representation is put into place in CCE. As it stands at present, the view of the membership (and the taxpayer who provides the wherewithal) amounts to little more than 'a hill of beans' (as the man said!)
Whatever the outcome of all this, I have little doubt that it won't be too long before we are here again discussing yet another scandal. I do know that all this has little, if anything to do with the traditional Irish music that I know and love.
In the meantime; the branch has my support and, I am sure, that of many others of us who have been given this small peep behind the locked doors of head office.Wish there was more we could do.
Best wishes,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 07:35 PM

Today's press release from Comhaltas Ceoltoir Eireann HQ (http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/) makes some serious allegations against the Clontarf Branch's management of the Clasac centre project: members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments, irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros, took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction, and generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ.

If true, these allegations would justify the dissolution of Clontarf Branch.

But are they true?

Sean Murphy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,trad
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM

The long awaited response

:The Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas, which is elected by the general membership through the Provincial and Annual Congress structures, is charged with the proper governance of the organisation including financial matters and the rights of individual members.

Clontarf CCÉ set up the Clasaċ sub-committee to spearhead the building of a centre on Dublin's Northside. The Clasaċ building was subsequently to be recognised as one of seven Regional Resource Centres of Comhaltas and funded as such by the Ardchomhairle under the grant - aided Development Programme of the organisation. The local Comhaltas would also have a home in the centre. The local committee - as was the case with the other regional centres - was expected through fundraising to make a substantial contribution. This never materialised.

The cost of the project rose to over € 9,000,000. The Clasaċ development committee splintered with most of the early advocates of the project resigning, claiming mismanagement of the project and raising questions regarding financial matters.

Several other centres which were scheduled to receive funding under the Development Programme agreed to forego this funding to help prop up the Clasaċ project.

The Trustees of Comhaltas carried out an investigation of the project and issued a highly critical report, which was adopted by the Ardchomhairle. This report was discussed with representatives of the local committee who accepted its findings.

This situation reached crisis point in December 2007 when debts of almost € 2,000,000 incurred by the Clasaċ committee, remained unpaid. Several small contractors who have not been paid for their work on the project were facing financial ruin. The chairman of the local branch of Comhaltas who was also chairman of the Clasaċ development committee, in the presence of a professional arbitrator on the 7th of December 2007, met with the main contractor and undertook to pay a portion of the outstanding debts prior to Christmas. This payment never materialised.

The Ardchomhairle at this stage had no option but to intervene. It established a modus operandi to stabilise the situation. This is chaired by the Secretary General of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and includes the Treasurer General. The Ardchomhairle borrowed € 2,000,000 from the bank to pay the outstanding debts.

The local committee initiated an application for refund of VAT. It has refused to provide the Ardchomhairle with all documentation and information relating to the basis and process of the application by the local committee to the Revenue Commissioners for refund of VAT, which had in fact been paid by the Ardchomhairle. We have not had sight of the invoices submitted to substantiate this VAT claim. As the VAT had already been paid to Comhaltas by way of grant-aid, a refund would be deemed to be double funding and the local committee was informed of this. Invoices for all work carried out were in the name of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, 32 Belgrave Square, Monkstown, Co Dublin, which were paid by Comhaltas and re-claimed as such (including VAT) from the Department which was supplied with original copies of the invoices and the Architect's Certificates which were audited and certified.

In the course of the process initiated by by the Ardchomhairle to investigate and regularise all the financial dealings of the project, a decision was made by some people in the local committee to deregister the VAT status and the refund received was returned to the Revenue Commissioners. This fundamental and serious move did not have the required sanction of a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the local branch.

The various directives issued unanimously by the 31- member Ardchomhairle were not brought, within the specified time, to a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the branch to allow them to have an input into their future within the organisation. This was a clear breach of the organisation's Bunreacht.

The situation has now been stabilised; the Centre is in the process of completion and will be opened later in the year.

It is a source of regret to the Ardchomhairle that the local committee did not avail of the several opportunities provided to regularise its position within the organisation; take responsibility for its actions and be in full conformity with the Bunreacht of Commhaltas.

The Ardchomhairle, following several postponments of its directives was left with no choice but to fulfil its obligations and disolve the branch. However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review.