Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

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

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

Repetition does not appear to disqualify others from this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers.

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

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

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

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

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

Ruairi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breandán,

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

Specifically in relation to the following:

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

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

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

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

Once again, looking forward to answers to my questions.

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

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

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

Breandán,

I quote from your last bulletin:

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

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

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

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

Eileen

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

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

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

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

Eileen,

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

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

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

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

Diarmud,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing I'd say.


Tommy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Jim

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

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

Whats this about the Michael Coleman Centre Jim?

Another Clasach in the making?. Do tell more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blame for what??

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 09:48 AM

the blame for having their building taken away from them[them being the people of Gurteen].

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:41 AM

Made some enquiries re Gurteen and from what I have learned, the people of Gurteen (i.e. Coleman Heritage Centre) are very resistant to relinquish the building and perhaps more importantly, the valuable archive, to CCE HQ

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 09:01 PM

Breandán,

In your last contribution, you state twice and I've noticed it in some of your previous contributions, that the Cluain Tarbh committee was dissolved. Is this the latest spin being put on events by Head Office. You are well aware that the branch as a whole was dissolved rather than simply the branch committee.

You are also aware that the CLASAĊ project committee was not the same as the branch committee although it did share some members. The project manager was, and is, a head-office employee.

There was no mismanagement on the part of the branch although it seems that head office may well have made a mess of things with regard to how they handled the VAT and subsequently dissolved the branch in an attempt to cover their tracks.

The branch members voted for the Ardchomhairle to work with the branch to resolve remaining difficulties and complete the project. The Buanchoiste under Labhrás Ó Murchú's direction refused to meet with the committee, and on the advice of Labhrás / the Buanchoiste, the Ardchomhairle took control of CLASAĊ and dissolved the branch.

At all times, the branch executive acted with the interest of Comhaltas in mind. That is why we pleaded with Labhrás and the Buanchoiste to seek expert tax advice of their own, rather than blindly instructing us to transfer the VAT into HQ's account, an action which we were advised might leave Comhaltas as a whole open to huge tax liabilities. It seems, however, that Labhrás is not one to listen to advice.

I take umbrage at your reference to 'Maurice's committee', whatever implication is meant by it. The committee was voted in by the members of the branch at our AGM. We are all volunteers (apart from 1 member who works for HQ), giving our time, effort and money to build the CLASAĊ centre. Admittedly, I was naïve enough to think that our efforts would be supported by HQ. I will never again be so naïve in relation to Labhrás Ó Murchú or Comhaltas HQ.
Whereas we are volunteers, you are paid by HQ. Should I refer to you as Labhrás' Breandán?

When you say 'the branch committee was dissolved because there was no other choice', do you mean Labhrás gave the Ardchomhairle no other choice? Perhaps if our correspondence had been passed to them, or if we had been allowed meet with them as the branch had requested, there would have been another choice. I'm sure that they had very little choice based on the story as they were told it.
I would point out again, however, that it was the branch that was dissolved and not just the branch committee.

You say that the elected representatives put the branch in jeopardy. How?
We were instructed to perform an illegal action in relation to the VAT and suspended and dissolved for failure to do so.
Since then, Labhrás and others, such as you Breandán, have made ridiculous claims about mismanagement, financial irregularities and various other allegations. If Head Office were aware of such matters, why did they never contact the branch or the branch executive to make them aware of them? Because these allegations are total fabrications!

If anything I've said is wrong, enlighten me – but give details instead of your usual sweeping generalities.

In relation to your posting of 11 APR 08 – 08:41 AM, you asked that I be more specific regarding HQ's involvement with the VAT claim. Labhrás Ó Murchú strongly advised the CLASAĊ committee to pursue a VAT refund claim on the same basis as had been done successfully by Comhaltas in the past. The branch was specifically directed to the HQ financial advisor for help on the VAT process and the branch then worked closely with HQ and its financial advisor in processing the VAT registration and claim.

Apart from that Breandán, I'm still waiting for details of the Ardchomhairle membership.
How many members are elected from each of the provincial committees?
How many members have been co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle?
Please supply names of the Ardchomhairle members. You stated that it was a matter of public record who they were. If you won't give me their names, can you tell me what public record they can be found in?

Diarmaid

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Eileen
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:53 AM

Breandan

Thanks for purposely misinterpreting my last question too.

You have many of the answers and must be close to the centre of HQ, Please answer the following:

What date is the CLASAC theatre opening?
Will the staff be appointed by open competition?
If not,
Who will be CEO?
Who will be musical director?
How will the musicians be selected?
Who will provide the dancers?

Eileen

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Glasnost
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:23 AM

Breandan,
I think you have been trying to defend the indefensible.
This whole affair has been badly mismanaged by Comhaltas HQ and if a private-sector organisation managed it's affairs in the same way, it would be out of business long ago.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Declan
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM

Glasnost,

Comhaltas, despite its fondness for Government funding is a private sector organisation. If it were a public sector organisation it would be much more open to public scrutiny.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Emmo
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 05:03 PM

I have been following this dispute with interest. I have looked at all the arguments from both sides but I am still confused about one thing. The Clontarf branch have been criticised for getting in above their collective heads. But why did Labhras O Murchu allow the project to proceed if Clontarf did not have sufficient resources at their disposal?
Such criticism does seem a little rich coming now! Surely the correct time for this criticism would have been BEFORE embarking on the construction of the centre. If the allegation is true then surely Sen O Murchu should have pulled the plug before the construction phase. So why didn't he?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM

Lucky you, Guest Emmo, that you are only "confused about one thing". Most of us are confused about the whole damn mess.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:16 PM

Here in Boston we rent space & hallsbuilding but if the matter of getting a building set up I'd be very suspicious of the future. I wonder how this effects any other branches that would've been considering there own site? Scary

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 02:40 AM

I assume from the reaction (or lack of reaction) to my comments about Gurteen, that my information is correct. Aren't the similarities of what as happened there and at Clontarf spooky - to say the least.
Cap'n,
If we need to debate the rights and wrongs of the Director of Comhaltas, who is a State Senator, taking advantage of his political position to influence an Arts Minister who has neither knowledge nor experience of traditional music in order to take over a project that he and his organisation had no part in developing - we really have nothing whatever to say to each other!
The same undue influence was used somewhat cynically in preparing the report for the Oireachtas, which was originally supposed to be - and I quote - 'a report on the state and the needs of Irish traditional music'. What we got instead was a blatant piece of partisan propaganda on behalf of CCE at the expense of all the other organisations and individuals working for Irish traditional music - The report was, quite rightly, in my opinion, widely opposed and eventually shelved.
I have no idea what head office has in mind for Clontarf and Gurteen, but I am not left with a great deal of hope if Bru Boru is anything to go by.
Up to now I have never visited Bru Boru - I rectified that on Monday - oh dear!!!.
A bland mixture of touch panel displays containing a commentary of highly suspect history and information plus pretty pictures, a film of a Fleadh Ceol with unsatisfactory and uninformative snatches of music and song, a poorly stocked bookshop (and a talking tree!!!), all housed in an extremely expensive building and sited in a prime position had me coming away with the overwhelming feeling - WHAT A WASTE.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:56 AM

Jim,I agree with you up to a point.I am trying to say that it is not the fault of Comhaltas members ,comhaltas employees,or comnhaltas branches,but the fault of the state senator[who happens to be a Comhaltas member] , and the fault of the government minister concerned.
I as a Comhaltas member was not even aware it had happened.and agree with you that it shouldnt have happened.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Kiero
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:56 AM

The following is the text of a motion to be put before Dublin City Council by Councillor Naoise O'Muirí on Monday 21st of April:

If you are a resident of Dublin, maybe you could contact your local councillor seeking his support for the motion.
It could be of significant help in resolving this dispute.

"You may be aware of a recent dissolution of the Clontarf branch of Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann ? see www.cluaintarbh.net

I believe the National Executive has questions to answer in its treatment of the local Branch and in order to seek resolution I tabled the following simple and straightforward Motion for Monday?s Area
Meeting:

"
3252.        Motion in the name of Councillor Naoise O? Muirí

That this Committee agrees to invite the Executive of Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann to appear before it to:
a)        Provide a definitive position regarding the current status of the
Clasac facility in Clontarf
b)        Explain how the current unacceptable situation can be resolved to
the satisfaction of all parties.
"
Any support you can give to the Motion would be appreciated as the situation needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,London (found this on a Google Search!!)
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:15 PM

It would be interesting to know what was the original building budget? design?
Who approved the overspend and did the branch understand the use of the building? Who was the Project Manager?
How many classrooms does the building contain for teaching Irish music?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:13 PM

Why don't you phone up Comhaltas HQ on Monday and ask them?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:45 PM

21 questions and supplied answers by the "reel" Clontarf Branch. It makes interesting reading.

1. Why was Clontarf Branch Dissolved?
Comhaltas HQ notified Clontarf branch of its decision to suspend and ultimately dissolve the branch on 6 February because of its refusal to transfer a VAT refund to HQ, notwithstanding previous correspondence where the branch had pointed out that this would be illegal and would leave the branch officers personally liable to the Revenue Commissions for the amount (€739,000) of the refund. HQ went ahead with the dissolution, and in its formal notification of 14 March, listed a host of other spurious reasons for dissolution not originally notified to the branch at the time of suspension.

2. What is the VAT issue?
The operator of any commercial business that is registered for VAT is entitled to a refund of VAT in defined circumstances. As part of its plans to run the Clasac centre, Clontarf branch registered for VAT and applied for the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners, which it was granted. Where the terms of a VAT refund change, e.g. where a business ceases to operate, or a business changes hands, the refund has to be repaid to Revenue, otherwise penalties accrue. It is of course open to the new operators of a business to apply for a VAT refund in their own name. Once Clontarf branch ceased to be the operator of the Clasac centre, and the body to whom the VAT refund had specifically been made, it was under a legal obligation to repay the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners. Having taken expert tax advice, the branch Executive Committee decided on 9 February to return the VAT to the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with Section 12(4) VAT Act 1972. The Revenue Commissioners subsequently confirmed in writing that the branch had followed the correct course of action. The dissolution of the branch in the circumstances was, to say the least, perverse.

3. Did the branch register for VAT and claim a VAT refund on its own initiative as claimed by Comhaltas HQ?
Absolutely not. At a meeting on 11 September 2006, the Ardstiúrthóir advised the branch to pursue a claim for a VAT refund on the same basis as had been done successfully by Comhaltas in the past for other Centres. The branch was specifically directed to the HQ financial advisor for help on the VAT process. The branch then worked closely with HQ and its financial advisor in processing the VAT registration and claim. However, when the branch received the VAT refund HQ demanded that it be paid to its own account. In addition to the issue of conflict with the Branch's legal obligations, such an arrangement would also have diverted funds needed to offset the costs of Clasac from the branch to HQ.

4. Were there changes to a VAT return as alleged by HQ in the news media?
Absolutely not - no VAT returns were changed. As requested by the Ardstiúrthóir, the chairman of the branch and Clasac Development Team signed the construction contract. The contractors' invoices therefore should have been made out to "Clasac Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann" but HQ incorrectly proceeded to get the invoices issued to themselves. Accordingly, the contractor agreed to a request from the branch and HQ to correct his invoices to show the proper name and address of the Clasac entity. No other invoice details of any nature were changed. The malicious accusation of impropriety by HQ in relation to VAT is an example of the campaign they have conducted against the branch and its officers in an attempt to justify their own improper actions in dissolving the branch.

5. Was there a double claim of VAT as alleged by HQ?
No, not by Clontarf Branch. Although HQ advised the branch to make the claim for a refund of VAT for Clasac, it was only after Clontarf received the refund that HQ flagged a possible duplication in its own claim to the Department of Arts, Sports & Tourism for payment under the capital grant. The branch wrote to HQ on 13 December suggesting that the matter be brought immediately to the attention of the Department and their advice sought to clarify the issue. HQ instructed the branch not to approach the Department on the matter, and subsequently informed the branch that it had obtained oral advice from the Department, including that the Department had insisted that the VAT refund should be transferred to a HQ account, rather than be retained for the benefit of the Clasac project. Requests to HQ by the branch for sight of correspondence or notes of discussions with the Department on the issue have been ignored.

On the face of it, either HQ made a duplicate claim in error, or it had the intention in any case that any VAT refund granted to the Clasac centre would be put into a HQ account rather than used by Clasac to make payments to contractors

6. Why did Clontarf not put funding in place to pay contractors?
Clontarf branch successfully negotiated a bank loan facility needed to meet all its obligations to contractors. This loan was part of the Clasac business and funding plan agreed with HQ from the outset. At the last minute, HQ refused to support the branch by guaranteeing the loan, as provided for in the Comhaltas Bunreacht, using the Clasac building itself as collateral for the loan, as had always been envisaged and is normal practice for bank loans of this type. This was a complete turnaround as HQ had been a party to the bank negotiations and had up to then led us to believe that they were supportive.

In addition, a €2m interim overdraft facility that HQ agreed to make available to the Clasac project pending the bank loan was also inexplicably withdrawn. Had this been made available while the bank funding was being finalised there would have been no delay of payment to suppliers. The actions of HQ also put Clontarf branch in the position of being unable to make any further payments to suppliers.

7. Did HQ propose any other options for providing collateral for the loan?
At the branch EGM on 8 January, Buanchoiste representatives suggested to the branch members that they should put up their own houses as collateral for the loan. Even at this stage, HQ insisted that any bank loan would become a charge on the general assets of Comhaltas even though the bank had already agreed in writing that the loan would be ring-fenced to the Clasac building.

8. Did Clontarf branch neglect to fundraise as claimed by HQ?
Clontarf branch secured very significant funding for the Clasac project. It was also a major player in putting together the Comhaltas Development Plan and in securing the major public funding for it, covering the Clasac project and other Comhaltas centres. The branch has been working on the Clasac project for 15 years. It secured two direct grants amounting to some €1.5M from the Government, it fundraised over €100,000 to cover all the initial planning and design costs of the centre. It secured the site (worth about €3m) on a 99-year lease. We also secured the required €2m bank loan and, as late as December 2007, the branch also raised a further €240,000 from Dublin City Council.

9. Was the project mismanaged resulting in significant cost overruns?
The project was not mismanaged in any way, and HQ's allegation that the cost of the project "doubled" is completely without foundation. The project Architect supported by the Quantity Surveyor confirmed to the branch EGM on 8 January, attended by representatives of HQ and the Buanchoiste that project costs were very well managed and the final cost was in line with the original projections.

10. What was the original cost estimate?
The projected cost in April 2005 was in excess of €7m. On 11 September 2006 the branch representatives were informed by the Ardstiúrthóir that the project was earmarked to receive €6.9 million in public funding over 3 years. The branch and HQ also agreed at that meeting that bank loans would be necessary to cover any shortfall between the €6.9m grants and the final cost.

11. Were there any additional costs on the project?
Additional costs arose in autumn 2006 when the architect advised that the cost of removing contaminated soil from the site, the provision of waste and water services and necessary additional engineering services would cost an extra €1.375m. These extra costs were part funded by an additional grant of €0.9 million for the project approved by the Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism. The estimated final cost at the time came to about €8.8m, which compares very favourably with the final project cost of €8.98m.

12. Was funding taken from other Comhaltas projects to cover Clasac costs?
Clasac didn't need or take any funding from other projects. In a meeting with the Department of Arts Sport and Tourism on 2 June 2005, Comhaltas sought a grant of €6m for Clasac. This €6m was part of an overall request for €9.75m for a total of 6 Comhaltas projects, i.e. over 60% of the public capital funding originally sought for the development programme from the Department was earmarked for Clasac. The Department also subsequently approved a further €0.9m to cover the additional costs referred to in question 11 above.

13. Did the branch promise funding to a supplier and then fail to pay?
On approval by the Revenue Commissioners of the claim for a VAT refund, the branch contacted the main contractor and arranged that they be paid as a priority out of the refund proceeds. In the meantime, HQ decided that there was a conflict between the grant claims which they had made to the Department of Arts and the VAT refund, and they told the branch to pay the VAT to the HQ account. Clontarf immediately informed the supplier in question of the situation and said it would make the payment once the bank loan, currently being finalised, was in place, and the contractor was happy with that. However, HQ's subsequent refusal to guarantee the loan using the Clasac building as collateral as had previously been agreed, and its withdrawal of a previous offer of an interim overdraft facility, effectively tied the hands of the branch and prevented it from access to any funds to pay suppliers.

14. Did the branch make its case to the Ardchomhairle and County Board?
Clontarf branch made numerous attempts to inform the Ardchomhairle (AC) and the Dublin County Board of the facts of its position, to correct the misstatements and allegations made against it, and to appeal the decision to suspend and dissolve it. Correspondence detailing our case was given to the Ardrúnaí for distribution to the AC but was withheld, and all our requests for meetings were turned down or ignored. The branch representatives to the County Board were asked not to attend meetings, and again our correspondence was not allowed to be distributed. This amounts to censorship and a fundamental absence of justice and fair dealing. Some very serious decisions were taken against the branch and we got no hearing at any level.

15. Was Clontarf branch given any right of appeal?
Although the Comhaltas constitution provides for appeals, no avenue of appeal was allowed to the branch. This is an extraordinary denial of natural justice and a basic right to the branch and raises huge questions about the actions of the Ardchomhairle and the way the whole Comhaltas organisation is governed.

16. What about the investigation undertaken by the Buanchoiste?
HQ has said that such an investigation was carried out, but the branch was not aware of any such investigation at the time, nor has it seen any subsequent report. We have no knowledge of what it was about, who carried it out or what the outcome was. We would have expected, in all fairness, to have been involved if there was an investigation on any issue relating to the branch, and particularly as accusations are now being made against us on the basis of it. The branch solicitor is seeking a copy of the investigation report from HQ. Requests for copies of relevant minutes of Ardchomhairle meetings relating to actions taken against the branch have been turned down on the basis that they are "secret".

17. Has the Executive Committee of the branch kept its members informed?
In the letter of dissolution of 14 March, HQ accused the branch of a serious breach of the Bunreacht by the Executive Committee failing to bring key correspondence to the attention of a full meeting of the branch. Aside from being another questionable reason for dissolving the branch put forward after the event, this allegation is purely mischievous. The branch Executive Committee (composed of 19 members) discussed all correspondence from HQ in detail and during the 10 week period from early January to mid March the whole branch met on 4 separate nights to discuss all matters. Unprecedented numbers attended on all occasions and there was overwhelming support for the Executive Committee. The unanimous vote of confidence in the branch Executive Committee at the general meeting on 19 March undermines HQ's allegation.

The openness of the Clontarf Branch is in marked contrast to the secret, closed activities of HQ, which since early January has rejected or ignored all branch requests for meetings

18. Has the branch prepared plans for running Clasac?
Yes. The branch's Clasac Development Team prepared a robust Business Plan with the assistance of professional consultants, CHL Consulting. This was the sound basis on which public funding was secured and the bank loan was negotiated. It is ready to be implemented, and a team of volunteers from the branch is also ready to ensure the success of the centre. A fundamental element of the Plan is the full participation of the reservoir of artistic talent and performance experience of the Clontarf branch in the presentation of first class shows aimed at the tourist market, and the revenue generated from these will support other "community activities" delivered from the centre.

The agreed Board arrangements should also be put in place immediately as this is the best way of ensuring the successful start-up of the centre.

19. Who are the so-called "reconstituted" branch?
A so-called "reconstituted" branch has been formed following a private meeting at which democratically elected Clontarf members were excluded. This unelected committee, supported by HQ and Dublin County Board, is comprised for the most part of persons related to members of the Ardchomhairle and HQ staff. The members of Clontarf branch, including all the teachers, have overwhelmingly rejected this group as divisive, undemocratic and opportunistic.

20. What has happened to Clontarf branch since dissolution?
The Branch is continuing all its activities, as unanimously decided at a general meeting of members on 19 March, which also mandated the existing Executive Committee to continue. Our teaching programmes and all other activities are back in place. The branch also organised a very successful benefit concert on 4 April last at which all the great traditional musical families in Dublin performed to show their support. Messages of support from a great many branches at home and abroad and from the community generally have continued to flow in, for which we are most grateful.

21. What does Clontarf branch want to happen now?
The branch wants the dissolution rescinded and to be back driving the Clasac project. Even after all that has happened to it, the branch still believes that Comhaltas on the ground, which comprises the vast majority of members, is a truly great organisation. However, we also expect the management and leadership of such an organisation to respect, value and support its committed volunteer members and to treat everyone with dignity and fair play.

The appalling treatment meted out to our branch regrettably sends out a very clear message to our members, the traditional music world, other branches of Comhaltas, and particularly to the thousands of young Comhaltas members that bullying, harassment, exclusion and malicious and false accusations is acceptable and will succeed as a way of carrying on business. This diminishes the organisation and its standing as a real force for good in 21st century Ireland.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

What happened on 21st April re the motion to be put before Dublin City Council by Councillor Naoise O'Muirí?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: George Henderson
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM

yes it would be good to know what heppended.

I have heard that Bru Boru is a private limited company with 2 shareholders. Is this fiction or fact.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM

See the last two posts (19th April) in this related thread. Not necessarily an answer to your question, but interesting:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=110473#2318999

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: dílis
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:19 PM

We havent heard much from the so called 'reconstituted' branch of cluain tarbh. Will they be entering junior ceili bands and grupai in the Dublin Fleadh?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Danno
Date: 02 May 08 - 08:58 AM

Re: Dublin City Council intervention

I understand that Dublin City Council North Central Area Committee discussed the motion on April 21st and has agreed to invite representatives of Comhaltas Clontarf and National Comhaltas Organisation to a private meeting prior to the next Area Committee meeting for round table discussion.

It will be interesting to see how this discussion works out.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Bronco
Date: 02 May 08 - 09:03 AM

Heard that the Comhaltas Annual Congress is on in Monkstown this week-end.
Any delegates out there know if this issue is on the agenda or will any questions be asked about it?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: MARINER
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:30 PM

According to this evenings news on RTE expelled members of the Clontarf Branch are going to lobby delegates to the Annual Congress this evening .

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:49 PM

From the Irish Times Saturday May 3rd

The Clontarf branch of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has spent 15 years working on the new Clasac centre. So why has Comhaltas HQ dissolved it just before the project reaches fruition?

FOUNDED IN 1951 to preserve and promote Irish traditional music, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí­ Éireann has 400 branches in 15 countries, spanning four continents, with some 40,000 members worldwide. It has built its reputation on music teaching and competitive performance across all age ranges.

But Dublin's northside traditional music fraternity has been consumed by the decision of the Ard Comhairle of Comhaltas to dissolve its Clontarf branch (Craobh Cluain Tarbh) in a row centred on the stewardship of a new flagship traditional arts centre.

On March 14th, the Ard Comhairle took a decision to dissolve the 400-member branch, alleging irregularities in relation to a VAT refund. The Ard Comhairle also cited the local branch's alleged inability to fund a €2 million overspend on the €9 million Clasac building project and unilaterally appointed a "reconstituted branch" in Clontarf, which members of the dissolved branch have refused to recognise.

Comhaltas's Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Its plan was to become the anchor tenant of the new Clasac centre, which, it was envisaged, would generate revenue by staging traditional music and dance productions. Clasac, located on the Alfie Byrne Road in Dublin's East Wall, includes a 250-seat auditorium, a recording studio, an archive/library, an intimate performance space and two bars.

Following what the Clontarf branch views as its illegal dissolution, it has since reconvened, under the new title of Ceoltóirí Cluain Tarbh, and continues to deliver its weekly music classes in an alternative venue. Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill, secretary of Ceoltóirí Cluain Tarbh, reports that this newly-minted branch has witnessed an increase in student numbers attending its classes, despite the combative nature of its current relationship with Comhaltas HQ in Monkstown.

Maurice Mullen, chair of the Clontarf branch, is disappointed at the treatment meted out by the Ard Comhairle. Clontarf branch members claim responsibility for generating the vision that has now been realised in Clasac, securing a total of more than €1.8 million towards the total cost of the project, with the balance sourced by Comhaltas HQ through a series of grants from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Mullen claims that Clasac will suffer without the involvement of the Clontarf branch; without access to a wellspring of local musical talent, he says, the centre will lack the grassroots involvement integral to its long-term viability.

He cites Clasac's business plan, which is built on the two cornerstones of promoting grassroots involvement in traditional music and tackling social exclusion through the active promotion of the traditional arts across all communities. "When we conceived of Clasac 15 years ago, we asked ourselves 'how do we tap into the traditional arts to reach East Wall and other places, to combat social exclusion?'," says Mullen. "It's because of that vision that we haven't walked away from Clasac. The easiest thing for us all to do is to walk away. But we think it's essential that a centre like this is serious about achieving those aims."

When contacted by The Irish Times, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann did not address specific questions relating to its rationale for dissolving Clontarf, but issued a press release stating that the branch, "following a lengthy investigation, was deemed to be in serious contravention of the Bunreacht" (constitution).

Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill cites Comhaltas's dissatisfaction with Clontarf's refusal to transfer a VAT refund totalling €739,000 to Comhaltas HQ as one of two issues at the heart of this dispute. According to Mac Domhnaill, this decision was taken "notwithstanding the previous correspondence where the branch had pointed out that this [transferring the VAT refund] would be illegal and would leave the branch officers personally liable to the Revenue Commissioners for the amount of the refund. The Clontarf branch returned the VAT refund to the Revenue Commissioners once the Clontarf branch ceased to be the operator of the Clasac centre."

The second issue, relating to Comhaltas HQ's claim that Clontarf had run up unanticipated debts to the tune of €2 million, is rejected outright by representatives of the Clontarf branch.

"We knew since September 2006 that there would be a funding shortfall," says Mullen, "and Comhaltas HQ had agreed to act as trustees for a bank loan that we had successfully negotiated. When it came to the time of drawing down that loan, they refused to sign up to it as trustees."

Diarmaid Mac Domhnaill is frustrated by the recent turn in events. "Clontarf have been working on this project for 15 years," he says. "I feel that we've been led up the garden path by Comhaltas headquarters, who used us to do the work, to get the centre up and running, and then at the last minute moved in, using the VAT issue as their excuse to take control."

Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is hosting its annual congress this weekend in Monkstown. Members of the dissolved Clontarf branch will be present, advocating that they be afforded a right of appeal by Comhaltas. In a letter to all members of the Ard Comhairle, they have requested that an independent arbitrator/mediator, acceptable to both sides, be brought in to expedite a resolution to the current conflict.