|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM Well, now that is news regarding the make-up of the committees, the plot thickens, what do you think Mick?. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY- Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM Would Dustin or Judge Mahon or some respected persona arbitrate on this ,and get on with a few tunes & primary agenda stuff --- we have just written a tune called "The Power Struggle " |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Gulliver Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:26 PM Clontarf/Cluain Tarbh is Irish for "The Plain of the Bull" Thereby hangs a tail: Comhaltas took the bull by the horns and dismantled the branch. The branch in turn accused Comhaltas of behaving like a bull in a china-shop while Comhaltas accused them of making up cock-and-bull stories of the whole affair. Who is bull****ing whom? (I'll get me coat...) Don |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY- Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM A tale without a tail is not a tale at all --our newly written lamentation "The Power Struggle" a thugtar, is a classic manifestion , as caoine, of the falsely concepted hostilities that are born of mistrust and misdeeds that have been engendered by lack of adequate forward planning and major communication deficiencies-- Its beyond time that someone raised the white Cockade |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM ***LOL***, ard mhacha. This is getting to be an interesting intersection to be sipping a cuppa on, indeed. Back and forth, but one can see the various positions and how they are coming at it. I hope Breandain doesn't include you or I in the attacks on his character or integrity, but I do think it is obvious that he is more than what we first thought. It does appear he is putting out one point of view and doing it with much inside info, eh? To be continued..........and I am really enjoying this, sad as the situation is. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM Two sets each and now going into the final set, can the oul legs of O`Murchu stand the pace or will the young Turks finally win the day, watch this space. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Snuffy Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:22 PM By your leave Larry Grogan, Enough has been spoken, It's time to give over your sonnet, your sonnet; Come listen to mine sir, Much truer than thine sir, For these very eyes were upon it. It is of a buck slain, This very campaign, To let him live longer, 'twere a pity, 'twere a pity: For head and for branches, For fat and for haunches, Exceeding the mayor of a city, a city. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:38 PM Mick, I certainly wouldn't include you or ard mhacha in that characterisation - sorry if I implied otherwise! If it's useful for anyone as far as credibility, I'm certainly not claiming to be just a Dublin musician. I'm employed part-time at the moment by Comhaltas - I designed and am the webmaster of http://comhaltas.ie. My authority isn't in the area of PR, but since no-one was speaking out and I happened to know a lot about the controversy, I'm posting kinda on my own. No-one asked me to post; but then as the "tech guy" around the office, I'm one of the few who's aware of the Internet. I don't mind if people criticise Comhaltas or the actions of its officers or officials -- I spend plenty of time doing that myself. But before we can get into motivations, it seemed that there was/is an awful lot of misinformation (bred and reinforced by mistrust) out there. I'm posting on my own time (and neglecting my studies!), but also chatting casually to staff and elected representatives who I happen to know. I've been in the room at Head Office when a lot of this went down over the past year, though (again) it's not really in my area. I designed some killer sound and light systems for the new Clasac theatre, and I can't wait to work some shows in there. I enjoy meeting the members of Cluain Tarbh at the Dublin Fleadh and at the Fleadh Cheoil, though my own branch is different one in Dublin. Anyway, to refer to the very first post, where Jim says: "It would appear that the leadership of CCE has taken over the premises which was built with money raised by the local branch, and has expelled the branch in order to finalise the dirty deed." There's a lot there that's simply not true. It's not Jim's fault - he heard it on the radio, and then read Cluain Tarbh's website. But the leadership of CCÉ haven't taken over anything -- it always was a Comhaltas-owned building. Money wasn't raised mostly by the branch - the local branch raised about 2% of the money. The branch wasn't expelled to finalise the takeover of a theatre - Comhaltas' high council suspended and then dissolved the executive committee of the branch, because the project was in jeopardy and a year of negotiations hadn't resolved it. And fortunately, the branch executive has re-formed itself quickly with an experienced committee. Personally, I think that the branch members should have been kept better-informed of the money issues. I also think that the branch shouldn't have let the theatre committee be run by the branch executive. I also personally wish that there had been another way to get the project back on track, and I wholeheartedly agree that the mechanisms of communication and public relations (even when talking to the branch) were severely neglected by Comhaltas leadership. Doesn't mean it was a mean-spirited greedy power-grab, though. Anyway, those are the facts. I think that it might be quite productive to discuss funding or politics in arts-based non-profits. State sponsorship of traditional arts raises all sorts of interesting issues of governance and representation. It's also interesting to speculate on the Ardchomhairle debate. But none of that can be done meaningfully when people don't know what's going on. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,sparkles Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM Or when there are two versions of what's going on for us not to know about. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM I'm not trying to question anyone's credibility here either. Just trying to ascertain the facts, so I can make up my own mind as to the rights and wrongs of the situation. The lack of trust of Comhaltas leadership shown by a number of people here is not groundless and comes from various experiences with CCÉ as an organisation. One thing that I don't quite understand. If the Classac project was being run by a separate committee, albeit apparently with a fair amount of overlap with the Cluain Tarbh Branch Committee, the why was it the Cluain Tarbh BC that was dissolved rather than the Classac committee. It would seem that 400 people have effectively been wiped out of the organisation (albeit apparently with the right to come back in if they would choose to do so (I must say I wouldn't)) because of the alleged incompetence of a few committee members. And I am delighted to hear that the new members will be allowed to use the facility which they worked so hard to help create, but it seems to me the essential issue here is one of control. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM Very astute post, Declan. Thanks for capturing it so well. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM Thanks again for all who are posting with the way they see it & with the info they have. There are never enough views nor enough info, that we can't use more of it. I await 1st hand reports of how this is being dealt with during this upcoming weekend's North American Convention. I suspect that the cat's got to be let out of the bag by this point & that there'll be some sort of public announcement/statement along with a hopefully better way at bringing this to a healthy solution that all interested parties can be happy with. After all is said & done it's the music that's the most important priorty & we all would love to see this in the future as only a past footnote in the continuation of a musical tradition that we all love, honor & respect. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:19 AM Breandán, Sorry - I really don't buy any of this - just what is Comhaltas policy on expulsions (branch or individual) - does anybody have the right of representation or appeal? I refer you back to a posting I made some time ago regarding a previous 'head rolling' session - this time concerning the West London branch expulsion (for not toe-ing a political (political) line). Are we likely to have more expulsions of those who don't support Bertie in his hour of need? Jim Carroll "I wasn't associated with the West London Branch at the time of the expulsion, but the events went something like this (my information was gleaned from my friend and neighbour, the late Paddy Boyle, father of Maggie Boyle who posted above). Labhrás ó Murchú decided that Comhaltas should raise money for a commemoration to Padraig Pearse; I think it was the centenary of his birth which would have made the date around 1979. Branch members in West London objected, claiming that it was not the job of an organisation devoted to music to participate in political events. A letter was sent saying as much and Larry replied saying (in so many words); "do as you're told or else". The "or else" was expulsion and the branch was expelled. The expelled members continued to operate as a very active branch (I think they called themselves The West London Irish Music Association) and ran regular sessions at the Hibernian Club, Fulham, where they recieved the support of players such as Bobby Casey, Raymond Roland, Roger Sherlock, Danny Meehan, John Carthy, P J Crotty, John Bowe, Fergus McTeggart, The MacCarthys and many others, in other words, the cream of London/Irish music. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:25 AM Jim I believe that Brendan put over his opinion very well, not an insult in sight, also 1979 is quite a long time ago, in the meantime Comhaltas hasn`t fallen apart. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 08 - 06:55 AM "1979 was a long time ago" - ???!!!! Oh. So that makes it all right, then? The whole point is not when it happened, but that it happened at all. The fact that a branch can arbitrarily be dissolved simply because they don't agree with the political opinions of the leader, on a topic that has nothing whatever to do with their group aims and objectives, was, is - and shall remain - unacceptable. The organisation is about MUSIC, which by its definition transcends political views, race, religion, gender and all else. The point is that it clearly shows a behaviour pattern and abuse of power. I was THERE in London at the time, and though I lived in another part of the city (North London Comhaltas was our local) there was widespread shock and fury when it occurred. What makes you think that this sort of thing becomes "OK" simply because a number of years pass? And now the abracadabra-you're-history thing is happening again. Well, and why not? It sure works. And don't kid yourself, Labhrás ó Murchú's political affiliations with Fianna Fáil - the party in power, whose leader is currently under investigation for corruption - do him no harm at all. Just for the record, I didn't know Jim Carroll in those days, and in fact have never met him at all except online, through this forum and the Ir-Trad email list. Therefore we are not personal acquaintances. I did know Maggie Boyle very slightly back in the 70s, pretty much on a hi-how-are-you basis in assorted sessions or backstage at various concerts. So, although it must look like we're a coterie, we're not. These are, in fact, independent views of the same situation, by people who witnessed it. Dissolving that branch over an opinion that differed with the leader's and had NO relevance to music was wrong then AND IT'S WRONG NOW. And it seems to be happening again. I don't understand why you keep stressing that Comhaltas is still going strong. Of COURSE it is!! No one - and I mean no one - would wish it otherwise. But that is totally beside the point being discussed here. Whereas Jim's post is all too horribly relevant. Dissolving the opposition - because you can - is the most blatant injustice and abuse of power. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Guest Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:33 AM All of the Officers of the dissolved Branch have opted to keep quiet I wonder why.Yes there is a financial scandal, what surprises me is how could anyone appear to be shocked. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM Ah yes, the Lord of Obfuscation raises his ugly head. For the clear view, refer to Bonnie Shaljean's post. Despite attempts to shift the premise, I believe the real issue is the one of process. As I pointed out earlier, there is no question that a parent organization has an obligation to watch out for the interests of the rank and file, and make sure there is no malfeasance in how their local organization is being run with respect to finances and delivery of services. That is one of the prime duties of all parent organizations which are run by dues and grants. But the fundamental issue here is not about that. That is what it appears CCE would like you to focus on. What I hear from Jim, Bonnie, and others is about process being denied by an autocratic leader who seems to use his position to bludgeon folks who don't agree with him, and reward those that go along nicely. Classic carrot and stick. Stay to it, Bonnie, because your point is an important one. The attempt to shift the discussion to the financial problems is an attempt to get away from the one of process. The financial discussion is only relevant in the actual appeal process, where the facts of the reasons for dissolution should be discussed. But the appeal process, and the discussion of the legitimacy of the Chief Officers actions is what is at risk here. Sorry, friend ard mhacha, but I believe that using the length of time since 1979 would only be legitimate if the player was different, and if the same circumstance were not in evidence. I am sure that in the intervening time there are likely many more examples of heavy handed tactics that could be found. Once again, these are simply the observations of a person who is interested and very far away. I await other details that will influence me, but this is how it appears to me. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Observer Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM Breandan's comments surly brings to mind that old musical proverb"He who pays the piper calls the tune" |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:06 AM Good on you Bonnie that`s me told off,but our old friend Guest-guest asks a very important question, any answers?. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM You're right, Ard Mhacha (hey... we agree!) - it's a very important question indeed, and I am just as interested as you to know the answers. One can always learn something. But it's just too easy to anonymously whisper that there's "a scandal" and leave it at that. Guest, if you have an allegation to make, MAKE it. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us who you are? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:45 AM The original "frame" of this discussion was around theft - plain and bold-faced theft of resources amassed by an idealistic branch of Comhaltas. I made my comments with that in mind, and it seems I've been successful in showing, at the least, that there's another side to this matter. Now, as you say, the conversation has moved to process - how, in the light of these difficulties with capital structuring, did the branch committee come to be dissolved? The answer there lies more, in my opinion, with the interlocking management of the branch and the project. Ideally, the problems with the construction project would be brought to the attention of the branch executive, who would have taken steps to resolve the problem. In this case, the management of the project *was* the branch executive, who actively screened their own membership from access to information. Needless to say, they did not suggest any changes to their own committee. In this case, the only way of getting the project complete was to put pressure on the branch, a process that was applied by Comhaltas' high council, the Ardchomhairle, working in concert with the Dublin County Board. In a stand-off between a local unit and the elected leadership of an organisation, I'm afraid that the leadership does have the right, constitutionally, to prevail, and that's what happened here. No matter the generally autonomous nature of branch activities and decision-making, when the elected leadership to which the branch has elected representatives asks the branch to do something, the local unit pretty much has to comply. I'm troubled by the assumption (implicit, and never stated outright that I can see) that Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú is exercising some kind of unilateral and unchecked power. Though as Director-General he signs the checks, the process leading up to the dissolution of the branch is not an action that can be taken by him. There is an easy tendency to assume that, because he is generally the only member of the Comhaltas leadership in the public eye, he must be personally responsible for every decision taken by the organisation. Not true. His own ties to the Government are certainly useful to Comhaltas when it comes to fund-raising, but this is a question of a higher level of a democratic government putting pressure (justified, in my opinion) on a lower-level unit of the same elective structure. Not uncommon, in any field. This unwillingness of the branch officials (elected at the local level) to accept the authority of the Ardchomhairle (elected at the provincial level) led to the dissolution. Senator Ó Murchú's job is to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of Comhaltas, a structure of which the branch executive is a part. I have not yet seen anyone make any factual statements indicating that the Senator made a personal decision to attack the Clontaf branch, and yet many seem happy to assume this to be the case. I admit that this is, in part, a deliberately defensive posture on his part. By absorbing all of the public flack for the decisions and actions of Comhaltas, he is doing his job and protecting other levels of the organisation. While I appreciate that quality of his, I do find it annoying when it is automatically assumed that the good outcomes of Comhaltas are created by the idealistic grass-roots and that the negative or controversial outcomes are the result of naked autocratic power, exercised by a single man. It just doesn't work like that. If the Ardchomhairle wanted to replace Senator Ó Murchú, they could do so at their next meeting. That says something about where the power actually lies. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM I can't speak for the others, but in my case I was utilising his name as a sort of shorthand for headquarters and the committee in power, rather than singling him out individually. As he's the visible figurehead in all the PR, so he also tends to get used as an abbreviation which includes the faceless others working behind the scene, whom we don't see in the promotional material. I have enough experience with similar organisations over many years to know how bureaucratically they are run. Politicians and leaders do stand out as the representatives for their organisations, and as such they have a public profile. (That old adage about heat and kitchens comes to mind.) I think most people are aware of this. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:23 PM One thing about Comhaltas, interestingly, is that the actual running of the organisation is extremely un-bureaucratic. There is a tiny handful of full- and part-time staff who handle day-to-day operations, with Labhrás Ó Murchú one of probably 10 staff for an organisation providing services to 30,000 members around the globe. All of the policy and decision-making for the body, along with the vast majority of event planning and all of the teaching programme development is done by volunteers, elected at local level. At the head office of Comhaltas, we don't really have much in the way of memos, staff meetings, departments -- probably we're missing most of what you'd describe as a bureaucracy. The governing council, the ardchomhairle, is made up of elected volunteers, and is entirely and deliberately separate from the professional staff. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:32 PM Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. I probably should have said "communally". In any case I didn't mean it in the critical sense, only as the opposite of autocratic. It was purely casual usage. (How many bodies outside of governments can even afford to be bureaucracies?) Still waiting for an answer, Guest - |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:11 PM Bonnie, you get a prize for being the first to use "opposite of autocratic" to describe the Comhaltas decision-making process. I'll count you as a firm supporter in future. :-) Anyway, Comhaltas has (finally) released a statement on the affair. You might want to take a look, parse away, and let me know if there's anything I can clarify. http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,trad Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM That sounds cold, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,trad Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM The long awaited response :The Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas, which is elected by the general membership through the Provincial and Annual Congress structures, is charged with the proper governance of the organisation including financial matters and the rights of individual members. Clontarf CCÉ set up the Clasaċ sub-committee to spearhead the building of a centre on Dublin's Northside. The Clasaċ building was subsequently to be recognised as one of seven Regional Resource Centres of Comhaltas and funded as such by the Ardchomhairle under the grant - aided Development Programme of the organisation. The local Comhaltas would also have a home in the centre. The local committee - as was the case with the other regional centres - was expected through fundraising to make a substantial contribution. This never materialised. The cost of the project rose to over € 9,000,000. The Clasaċ development committee splintered with most of the early advocates of the project resigning, claiming mismanagement of the project and raising questions regarding financial matters. Several other centres which were scheduled to receive funding under the Development Programme agreed to forego this funding to help prop up the Clasaċ project. The Trustees of Comhaltas carried out an investigation of the project and issued a highly critical report, which was adopted by the Ardchomhairle. This report was discussed with representatives of the local committee who accepted its findings. This situation reached crisis point in December 2007 when debts of almost € 2,000,000 incurred by the Clasaċ committee, remained unpaid. Several small contractors who have not been paid for their work on the project were facing financial ruin. The chairman of the local branch of Comhaltas who was also chairman of the Clasaċ development committee, in the presence of a professional arbitrator on the 7th of December 2007, met with the main contractor and undertook to pay a portion of the outstanding debts prior to Christmas. This payment never materialised. The Ardchomhairle at this stage had no option but to intervene. It established a modus operandi to stabilise the situation. This is chaired by the Secretary General of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and includes the Treasurer General. The Ardchomhairle borrowed € 2,000,000 from the bank to pay the outstanding debts. The local committee initiated an application for refund of VAT. It has refused to provide the Ardchomhairle with all documentation and information relating to the basis and process of the application by the local committee to the Revenue Commissioners for refund of VAT, which had in fact been paid by the Ardchomhairle. We have not had sight of the invoices submitted to substantiate this VAT claim. As the VAT had already been paid to Comhaltas by way of grant-aid, a refund would be deemed to be double funding and the local committee was informed of this. Invoices for all work carried out were in the name of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, 32 Belgrave Square, Monkstown, Co Dublin, which were paid by Comhaltas and re-claimed as such (including VAT) from the Department which was supplied with original copies of the invoices and the Architect's Certificates which were audited and certified. In the course of the process initiated by by the Ardchomhairle to investigate and regularise all the financial dealings of the project, a decision was made by some people in the local committee to deregister the VAT status and the refund received was returned to the Revenue Commissioners. This fundamental and serious move did not have the required sanction of a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the local branch. The various directives issued unanimously by the 31- member Ardchomhairle were not brought, within the specified time, to a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the branch to allow them to have an input into their future within the organisation. This was a clear breach of the organisation's Bunreacht. The situation has now been stabilised; the Centre is in the process of completion and will be opened later in the year. It is a source of regret to the Ardchomhairle that the local committee did not avail of the several opportunities provided to regularise its position within the organisation; take responsibility for its actions and be in full conformity with the Bunreacht of Commhaltas. The Ardchomhairle, following several postponments of its directives was left with no choice but to fulfil its obligations and disolve the branch. However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Sean Murphy Date: 28 Mar 08 - 07:35 PM Today's press release from Comhaltas Ceoltoir Eireann HQ (http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/) makes some serious allegations against the Clontarf Branch's management of the Clasac centre project: members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments, irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros, took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction, and generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ. If true, these allegations would justify the dissolution of Clontarf Branch. But are they true? Sean Murphy |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:46 AM In the end I suppose it's down to whose version of events you believe; the articulate, rational one represented here by the postings of Aine, Dairmaid, and the statements from the expelled Clontarf branch members, or the one that appears to have been finally elicited from the CCE leadership that has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of its ivory tower to give an explanation for, (whatever version you accept) its outrageous behaviour. After all, it's not as if we don't have precedent to go on to help us make up our minds; though I suppose it's a sort of progress that some explanation has been given at all - (I still don't know where 'democracy' stands in all this). During the course of this dispute I re-read the report that Labhrás gave to the Oireachtas in 1999, and some of the protest submissions, and once again I was left with the overwhelming impression of 'Empire Builders and nodding-dogs, (like those you see in the back windows of cars); the former being those who trample on members and branches to get to where they are going, and the latter who let them get away with it. Yes ard mhacha, the 1979 expulsion was 'a long time ago' and Comhaltas 'hasn't fallen apart' - surely that's the point; nothing has changed, the dinosaurs still roam the earth, and they will continue to do so until a decent form of democratic representation is put into place in CCE. As it stands at present, the view of the membership (and the taxpayer who provides the wherewithal) amounts to little more than 'a hill of beans' (as the man said!) Whatever the outcome of all this, I have little doubt that it won't be too long before we are here again discussing yet another scandal. I do know that all this has little, if anything to do with the traditional Irish music that I know and love. In the meantime; the branch has my support and, I am sure, that of many others of us who have been given this small peep behind the locked doors of head office.Wish there was more we could do. Best wishes, Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,PJ Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM What I wish is that someone from Clontarf would log on and answer these charges. Right here in clear language, not with a bunch of confusing downloads. Those accusations are serious. Sean Murphy asked the question we all want to know - is this stuff true? And if they have an argument to put forward explaining their side, they need to do it. Keeping quiet is making them look bad. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Mar 08 - 06:59 AM PS Whatever the outcome of all this, the words "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" will stay with me for a very long time to come Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Learaí na Láibe Date: 29 Mar 08 - 07:42 AM Quote from statement of the Ardchomhairle: "However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review." Are they thus acknowledging that their dissolution of the branch was not carried out correctly. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter I find the relative silence of Comhaltas members from Ireland very strange. This is the only forum that seems to have any prolonged discussion on the subject, AFAIK - I'm open to correction. None of the popular Irish forums seem to show any interest. Is the Comhaltas 'culture' hostile to people who have outspoken views. Beware the evil Meeja (media) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 29 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM Yeah, I argued about that last bit - the statement sounds as if the Ardchomhairle deprived people of rights. That's not what they meant to say - it's supposed to be an indication that the former branch committee deprived their own members of the right to discuss and debate the issues around the financial mismanagement. And that the Ardchomhairle will be hoping to find a way to address that. That's what I find a little odd about this whole argument, actually - what's happened is that a committee of a few people who didn't do a very good job managing a flagship project has been replaced by another committee of people who have vastly more experience with the whole issue, and the project is back on track. And I think you know that's what I meant, Jim - that statement could well (and should) have said, "The former Clontarf committee has been dissolved, and so does not currently represent the branch membership." From the point of those here who care about process and democracy, that's a very good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM "That's not what they meant to say" For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it! "That statement could well (and should) have said, " For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it! Come on Breandán - decide which hymn book you're singing from and get the words right. Everything that has happened regarding Clontarf is completely in keeping with what has happened in the past. Democracy to Comhaltas appears to be what Western civilisation was to Ghandi - a good idea - no more. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: MARINER Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:13 PM Maybe I got this wrong Breandán ,but are you saying that dissolving a committee at the stroke of a pen from onhigh is democratic?? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Sean Murphy Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:08 PM Yes, even for the very interested who take the trouble to read them, the Clontarf Branch documents accessible at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm can appear 'confusing' because they contain so much detail. However, having matched the Comhaltas official press release with said documents, I would venture the following thoughts on the charges against the Clontarf Branch: Members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments: how far short was the Branch in the matter of funds raised? Irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros: was not HQ aware in good time that an additional bank loan would have to be obtained, and did not delay in finalising this precipitate a funding crisis? Took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction: was the branch not legally obliged to sort out the VAT issue without delay? Generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ: the online documents show the branch holding general meetings, arguing their case with HQ and pleading to be heard, but ultimately being arbitrarily dissolved. In general, the Comhaltas press release is a rather good example of PR spin, somehow contriving to give the impression that the problems with the Clasac project are all the fault of the former Clontarf branch, and that HQ and a more sensible local committee have now set matters right. Sean Murphy Irish Historical Mysteries http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:44 PM And have they? Problems costing 2 million? HOW? And how happy are the ordinary members with the new committee? Does anyone even know? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:16 PM Hello everyone I will try keep this bit to a minimum, as current issues are obviously more pressing, but the 1979 West London case has been referred to a few times of late. I must say that ard mhacha's comment that 1979 was a long time ago, in the context of what happened to many families and a huge social group, was thoughtless & hurtful. I'd like to straighten up the record in relation to this 'historical' but sadly now familiar expulsion issue. It was not a case of the West London committee disagreeing with Larry's politics (many would have agreed with his causes); the committee protested that it was against the constitution of CCE to use his position to attempt to raise funds for political reasons. He was fund-raising (via CCE) for the Padraig Pearse Centenary celebrations – a fine thing to do as Chairman (as he then was) of the Padraig Pearse Commemoration committee, but not something that should have been foist on all branches of CCE, in our opinion. The dispute became a matter of public discussion and it's this that became the reason for our expulsion. We had apparently brought the organisation into disrepute via the public discussion. You need to remember that 1979 hosted a different climate, and it was important – even to the most Republican of CCE committee members in London – that the constitution points (i.e. non-religious, non-political etc) – were upheld. People were working hard to promote Irish Music in England (West London had succeeded in producing a BBC documentary about the branch), and there were numerous non-Irish committee members. Anyway, the process adopted by the CCE Executive at the time perfectly mirrors the current solution. People who could not countenance life with out Comhaltas, or those who did not understand the subtleties of the argument – or those who just agreed with Larry's actions and did not care about the constitution – were invited to form a new committee. It worked. I estimate that 10-15% of the old membership formed the new West London CCE, which celebrated it's "50th" anniversary in 2007 (with no mention of the schism in 1979 as far as I can tell). The whole thing at the time was just incredibly sad. There were people in the middle of the whole scenario who just did not know where to go anymore. Thankfully most of us re-grouped, and that set-up is still going strong – at The Kilkenny, Tooting, every Tuesday. To more salient issues, and the statement issued by HQ….I think that it's important for as many people as possible to view the documents on http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ My 'take' on these complex issues around ownership/loans is that – in taking possession of the building, and subsequently asking the branch to secure the loans required for completion of works – there was an impossible demand situation. How could the branch possibly be expected to secure a loan of this size with no security? They'd have to put up their homes. The documents are lengthy, but clear. The recent statement implies that HQ borrowed 2 million euros at end of December 2007, to bail out this irresponsible branch. Why, therefore, do I see documentation of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the branch on 8th January 2008, stating "We are very concerned to ensure bank funding is put in place immediately to complete the project" and pleading their case for this not being their responsibility? And there is another letter, dated 28th January, with similar concerns about payment of contractors. This is only one aspect of a case, the whole of which we can't hope to fully comprehend. But it's an aspect that has been very neatly side-stepped in the statement from HQ (above). Unsurprisingly, I must agree with Sean Murphy that the statement is a "rather good example of PR spin". Please research it for yourselves. Responses from the branch members (ex or current!) would also be most welcome. Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Barry Finn Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM Thanks Maggie, for posting more of the "historical details". I for one think that in this case history is very relevent in this situation. If we don't study/examine history we are doomed to repeat it & it seems as if it's being repeated here. Bad blood over musical issues/differences is bad enough but bad blood over political/contractual issues & differences is unexceptable. It seems that the 1979 "conflict" was cause for some bloody damage, it should've been a high priority for all involved, espically on the side of HQ that the same mistakes weren't repeated. But there's bad blood now & that's gonna have a negitive effect throughtout CCE. It seems to late for that now. The loans are in place, the project is resumed, now there seems to be blame enough to drown the spirit of the whole org in. Like a pebble with it's ripple effect in a pond, this will be a bone of contention for yrs to come just as the 1979 incident is now resurfacing again 30 yrs later. Does any one wish to relive this one 30 yrs down the line? Not knowing any of the envolved, past or present & being far away from any closely envolved it seems to me that for the good of everyone a sacrificial lamb might be offered up as a one time special for this evenings menue. Cut the head off the figurehead, (you'll get by without the head but can you survive without the heart?) isn't that where the buck stops anyway, at the head? Give him up if that'll put an end to bad blood & if that's what it takes to heal the new & old wounds. It certinlly seems that if he's not wholly responsible for poor choices in how to have handled this in a proper way he's at the least got his hand up far enough to be held more responsible that anyone else now as well as the last lasting distasteful issue & he's at the very least played an important part in both. His head seems to be the mostly likely way to start repairing the damage that's already been caused. I hope that this does not get me expelled, I just renewed my membership after a 25 yr lapse, I won't live long enough to rejoin again. Only the thoughts of one. Don't shoot the messenger just cause the message sucks. Good Luck to all Barry |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:06 AM The official statement (as is the often the way with these things raises more questions for me than it answers. Some of the questions that come to mind are: 1. Who was actually running the project? We are told that the Classac committee was a sub-committee of the Cluain Tarbh Branch, but Diarmuid (who Breandán identifies as the Branch Secretary) states that the Project Manager was in Head Office (a statement which has not been contested) and the statement indicates that the bills were being paid from CCE HQ. It would seem that the project was not as far removed from HQ as we are being led to believe. 2. Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them? The statement seems to concur with the view that the refund wasn't properly payable in this case. The money was therefore the property of the exchequer, and ultimately the Irish taxpayer. This being the case we can only assume that the money would have gone back to Revenue in any event. While this is being played down at the moment, it would appear to me that the refund of the money directly to Revenue was the action that precipatated the dissolution of the Branch. 3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee? We are told there were technical reasons why the trustees felt unable to guarantee the loan and that they were exercising their fiduciary duties to protect other Comhaltas property. But statements from the branch on their website indicate that the loan was ringfenced to Classac - was this not the case? Democracy is about people having the right to choose those who represent them. We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ. I'd hate to live in a "Democracy" run by Comhaltas HQ. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:39 AM What-The-Others-Are-Saying dept: http://dublinopinion.com/2008/03/25/lament-for-the-clontarf-branch-slow-air/ http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=32745 http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bitter-row-erupts-over-funding-for-trad- Note that these are Irish websites, two blogs and a news report from The Independent. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:50 AM Declan, I don't mind at all answering the questions that you raise: 1. "Who was actually running the project?" Clasaċ is a Comhaltas project, but one initiated and run by the branch. The branch took responsibility for the running of the construction project, initial marketing of the centre, getting a management board in place, etc. They accomplished this through the working of a sub-committee. One member of this committee also worked in Comhaltas head office, mostly on unrelated projects, and in fact he also worked extremely hard on Clasaċ day-to-day. (Full disclosure: he's a friend of mine.) However, he was not in any of the committee executive positions (chairman, secretary or treasurer). Bills were paid through Comhaltas because the government grant was subvented through Comhaltas' grant-aid. Comhaltas would pay the bill (including VAT), get appropriate certifications and submit the invoice to Government, who provided reimbursement. 2. "Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them?" Because VAT was already being reimbursed by one Government department (Arts/Tourism), it was completely inappropriate for the branch to independently apply for reimbursement of the same money through another department (Revenue). When the branch made this application using a newly-registered non-Comhaltas VAT number, the Revenue returned the money (we're not sure why - there's a Revenue investigation under way.) Once this was learned, the Department of Sport/Tourism directed Comhaltas to recover this money from the branch and forward it back to the department to avoid double-funding. Comhaltas complied with the government directive by requesting the money back from the branch, which refused. This refusal to recognise the authority of the Ardchomhairle was deemed a serious matter. The money was eventually returned to Revenue directly, but this decision was made independently by the branch, again not respecting the directive of Arts/Tourism. 3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee? The loan was presented in Dec 2007, at least 10 months after the need became obvious. The branch should have known that there was no way to "ring-fence" a loan around the Clasaċ building itself; the terms of the original grant-aid required that if the centre failed the Department of Arts/Tourism would be the first to be paid back. The bank would not have allowed itself to be the "second in line" in a default scenario, and the bank would insist on other Comhaltas assets being in play. The Comhaltas trustees couldn't have signed such an agreement without having direct control over how the money was being spent and still meet their responsibilities. If the branch had done their research (and had talked to the trustees at one of the many opportunities over the year), they would have known that such a loan request, brought by the branch at the 11th hour, would be rejected. (5.) "We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ." The new committee was not "chosen by HQ". When the original committee was dissolved as a last-resort measure, some more experienced hands within the branch organised themselves into a committee and applied for membership to the Dublin County Board as a branch of Comhaltas. This new committee has committed to holding a number of open meetings with the full membership in the coming months. The former committee was the one acting in a non-democratic way by not allowing the membership of Clontarf to meet and discuss these issues in a public way, at least not until the very last minute when things were already in crisis. One reason that the committee was dissolved, in fact, is that they failed to hold meetings in a timely manner involving the full membership of the branch. Non-payment of vendors, besides being an example of extremely poor management, was also deemed to put Comhaltas in disrepute. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:53 AM Interesting development, I see they (Clontarf CCE) are holding a gala concert shortly, interesting line-up! (see their website) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,kevink Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM Over the last few days, the position of breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as acting out of purely selfless motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office. AN ECHO FROM HISTORY? In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily crushed in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR, courageously commented on the events and the 'official' version of same through the poem below, The Solution Bertolt Brecht After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte, many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the 'officially' recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch. Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre? In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time. The necessity and methods used for the dissolution of the branch is still not being explained despite all the thousands of words expended on this site and others by Breandain and this to me is the most important issue facing all members of CCE |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,kevink Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM Over the last few days, the position of Breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as both acting out of pure motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office. AN ECHO FROM HISTORY ? In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR courageously commented on the events and the official version of same through the poem below, The Solution Bertolt Brecht After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the officially recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch. Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre? In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time. Despite the thousands of words written by Breandain on this and other sites he has not explained why it was necessary to dissolve (collectively punish) the whole branch and that is the most serious issue for all members of CCE |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:58 PM Here is the Clontarf Branch response to the CCE statement, a fuller version of which can be found here http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ Statement of Clontarf branch of Comhaltas 29 March 2008 Clontarf branch of Comhaltas rejects outright the version of events/statement issued yesterday by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. The statement is as mischievous as it is inaccurate and represents one more attempt by Comhaltas HQ to muddy the waters to cover up their own improper actions in dissolving the Branch and in taking over our CLASAC centre project. Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music. Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs. For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open. At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us. In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required. In making key decisions against the interests of the branch, Comhaltas HQ withheld vital information from the Central Executive Council, they refused to allow the branch make their case directly and they refused the branch any avenue of appeal. Furthermore, all requests by the branch to meet representatives of HQ to try and resolve the difficulties were rejected. Branch members are incensed by their treatment and what they see as bullying and intimidatory tactics by HQ and by the continual distortion of the facts by them, including the latest press statement. At the most recent general meeting of the branch on 19 March the members unanimously endorsed the actions of the Branch executive committee and rejected the dissolution. The branch activities will continue as normal, including the very significant teaching programme for children. Many messages of support have been received from Comhaltas branches at home and abroad and from the wider traditional music community The Branch demands to be reinstated and the return of the Clasac project. Justice and fair play demand nothing less. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM Between the revolt of the GDR, the earlier "ethnic cleansing" reference and so forth, I'm starting to think that, as someone with fairly progressive politics, I must have signed up for the wrong team ... To clarify. I have not claimed to be completely disinterested - I work for Comhaltas, after all. However, I am posting on my own time and I am certainly not being paid nor asked to speak out. I merely saw a situation in which there are probably fewer than 10 people with a true sense of what's been happening over the last year. Since most of those people are on the former Craobh Chluain Tarbh committee and are now making lots and lots of anti-Comhaltas noise, it seemed useful for me to present some facts being omitted, and also correct some misapprehensions which they seem to have no problem in allowing. For example, members of the committee have stated several times that the theatre was always a Comhaltas building, on a Comhaltas site. But the rehetoric continues to revolve around the big meanies in "head office" stealing a building from the hard-working branch. That simply isn't true. I have some serious misgivings about what has happened, and (as I have said) would criticise especially the communications between the Ardchomhairle, the Buncoiste and the Branch Executive and Branch Membership as areas of concern. I also think that there was a disconnect between the branch executive and the membership. I'm not personally sure why this was handled at Ardchomhairle level rather than within the Dublin County Board, which would have answered any potential issues around representation. I know that it was a difficult decision. I have friends in the branch; I also have friends on the Ardchomhairle. Labhrás Ó Murchú is my direct boss, but it doesn't mean that I support every decision he's ever made. I would personally vote for an amendment to the Bunreacht (the Comhaltas constitution) that allowed for an appeal or arbitration of dissolution. But this is an area in which thoughtful people can differ, and when tensions are high, it's hard to trust even eye-witness accounts. For example, I heard the story of the EGM in quite a different way than kevink presents. But I wasn't there, and it's obvious that people can disagree, even when they were there. I'm a full-time student in Limerick at the moment, and don't have the full inside track on what happened, especially in February. However, being aware of the conflict over a period of a year, I can perfectly imagine the branch committee digging in their heels and leaving the County Board and the Ardchomhairle no choice when it came to getting contractors paid. I personally do not think that the former committee acted in the best interests of their branch or their parent organisation. As I have said many times, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the hard work of the Clontarf branch members. They have built and maintained an outstanding branch organisation and accomplished some very difficult large-scale projects in the past. Anyone who thinks it's easy to organise a tour of high-quality Irish dance and music in China hasn't tried it. In this particular case, I think that many members have been given false or misleading information. That, along with our shared and very natural mistrust of centralised authority, has led to a schism which I desperately hope we can find a solution for. If you're sick of hearing from me, I'm more than happy to leave it to an echo chamber of quotes from the Clontarf website. But with so few people involved, and so few of those online, it seemed to me helpful to chime in. I'm even naive enough to hope that I can continue my relationships with those in the branch. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Sean Murphy Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:28 PM Clontarf branch has now issued a reply to the Comhaltas HQ press release, downloadable at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm, and from which I take the liberty of quoting: Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music. Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs. For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open. At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us. In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required. (End quote) As an independent observer and non-member of Comhaltas I suggest the following steps: (1) The dissolution of Clontarf branch should be reversed. (2) An agreed arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the differences between the parties. (3) Following the adjudicator's report, an Sean Murphy |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Frances Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:40 PM Breandain Well I'm sure Breandan you will have a jolly good relationship with the new imposed committee. I leave you to it. |
| Translate Thread |
