Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

Yes, it really does help to hear the other side of the tale, for which many thanks.

Still a few questions, though. Is there currently an operative Clontarf branch or is there not? Are they empowered to act as a membership-body or has this been nullified by suspension (which hardly seems democratic). What is this new committee who "know what's going on" (didn't the others?) and where have they come from? Is the branch itself split over this matter? There are still a lot of blank spaces in the story, and a lot depends upon whose side you read.

Clontarf are saying that Comhaltas did not confirm the dissolution to them and that they only heard about it on the radio, days later, when it was a fait accompli - a statement which conflicts outright with the 5-week notice cited above, and sounds arbitrary if true. And what was the reason for calling a period of moratorium over an issue as contentious and pressured as this, with creditors pounding on the door?

I'm not demanding that Breandán answer to every charge - he's not responsible for this sorry situation and is certainly not obliged to defend it. But a lot of questions do remain in the mind. Thanks to him for posting, though, because it is very helpful to get a better balance of views.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

"The day-to-day contacts on site management were mostly handled by a Comhaltas staffer, and people like myself have been involved with aspects of the building fit-out."

Er - so why were there uncontrolled cost overruns? Looks like Comhaltas central screwed it up and is now trying to punt the blame upfield.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Don Meade
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:12 PM

Breandán - if this were a not a dispute about control over property and money, there would be no dispute at all, and no need to sack the branch leadership.

I will be attending the CCÉ North American convention this weekend and will be interested to hear what Sen. Ó Murchú and the other visiting Comhaltas leaders have to say about this issue - unless, of course, they choose to continue not to discuss it publicly.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM

I'm happy to answer a few questions, if it's helpful. Starting with the most recent:

* The cost overruns were mostly due to site clearance. Our surveyor told us that the site (which was reclaimed landfill) was suitable for building. However, subsequent drilling showed the existence of "hazardous waste" (mostly old oil drums which had been dumped in the landfill illegally.) So the site clearance ended up costing us €80/ton rather than €8/ton. It adds up - there was a lot of dirt to move.

* There were also problems with the engineering site survey (discrepancies on the number of support posts to be drilled), environmental impact, road access (running utilities across the public road and coming up with the required deposit to Dubin County Council), etc. Basically, nothing that's unremarkable on a building project these days, especially on reclaimed land. The overruns weren't really anyone's fault -- certainly not the fault of either the Clontarf committee or Comhaltas headquarters. With a bank-funded construction project, you can often extend a line-of-credit further in these circumstances, but because the project wasn't loan-funded and because we can't borrow against the land (since Dubiln County Council still owns it), covering the overrun is a lot harder.

* Yeah, I also heard on Duffy that the Clontarf folks who called in only heard about the dissolution on the programme. It's ridiculous, obviously - Comhaltas sent the secretary a letter in the usual way in plenty of time before the suspension, and then again before the dissolution. I can only speculate that the former branch committee hadn't shared this correspondence with the membership. Which would certainly account for the outrage. After the first programme, Comhaltas sent a letter to Duffy stating the status of the branch (but not saying anything substantive, far as I know.) Then on the second programme folks said they were hearing about things from Duffy first. It's nonsense, anyway. I don't blame the branch members or the folks who called in - they hadn't been given good information by their committee leadership.

* I believe that the moratorium was called to try and provide more time for ironing things out. Things with the creditors were already bad, but I believe the intention was to come up with a deal with the Clontarf committee, who were (after all) running the project.

* As far as the current status of Clontarf branch: The Comhaltas rules say that any group of five adults can get together and apply for membership as a branch of Comhaltas. It's designed to be a pretty easy process, and doesn't depend on having a lot of members at time of application - just the original few is enough to get going with the process. The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist. But, some adults from Clontarf have recently gotten together to apply for membership as a new branch. I believe this application is ongoing, though I'm sure that the Dublin County Board of Comhaltas will approve it. Once there's a branch in place, others (including former members of Clontarf) will be free and encouraged to join it. I'm sure that the new Clontarf committee, which is mostly made up of former branch chairs and secretaries, expects that most if not all of the former members will want to remain affiliated with Comhaltas, and will therefore become members of the newly-formed Clontarf branch. I believe that the committee would be hoping to sign people up before the membership lists are sent in at the end of October, by which time I hope this thing has receded quite a bit in people's minds. In the meantime, I believe that the new committee is taking responsibility for classes, insurance and so forth. But yes, there's the possibility for rival factions, or even for the former branch members to affiliate themselves as some new body, like incorporating as a private music school, for example.

* The new committee is composed mostly of former members of the Cluain Tarbh committee, so they know Comhaltas procedures and personnel quite well. I believe that between them they have something like 35 years in the *chair* of the Clontarf branch committee. Some were involved in the original plans for the Clasac theatre. But the branch is split at the moment, yes. I would expect and hope that more members would gravitate toward the new structure, once it becomes clear that branch activities and projects are continuing unchanged. That drift will probably depend on how well the new committee can make its case, and how Comhaltas is perceived coming out of the conflict.

Of course, I'm personally frustrated that Comhaltas hasn't been out there all over the airwaves since this thing broke. The Clontarf guys are good folks, they have a great tradition as a branch, and it's stupid to alienate a bunch of people who should be on the same side.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: the button
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:39 PM

Cheers for the long and considered response, Breandan.

But the problems with the project that you cite, which come down to poor risk analysis in the costings of the project -- regrettable, but human -- somehow don't lead me to think that this: -

"The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist"

was a reasonable course of action.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:41 PM

Don, enjoy the Convention! Should be some great tunes, and the organisers have done great work pulling it together.

I'm hoping to get Sen. Ó Murchú to sign off (from there) on a press release about the Clasaċ theatre project and Cluain Tarbh, which I'll post on the Comhaltas website before he speaks. With any luck that means he'll start making some public statements -- I know that musicians there (and elsewhere) are concerned.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:51 PM

Button, I don't believe that the cost overruns were the issue per se, but rather the lack of contingency or reasonable response over a period of many months. There were issues with communications, and with promises made but not kept. They really had quite a long time to try and sort something out before things came to this unfortunate pass. The branch committee chose their own sovereignty above the best interests of the branch and of the project, in my opinion.

I can't speak on the actual decision for dissolution, though: I'm not on the Ardchomhairle or the Dublin county board, and ultimately it was their decision. I just happen to be aware of the problems with the construction project and with the committee, mostly because I was in the room when the creditors would ring.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: the button
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

Thanks for the response, Breandan, and for all your contributions to this thread.

I'm going to keep my gob shut about all this now. In any branch-based organisation, there's always got to be some give-and-take between branch autonomy and central control, and I'm not placed to be able to say anything more about whether the decision of the central organisation was warranted.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: kevink
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

these unofficial explanations (alibis)for the outrageous actions of Labhras and his coterie have also been sent to this site http://www.thesession.org under this discussion title (The TRUTH about Cluain Tarbh CCÉ and CLASAC) and have been answered by cluain tarbh members. There is an attempt to muddy the waters. There is no reasonable justification for such an act of cultural vandalism. The people who set up a new branch represent little more than themselves but obviously have the support of Labhras and co. Its the type of maneouvre and snow job typical of the man.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:23 PM

"Jim Carroll needs a ciggie to calm his nerves. Looks like he's gone off half-cocked here."
Please explain - and don't forget we've been here on numerous occasions before,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:29 PM

Actually, my intention, kevink, was not to muddy waters, but to bring some clarity. I have enormous sympathy for the members of Cluain Tarbh Comhaltas -- if the Dublin County Board decided to suspend my own branch I'd be absolutely livid, and I have no idea what kind of explanation would be able to convince me otherwise. Which means that this situation is pretty much guaranteed both to make Comhaltas look bad, and also to engender fear, uncertainty and doubt in a bunch of very devoted and principled people. Which makes it really, really unfortunate.

However, there is still more to this than has been put forward by the former committee of Cluain Tarbh. And while I have a great deal of sympathy for the awful situation that we're all in, I'd like to ask that people consider the full set of facts before jumping to conclusions. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM

Just the very nature of your posts, Breandain, gives you much credibility. You don't seem to be muddying the waters, and are not rising to the bait. I am very interested in all points of view on this.

Nothing you have said changes my opinion of the hide bound nature of the organization's leadership. Nor do I believe they have handled it well. But neither is it what the local branch members tried to make it appear be.

I sure hope it gets worked out to the benefit of those that simply want to keep the culture, music and arts alive for their children and grandchildren.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

Breandán, thanks for all the info, which is food for thought. I can wholeheartedly echo Big Mick's opening sentence in the post above.

But I have to say that, whatever the shortcomings or alleged misdemeanours of the original branch, I find the statement "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" is just too chillingly Big-Brother for me. If this dissolution was decided by a unanimous vote, as stated above, then the branch obviously were allowed no input on a ballot which so vitally affected them. Non-existence is pretty effective as a disempowerment tool. Whatever the branch committee did or didn't do, whatever control the Official Rule Book allows the management, this liquidation leaves a deeply nasty smell and smacks of despotism. It certainly does not inspire confidence in HQ.

OK so folks can all form a new branch and join up again, but I can't see why the whole manoeuvre was necessary, except perhaps as a slate-wiping (or committee-ousting) exercise. I assume members have to pay a subscription to belong (though I can find no figures anywhere on the website which is a little strange). Doesn't this give them some rights? And what if some people don't want to re-join a new cleansed branch? Will Comhaltas refund them the balance of their fee?

Breandán wrote, "I'm not on the Ardchomhairle or the Dublin county board, and ultimately it was their decision."

Buttons wrote, "I'm not placed to be able to say anything more about whether the decision of the central organisation was warranted."

Neither am I. That's the whole point. The only people who ARE so placed are those within said organisation. Not a reason to forego questioning.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:27 PM

Ouch, that was probably an unfortunate sentence, wasn't it! Anyway, the committee that ultimately cast the vote was comprised of representatives of each province in Ireland, along with representatives from the USA and Britain.

As far as I know, the branch would be liable for their annual membership dues again in October anyway, so there's no financial impact to switching to a "different" branch in the meantime. Dues are 12 Euro/year for a single senior membership (less for children and families), and are used largely to help with insurance costs for branch events.

I can lobby the members of the Dublin County Board and Ardchomhairle to make their reasoning known publicly, and personally I'd find it refreshing and healthy if they would do exactly that. I can also see their argument that it would be hard not to single out members of the branch committee, etc., which has been a factor in the silence thus far.

If I find out anything further that would have a bearing on the issue, I'll let you guys know.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,sparkles
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:50 PM

Thanks for taking the trouble to write all that, Brendan. It's interesting & helpful to know, tho I have to admit that I still have some doubts in my mind. You described the unanimous voters in your earlier post as Comhaltas's high council, so even if there are representatives from all those places, it's pretty clear which side of the fence they're on. Its not like putting it to a general democratic vote.

I don't know why people are taking potshots at Jim. All he did was raise a perfectly fair question which hasn't been officially answered yet. That's not protesting too much, either the way Shakespeare meant it or as a straightforward statement. As for going off half cocked, how else can you go when you only have HALF the information? He asked the high king of Tara to explain what he meant by that remark but I bet he won't.

Why didn't Comhaltas issue a formal statement explaining themselves? They still haven't. Brendan writing as a private person on this non-Irish website isn't the same thing however good his posts are. The fact that the big bosses are saying nothing is just weird. No wonder people get suspicious.

Jury's still out on this, IMO.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM

Anyone think this guy might be a ringer?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:15 AM

Which guy - a ringer for whom?
I would still like to hear an official statement on the affair - which has remarkable echoes of the London Branch expulsion. This matter has been rumbling on for some time - does it really take so long to prepare a public statement (for the members of CCE and for the general public, who's taxes help to fund the organisation to the tune of €millions annually.)
The danger of allowing major decisions to be taken by unelected individuals should be more than apparent following the highly embarrassing affair of Labhras's 1999 report to the Oireachtas on the state of music in Ireland, which did much damage to the credibility of CCE and no good at all to Irish traditional music in general.
Surely the simple morality (or lack of same) of the outrageous act of ejecting a group from premises they have built should be the key issue here.
Still waiting for an explanation to GUEST,Highkingoftara's posting, but won't hold my breath - sniping is a well tried and trusted form of defence!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM

The question is, if O`Murchu has been a liability over the years, how is it that CCE is so strong?, our local branch is flourishing, it is a delight to see young children so adept and happy to play their music.
The many thousands that go to the Fleadhs are proof enough that someone somewhere is doing things right.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 05:59 AM

Jim, I'd also like to hear an official statement! I believe there's one in the pipeline, and it should be out soon.

I don't believe that the hold-up is actually in preparing such a document, but rather that the decision was made (unwisely, in my opinion) that public statements could be damaging to the branch and its officers. Obviously, Comhaltas isn't really up on 20th century news cycles, nevermind 21st .... but I definitely agree with you on the need for an official explanation.

However, I would dispute that we have here an example of a "major decision [] taken by unelected individuals". The decision to dissolve the Clontarf branch was made by two elected boards: Dublin County Board and the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas. Because Labhrás Ó Murchú tends to be the public face of Comhaltas, people to assume that all organisation decisions are taken by him alone, which is not the case.

Senator Ó Murchú is the Director-General of Comhaltas, which is a staff position appointed by the Ardchomhairle, an elected body. If the Ardchomhairle representatives from the provincial organisations decided tomorrow that he should no longer administrate the day-to-day affairs of the organisation, they could push him out with a 2/3 vote at their next meeting.

I would also dispute that a group has been "ejected [] from premises they have built." A site already leased to Comhaltas and a building already owned by Comhaltas is undergoing a shake-up in the local management committee. That's all. This has been a joint project of Comhaltas and the branch for years, and it has been a mutually supportive relationship.

Dublin is on the brink of opening an incredible new cultural resource, something that should work well both for the members of Clontarf Comhaltas and for everyone else who enjoys Irish traditional music and dance.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM

People that are taking potshots at Jim Carroll are just spouting ignorant blather. His musical credentials, as well as his stated and demonstrated love of the cultural treasure that belongs to all of Ireland's children and grandchildren whether in Ireland or around the world, is well known. Clearly there are issues here, and he has raised them.

I really appreciate Breandan's comments as well. They bring clarity to the Comhaltas position, even if unofficial, and show some of the opposing arguments. As a person who has often worked with volunteer organizations, I would say that it is not unusual for their passion and efforts to exceed their ability to manage them. God bless all volunteers, but sometimes they get a bit out front and over their heads. It is the job of the parent organization to monitor that all is in keeping with the law and fiduciary responsibility.

I am holding my breath a bit. One of the things that makes me wonder a bit about Breandan's posts here is that they seem to be at odds with the political facts of the case. I know that if one works in an organization, especially a hidebound and rigid organization, that unauthorized releases of information would be frowned upon and dealt with severely. It does puzzle me that he releases such detailed information and this Ard Ri of Comhaltas doesn't stop him. That seems at odds with what one and all are saying about him to this old political hack. He is either due for a hidin' or he may be releasing what the organization wants released in a manner that suits them. But at this point I will hold my concerns and just trust that he is what he seems to be. No offense intended, Breandan, just observations. When one has been organizing unions his entire adult life, they tend to look for the bridge beyond the fog.

I especially take note of my old friend and foil, ard mhacha's comments. This is another whose love of the culture and music cannot be questioned. His comments about keeping an eye on what is important is good sauce for this goose that is being cooked.

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:04 PM

The official statement is one heck of a long time coming, it must be going to be good!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 02:31 PM

The boul Mick, have a look at the`postshots` Jim gave O`Murchu insults such as `Larry the lab rat`, in my branch of Comhaltas I have never ever heard him slurred thus,I have heard nothing but praise for CCE.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM

Fair enough, ard mhacha, he did indeed. But he isn't the first I have heard that from. I will leave that argument for those that know this man, and I have always respected your opinions. I get your point as to the effectiveness of CCE, in your experience. All I am saying is that there are others whom have a different experience. As to me, I am just trying to sort it out, as it certainly seems to be an issue in how it was handled.

Although we don't always agree, you may rest assured that I always have great respect for your point of view. I hope my post didn't seem to indicate otherwise.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:16 PM

Breandan claims not to speak for Comhaltas, yet here and at thesession.org he has posted at length, clarifying CCE's position. I wonder if he has not been charged with damage control...

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

Mick In my time associated with out Branch I have seen children progress to such an extent we have our weekly Mass in Irish the children play their music throughout, an oul heathen like myself is moved to hear the beauty of our traditional airs.
This is all through CCE some of us have never met O`Murchu those that have have nothing but praise for his work, the facts are there, CCE is thriving, maybe someone will tell us different, I would be very interested to be given the rest of the faults, as I am completely in the dark about the many failures.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Aine in dublin
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:33 PM

Yes it is true that local branches are flourishing as was the Branch in Clontarf - the biggest in Ireland I understand. Yet the democratically elected committee and the entire branch have been dissolved and a handful of older members of the branch are taking over in a coup like fashion.The parents of the young people and children in Clonrarf are expected by the Ard Chomhailrle of CCE to allow their children to attend classes run by the new imposed branch committee. This is nothing short of outrageous.    How can Labrahas be in any way complimented by ArdMhaca for the treatment he has overseen of the entire Clontarf branch. How can music flourish against this background. As for the Fleadh - well apart from Scoil Eigse and the competitions and sessions in the day - the Fleadh is in good part a drunken jamboree from Friday evening to Sunday night. It is certainly not a conducive atmosphere for appreciating a session. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into a session you can hear - most people appear to have a vague interest and are largely there for the 'craic and the booze' For years now I have been of the view that the Fleadh needs a radical rethink and overhaul. Over the weekends of the Fleadh the towns that host it look like Beiruit at the height of the trouble there. You cannot say the drunken shambles the Fleadh is at present is somthing that Head Office and O'Mhurucu should be proud of. Yhey are not doing a good job. It is time for a new structure in CCE at the top level that is democratic, transparent and accountable. I am a member of a trade union and have reservations about their level of democracy but they are an oasis of democracy compared to HO of CCE. Yes many thousands go to the Fleadhs to get off their heads and parents of young children largely stay out of the town over the weekend for security reasons other than to attend competitions. The CCE HQ and structures need to be overhauled as does the Fleadh. Think again Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:41 PM

Breandán,
Thank you for your explanation - it goes some way to satisfying my curiosity - but certainly not all the way.
Virtually all the organisations I have belonged to at one time or another have had safeguards built in to prevent abuses of power by those in authority.
I listened with growing disbelief to the discussion on the phone in last week and I have to admit that my first thought was 'here we go again'.
"The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist".
Is it really the case that CCE leadership have the power to close down a branch without consulting the membership (and from what I heard, without consulting the branch in question)?
Does the branch have no right of appeal - is that it - wave of the wand, whoosh - you're an ex branch!!!!
It would appear that my first instincts were the right ones, but I wait with some interest to be proved wrong.
Jim Carroll
To those who have commented on my disrespect for O Murchu - sorry, past experiences and observations have left me with no respect whatever for the man and it would have been hypocritical of me to pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

Being a CCE expellee, it won't surprise anyone that I have often heard him slurred. I won't repeat those things here; but I'd like to bring attention to the fact that he was known to many as "President for Life" as far back as the late 60s. I was extremely young then, and just accepted it as a fact! And so it has come to pass...
CCE branches do great work, as did we at the (ORIGINAL) West London branch, before we had the temerity to question the wisdom of the Executive.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

Aine, did you read Breandain's posts? I don't quarrel with the facts as you state them, as I am not present there. But his explanation of the financial problems, and the HQ's handling of that seems completely in line with what any parent organization is expected to do. It is not unlike Trade Unions in the States. The Local Unions are autonomous bodies and can run their affairs as they see fit. But if they fail in the proper exercise of their fiduciary and constitutional duties, and the HQ can demonstrate that(and their are rigid and formidable burdens of proofs for doing so), it is entirely proper for them to take over, or trustee, these Locals. We then restore their finances to a proper place, correct the inequities caused by the malfeasance, and then restore the Local to its members by holding new elections.

Your post seems to mix many problems into one stew. The taking over of the branch, if Breandain's information is correct, seems the appropriate action. Before you say it, I am not naieve on these matters and I am sure there are some politics involved as well, as my previous post states. If you have specific information on that which mitigates the information we are receiving, I am very interested in hearing it.

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:47 PM

I am saddened to hear of your troubles Aine, but I can only give an opinion of what I am seeing and hearing with our thriving Branch.
I would be more informed if other Branches throughout the country give their opinions.
As I said earlier I am completely in the dark regarding the bile on this Thread on CCE, are all of the remaining Branches in the Dublin Comhaltas in agreement with you?, I am not being critical here, just curious.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

Aine, I wouldn`t argue with you on the shambles at the present day Fleadhs, the earlier Fleadhs I attended were a pleasure, todays society will use any excuse for a booze-up.   Aine what do you do to change this/.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Diarmaid
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:50 PM

Breandán, perhaps you should get some of your facts straight. I think you should come out and say that the only details you know are those that are being fed to you by your paymasters. You have so many inaccuracies that I could not correct them line by line and still give a sense of what actually happened.

Your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM
You say there were cost overruns of 2 million euro. UNTRUE. It was known that there would be a shortfall of approx. 1.8 million euro. Labhrás was aware that a bank loan for this amount would be required and a loan was negotiated with the bank for this amount with Labhrás' approval and encouragement- perhaps, he forgot to tell you.

I assume the reason the contractors were ringing head office is because it was a head office employee who was managing the project. Is this who you refer to when you speak about stonewalling?

At a branch EGM to which Labhrás and members of the Buanchoiste turned up, a motion was put forward by the branch calling on the Branch committee and Comhaltas to work together to resolve the difficulties. Only 2 people voted against this motion with no abstentions.

The successful EGM motion was sent to HO and it was hoped by the branch that we could move forward together.

At this stage, Comhaltas HQ started spinning their story. They sent a series of letters in which the truth was distorted (for instance claiming that the branch was divided at the EGM). In hindsite, I think the branch should have more fiercely rebutted the allegations made but we were still hoping that we could work with Head Office to resolve the problem. Although we stated our case to the Buanchoiste, they refused to pass our correspondence to the other Ardchomhairle members or to allow us to present our case.

On 5th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that they were taking control of Clasac.

Once HO took control of Clasac, it meant that the entity registered for VAT, had to deregister as, in effect, it had never and would never trade. The VAT refund then had to be returned to the Revenue Commissioners.

On 6th Feb, a letter was sent by HO stating that the branch had been suspended for failing to transfer a VAT refund to a HO account.

The branch was given seven days to 'regularise its position in relation to the VAT refund'. As far as the branch was concerned, the position was regularised by returning the VAT to the Revenue Commissioners. HO were informed of same and the branch received a letter from Revenue stating that we had done the right thing in the circumstances.

The branch was told at all times that the reason for suspension and threat of dissolution was because of the VAT. As far as we were concerned, we had taken the only course available to us because of the fact that the Ardchomhairle had taken control of the Clasac project.

Breandán, you say that 'some members of the branch who know what's going on have formed a new committee'. If they knew what was going on, why did they not enlighten any of the other members of the branch at the number of full branch meetings which have been held since the New Year? Also, you failed to state that the committee was formed when a new Cluain Tarbh branch was created before the existing committee or branch had even been notified that they had been dissolved. This new branch was formed at a secret meeting to which the majority of the existing members were not invited and when some members found out about it they were informed that they could not attend as it was a 'private meeting'. Now, there's democracy in action! On the Liveline Radio program, the newly elected chairperson claimed that they had a quorum. I take it, by that, there were five people there which is the number required to set up a new branch.

A letter was then circulated by a member of the Ardchomhairle basically stating that they would give membership to our kids if they entered competitions on behalf of the new branch. The rest of the membership would not be entitled to branch membership, presumably because that would also entitle them to a vote.

Breandán. You say that the VAT refund is a side issue. Why then was the branch dissolved over this? I realise that we were not allowed to present any defense in the matter, also that we were not allowed to appeal any of the decisions made against us, but now you say that it didn't matter whether or not we complied with the Trustee's directive on VAT because we were going to be dissolved anyway.

You say that you believe that the 'Clontarf membership' would have no objections to continuing the project more or less as originally envisaged.

Are you referring to the disenfranchised members of the dissolved Clontarf branch. If so, I tell you again that what we asked of the Ardchomhairle in our EGM motion was that they work with us to ensure the project be completed successfully and the board of Clasac be put in place as per the original agreement.

Their response was to dissolve the branch.

In your posting of 25 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM, you do actually have some statements which are true. Once again though, you're not telling the full truth and in many cases there is no truth in what you say.. You state that a loan could not be borrowed against the land. You fail to state that the loan which had been negotiated by the branch was to be borrowed against the building itself and was ringfenced so that no other assets of Comhaltas would be at risk. Therefore, because the building is vested in the Trustees of Comhaltas, they were the only people who could sign for the loan. Labhrás/the Trustees refused to do this and instead wanted individuals in the branch to put their homes up as collateral.

With regard to the letter of dissolution, you say that it was sent out in the usual way in plenty of time.
The letters of 5th and 6th Feb regarding seizure of control of Clasac and suspension/possible dissolution of the branch were sent by registered post to both the secretary and chairman of the branch. In most other cases, letters were copied to both the chairman and secretary and in many cases were also emailed.

On this occasion, the letter dissolving the branch was not considered important enough to send by registered post. Nor was it deemed necessary to copy it to the chairman. Despite us being told initially that a copy would be emailed, we were later informed that this was not considered appropriate. Instead, the letter was sent out by standard post. Oh, did I mention that they sent it to the wrong address? But, of course, you'd know that Breandán because you have the inside track.

To the best of my knowledge, apart from Labhrás threatening to sue, there was no correspondence between HO and Joe Duffy's show other than to send the letter of dissolution to them. The letter, by the way, stated that the branch was dissolved with effect from the date of the letter (14th March) despite numerous assurances to us that the branch would not be dissolved until the letter had been received.

This conveniently allowed HO people to set up the new branch with their own committee on the 15th before we had been notified of our dissolution.

You refer to the moratorium. HO's letter of 6th Feb states clearly that the moratorium was to allow us the opportunity to sort out the VAT refund. Are you telling us that what they said in their letter was untrue?

When you talk about the new committee, you say that once the branch is in place, others will be free and encouraged to join it.
Why then have they only offered membership to our kids?
Why would they wait until October to offer membership to others?

I believe the reason to be that they are in cahoots with head office to get their members on the board of Clasac so that Labhrás can say he has abided by the agreement on that. The members who set up the new branch are basically those members who voted in favour of the Ardchomhairle motion that Cluain Tarbh hand control of Clasac to HO. When they didn't get their way, their friends in HO helped them out by dissolving the branch and allowing them to set up a new branch with themselves as the self-appointed committee. Isn't democracy wonderful!

You say that the decision to dissolve the Clontarf Branch was made by two elected boards: Dublin County Board and the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas.
Clontarf Branch was dissolved by the Ardchomhairle. I doubt the County Board had any hand in it other than being informed that we were being dissolved.
Any decision made by the Ardchomhairle was not an informed decision as we were not allowed to present our case to them and the Buanchoiste refused to pass our correspondence to them.
Dublin County Board were instructed not to hear our case or accept our correspondence and were also instructed not to allow our reps to attend the County Board meeting.

You continually assert that you are not trying to muddy the waters but you make vague sweeping statements implying things that are not so. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to pretend you do. If you do know what you're talking about, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For anyone interested in the truth, I would urge you to check out the branch website www.cluaintarbh.net

We are trying to put as much info as possible on the website including copies of documents. However, as we don't work at this full time, you may have to bear with us.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:51 AM

I started this thread because I was angered at what I believed to be an outrageous act of injustice on the part of an organisation which purports to act on behalf of the music I have been involved in for the greater part of my life - traditional music. Little I have read so far persuades me that I was wrong to do so. I am left with the feeling that, left in the hands of the incumbent leadership, this matter, as with other similar incidents in the past (West London Branch), Clontarf would end up as another trophy on the wall of head office. Even the most repressive regimes in the world go through the motions of democracy to justify their behaviour - not the case here!
Sorry Mick - I too was involved in Trades Union activity - head office only EVER intervened as a last resort - not the case here, where, it appears, the branch (nor the rest of the organisation) - has not even been consulted. Any Union leader taking such liberties would have ended up 'face down in The Mersey.'
I live in the West of Ireland where, at the present time anyway, traditional music is thriving - without, and some would say "in spite of" CCE. There are good, healthy sessions and youngsters are taking up the music in droves - for the love of it - and not a competition in sight.
There is little doubt that CCE has played a part in the past, but that is no longer the case, and that fact has to be come to terms with.
A popular saying in the sixties was "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:36 AM

Diarmid and Jim, Points read and digested, the question is, how do we find the opinions of the rest of the Branches throughout Ireland on CCE?, it is not an unreasonable question, then we can all know how things stand.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:58 AM

You can contact each one individually and directly from the info on this page:

http://comhaltas.ie/locations/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:01 AM

You can click on the map icons too, which will bring up contact details of each one.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,sparkles
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:37 AM

But the branches didn't get to vote on this, did they? From what I can read, only the internal High Council got to do that.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:52 AM

I'm not sure the branches are privy to any further information than what we've been told here. And no one's going to publicly post grapevine gossip -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,George Henderson
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:01 AM

Wow, and I thought the 1999 report was a disaster. What has happened here is incredible.

Has any body any suggestions of anything we can do about this?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,neutral 'i think' party
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:21 AM

This whole episode is sad to see.
As usual, the same figures/parties rush out to defend or attack Comhaltas.
There are elaborate arguments being made on both sides from something that initially appeared quite straight forward.

I take issue with the following:

"You continually assert that you are not trying to muddy the waters but you make vague sweeping statements implying things that are not so. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to pretend you do. If you do know what you're talking about, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Breandan, has put forward the other side of the story, in a clear manner. Maybe you disagree, maybe it isn't all factually correct, but he appears to know more about what he is talking about than the majority of contributors to the Joe Duffy show. I am sure you wouldn't be so quick to jump on a post stating "Labhras, the president of ceoltas has stolen away a building from the clontarf branch, the biggest branch in the world".

"However, as we don't work at this full time, you may have to bear with us."
- a subtle dig?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:23 AM

Neutral?

It just sounds like enthnic cleansing to me, trying to solve a problem by eliminating any opposition. It's one thing to have a disagreement between two sides on an issue, but one of those sides is doing their best to make sure the other side doesn't exist. That is NOT FAIR whatever the points of argument are. They seem to think they can do anything they want just because they decide to do it.

That 1999 report people mentioned is interesting. Google "Oireachtas report Comhaltas 1999" and it brings up what looks like a PDF copy of the 1999 Oireachtas Report though it's in Irish.

It also brings up this --

From The Journal of Music in Ireland site dated May/June 2002

http://www.thejmi.com/article/73

(part way down the page) The creation of a 'national State council for the development and promotion of the traditional arts such as native music, song, dance, storytelling, etc.' was first proposed by Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú (Director General of Comhaltas Ceóltoirí Éireann) in the first ever Oireachtas Report on Traditional Irish Music, which he compiled for the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Heritage and the Irish Language in January 1999. In the Irish Times on 9th March 1999, the Report was described by reporter Mic Moroney as follows:

By any standards, this report is an extraordinary partisan document, which shows scant signs of research. Instead, it gives a romanticised and rather out-dated picture, which concentrates on the virtues of only one organisation: Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.

What followed was an angry stream of correspondence in the letters page between Labhrás Ó Murchú and his supporters and various critics of the Report – Tom Munnelly, John Moulden, Terry Moylan, Nicholas Carolan, Fintan Vallely and Matt Cranitch. The letters continued to appear up until late May.

Following this debacle, the Report appeared to be shelved...


continued on the link above. And more if you google--

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM

Thanks Bonnie but it would take me a hell of a time to go around each Branch,it is up to everyone concerned to contact CCE HQ and explain your position.
The point is Comhaltas is not on its last legs, everything will be humming along to-morrow night at our local Branch, and no need of drink to produce the music.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM

> how do we find the opinions of the rest of the Branches throughout Ireland on CCE?, it is not an unreasonable question, then we can all know how things stand.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your question! I thought you were asking for the opinions of the rest of the branches -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Folkiedave
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM

What followed was an angry stream of correspondence in the letters page between Labhrás Ó Murchú and his supporters and various critics of the Report – Tom Munnelly, John Moulden, Terry Moylan, Nicholas Carolan, Fintan Vallely and Matt Cranitch. The letters continued to appear up until late May.

If that's a list of his critics it tells me an awful lot about which side to be on!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:05 PM

Apologies for the thread drift in this engrossing saga (something like this crops up every year or two in an Arts organisation in Ireland, with both sides going at it hammer and thongs), but I have to take issue with "Guest, Aine in Dublin", who says: the Fleadh is in good part a drunken jamboree from Friday evening to Sunday night. It is certainly not a conducive atmosphere for appreciating a session. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into a session you can hear - most people appear to have a vague interest and are largely there for the 'craic and the booze'. I was at the Fleadh in Tullamore last August and my friends and I had a wonderful time. We visited and played in many of the 27 pubs, not to mention hotels, street sessions, dancing, etc. Yes, it was a bit difficult getting into some sessions, as the space and seats were limited, but then we just continued to the next one--there were well over 50 concurrent sessions on Sunday alone. Sure, I saw a few drunks--what do you expect with thirty or forty thousand people on the streets? And her statement that parents of young children largely stay out of the town over the weekend is untrue as can be seen from my photos, which are available here. Happy kids and happy musicians.
Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:28 PM

Great set of pictures Gulliver.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM

It seems to me that even if the Cluain Tarbh Branch were making a total mess of the project,(and nothing I read outside of Breandán's posts suggests that this is actually the case), that the Branch still should have been given some form of due process before the branch was expunged with the stroke of a pen.

Whether the Ard Comhairle were legally within their rights to do what they did their position is morally indefensible. And in morality if the members of the (real) branch are not going to have the use of the Classac centre then the money that was raised by the branch towards the project should be refunded to the branch for distribution among the membership. Why do I get the feeling that that will never happen?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:51 PM

Wonderful pictures.

Yeah, Declan, that is kind of where I seem to be leaning. I think it is telling that since the counter story was run, and some pointed questions were raised, we have not heard from Breandain. I would have preferred to have the dialogue go on between knowledgeable folks so's the rest of us could come to informed opinions.

But no matter what else is presented, no matter how plausible it seems, there is a disconnect when one comes to the process and dissolution. It seems to have been done as a thief in the night. That certainly colours my view of all that has been said.

Very difficult from afar, eh?

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM

Though I am understandably reluctant to wade back in here, I do feel compelled to correct a couple of misconceptions which have taken hold in the popular imagination.

First, though the dissolution of the branch on 14 March, 2008 has understandably come as a shock to outsiders and even to those within the branch who were not kept abreast of events, it should be kept in mind that the Clasaċ management committee was aware of the 2 million shortfall in February 2007 - this was minuted at the time. Since that time, including at 11 meetings taking place between Sep 2007 and Dec 2007 between representatives of the Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas and the Clasaċ committee, continued concern has been expressed at the handling of the project and the need for additional funding. Though a bank loan was eventually brought forward in Dec 2007, it was not one that the trustees of Comhaltas could guarantee while maintaining their fiduciary duty to safeguard the other property of Comhaltas. The reasons for this are technical and I won't get into them here, but the fact is that the branch had a very, very long time to address these issues before things came to a head this spring. The committee were perhaps just in over their heads.

Second, while I do not wish to minimise the contributions of the Clontarf branch to the inception and public awareness of Clasaċ project, it should be borne in mind that the branch raised approximately €150,000 of the €9,000,000 project. This is still a huge achievement, but it should be remembered that the Clasaċ committee was charged with managing what was mostly other people's money. Comhaltas had a very clear interest in ensuring that the usage of the Dept of Arts, Sports and Tourism money that went into the Clasaċ theatre was being properly used and administered.

Third, I do think that it is relevant to discuss the experience of the new branch committee which has been formed. This executive committee includes the three ex-chairpersons of the branch for the last 20 years -- the same ones who painstakingly built the excellent reputation of the Clontarf branch. By contrast, the committee which was dissolved has been in power for only the last two years. The "real" committee, it could be argued, is the newly-formed one, whose members were members of the original 4-person Clasaċ development committee for 13 years and were involved first-hand with every fundraiser that took place.

Fourth, regarding the future of the branch. There has never been even the remotest suggestion that all members of the Clontarf branch would not be making use of the facilities of the new theatre. It is also important to note that the first act of the new committee was to ensure that all classes would continue and that all payments made for these classes would be honoured; all teachers employed would be paid; all Fleadh entries for 2008 would be accepted as normal Comhaltas entries, even if in the longer term the person did not wish to remain a member; all current ordinary members would have their membership honoured; and of course no penalty would be imposed on ordinary members, who had no active part in the circumstances leading to the dissolution. This has been approved by Dublin County Board and by Leinster Council. I have seen suggestions that adult members are somehow now being excluded from the Clontarf branch or from Clasaċ, which is not the case in the least.

I await with interest further attacks upon my credibility and character.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:44 PM

If you will permit a follow-up post:

Diarmaid: though I appreciate the work you have put in as Secretary, I submit to you that a serious error was made by the branch in allowing the same persons to fill the Chairperson and Treasurer positions of the Cluain Tarbh executive committee and the Clasaċ sub-committee. When financial matters went unresolved with Clasaċ, the net result was to put the Cluain Tarbh branch itself in jeopardy, which needn't have been the case. The year-long intransigence of the committee eventually precipitated a last-resort action by the Ardchomhairle which resulted in fear and confusion within the branch, and an obvious public confusion and outcry which serves neither nor the branch nor the larger organisation.

The dissolution, though a terrible last resort, was felt necessary by the elected council of the Ardchomhairle (after 8 hours of debate) in part because the ordinary branch members did not know what was taking place in their name. With the interlocking directorships of the branch executive and the theatre sub-committee, there was no independent voice within the branch capable of applying pressure on the theatre committee to develop a proper plan for addressing the funding shortfall.