|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Sean Murphy Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM Completion of my suggestions, sent inadvertently without final point: As an independent observer and non-member of Comhaltas (but occasional tune player) I suggest the following steps: (1) The dissolution of Clontarf branch should be reversed. (2) An agreed arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the differences between the parties. (3) Following the adjudicator's report, Clontarf branch and HQ should agree a new committee to complete the Clasac project in line with recommendations (sensibly both parties should nominate at least a few new faces to minimise personal antipathies). Sean Murphy |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM Breandán, While I have not agreed with everything you have said in your various posts on this matter, I think you have made an invaluable contribution to the debate and would think it would be a pity if you withdrew from this thread at this stage. You have a perspective which is, I think largely coloured by your involvement in Head Office, but you make your points well and articulately. It is a pity that HQ did not employ your talents in drafting the official statement, as I think you might have come up with a form of words that make more sense. You might even know the meaning of the words modus operandi and have used them, if at all, in a meaningful context. That said I believe that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the running of the project that the Branch Mambership have been badly treated in this case, and the dissolution of the branch, as opposed to the Branch Committee was uncalled for. I am not familiar with the specific rules of Comhaltas and therefore don't know if dissolving the Committeee only was an option. In saying this I'm not necessarily accepting the premise that the running of the project warranted the dissolution of the committee either. One final point on the Official statement - the statement that substantial fundraising from the Branch was not forthcoming is extremely dismissive of the massive fundraising efforts made by the Branch. While obviously EUR150,000 was a small amount in the context of the overall project cost, it is not an insignificant amount of money raised by a Branch of this size. I know you have acknowledged this fact in your earlier posts, but the statement fails to do so. I'm not sure what level of fundraising the Ardcomhairle would have conisdered subsantial, but the expectation of a much bigger sum of money seems a bit unreasonable to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:28 AM That seems to be it as far as Comhaltas is concerned: Another expulsion; a newly appointed committee, an extremely reluctant, long-coming and unconvincing explanation, full of unsubstantiated accusations - no representation by the branch, no appeal - done and dusted! Personally I'm grateful for Breandán's guidance through the tangled, murky world that is CCE politics, and his advice on which bits of the explanation to heed and which to take with a grain of salt - "That's not what they meant to say" !!!!! I'm also grateful for - "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" whatever it meant. Thanks too for Ard Mhaca's - 1979 was "a long time ago". I have to say, if I had children I was wishing to introduce to Irish traditional music, I would keep them as far away as possible from all this; soon enough they would be introduced to the cynical and ruthless world of spin, opportunism and wheeler-dealing that seems to go with this side of the music. Thankfully, we have a healthy scene here, with youngsters coming to the music for the love of it and in several cases, taking classes themselves - all without the aid of CCE and what seems to go with it. I hope there is a good session in town tonight so I can get rid of this unpleasant taste in my mouth. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:53 AM Thanks again Brendan you should go into politics , no sorry, from your so clear explanations of a sorry mess, and not an angry word or insult, you seem to be too honest for such a professon. Brendan don`t leave this Thread your contribution has been valuable. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:22 AM I agree (again - gosh, that's twice!) with Ard Mhacha. Though my sympathies are with the branch and I remain highly critical of the actions taken by HQ, it is essential to have a sane voice from the opposition explaining things with clarity, patience, and tact, and this Breandán has done. If we are to stay fully informed in this debate - which is essential - it means that communication from both sides must be kept open. That's all the more important here because this is one of the most high-profile debates about this matter on the internet, and it gets prominent display in the search engines. The fact that Breandán has managed to bat for the Away team and keep our goodwill speaks volumes of credit for him. Interesting, though, that we seem to hear only ONE voice defending HQ's actions. In fact this thread has stayed blessedly and remarkably flame-free (no small accomplishment such a volatile issue) so all its contributors should take a bow for intelligent discussion. My own judgement has been clearly summed up by Sean Murphy, in particular that an independent arbitrator should intervene. When one side appears to have the power to do exactly as it pleases without due democratic process, it's time to call in the ombudsman. Jim's right too - trad music is alive and flourishing in this country, independently of any organisation. For all its wonderful services, Comhaltas needs the musicians more than they need it. Time for Larry and Co to peek out of their ivory tower and listen to what the people are saying, which we can now do instantly and internationally via the internet. A wake-up call if ever there was one. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:35 AM >it's time to call in the ombudsman Someone with NO political affiliations to any of the major parties, if this is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,dubsman Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:44 AM Dr. Paisley's free soon!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,fursey Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:29 AM Finally a response from Comhaltas HQ -even if it's a belated and mean-spirited one. The local committee, we are told, was expected "through fundraising to make a substantial contribution". The Senator tells us that, "this never materialised." Well, that's telling us! A lesson for all the mammies and daddies out there who bought the raffle tickets, sold the concert tickets, gave of their time and energies for free. It's a slap in the face for those, young and old, amateur and professional, who played, sang and dance at the many fundraising concerts to benefit Clasach, to those who paid as punters to raise €200,000 for the local committee. Just not good enough.... according to Labhrás. Does'nt it just make you want to re-double your efforts for the "movement"? And then we read that CCE tells the best selling newspaper in Ireland that they have not published accounts for the last few years (was that you too Breandán?). This from yesterday's Sunday Independent in an article headed "Bitter row erupts over funding for trad centre". "Comhaltas Director General Labhras O Murchu has been criticised by some members of the music organisation for operating a "cult of secrecy" at Comhaltas, particularly in regards to its financial situation. Comhaltas receives significant funding from the Government. In 2007 it received €6m for its capital development programme. The Sunday Independent asked for a copy of the annual accounts for the past couple of years but was told "there aren't any". The paper also asked for details into payment of salary of senior management, including Mr O Murchu, but no information was given". |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:45 AM I think this link bears an instant-replay: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bitter-row-erupts-over-funding-for-trad- |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 31 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM Bonnie don`t get me wrong I am not backing anyone, when a barrage of one-sided criticism is directed at one person namely Brendan it make sense to hear the opposing view, I think Brendan has been clear and precise. I would have no problem with everyone agreeing to vote on this, may it happen soon, but in the meantime the oul fiddles flutes pipes, and combs in paper continue to rattle out at my local Comhaltas. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM Let me join in with those urging Breandan not to leave the discussion. He has stayed the right course with his message, done so with an even temper, and his posts have been valuable. As to the flourishing trad arts community, independent of any organization ......... what did you expect? The trad arts in Ireland have survived immigration, starvation, and oppression from a determined aggressor. They are a part of Ireland's children, and her grandchildren abroad. No organization is bigger than the music, and thus it shall ever be. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Gulliver Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM I second that, ard mhacha. I'm not a member of CCE but have friends who are (all on the south side of the city, though). Some members in HQ may have shot themselves in the foot on this occasion, but that shouldn't negate the many good activities being carried out by the organisation. IMHO, some of the contributions above have generated more heat than light, with plainly emotional but inaccurate statements, but I always found Breadán's contributions welcome (which doesn't mean I agree with everything he says!). I suppose that for the foreseeable future, mirroring a famous split in the past, we're going to have a Clontarf (Official Branch) and Clontarf (Provisional Branch)? Don |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM Well, I'm still here, though I wouldn't have a lot to add at the moment, now that we've had the duelling press releases from Comhaltas and Clontarf. Perhaps the new committee will chime in with a third. I'm very much interested, of course, in seeing how the new committee unites the branch, or tries to. Of course, my branch always seems to lose to Clontarf in the Grúpai Cheoil competitions at the Dublin Fleadh every year, so maybe I should welcome this turmoil ... or maybe now we'll come in 3rd. :-) Anyway, no, I didn't speak to the Indo this week, and I'd say (having read the article) that they didn't do a huge amount of research. Quoting from press releases on either side is generally pretty bad journalistic practice, and I wouldn't want them taking Comhaltas' version as gospel any more than I'd want them taking Clontarf's. Journalism should be a bit more responsible than that. They're incorrect in stating that the dissolution was a decision of Senator Ó Murchú, and there are some other details wrong, but in general they seemed to just compare the two statements and write it up. In particular, the annual accounts quote is a bit unfair. Comhaltas' accounts are published yearly at the Annual Congress and presented to representatives from every branch, county/region and province who cares to turn up. The accounts are not made public, though - very similar to other non-profit organisations such as Na Píobairí Uilleann. Ditto with staff salaries - these aren't generally a matter of public record in any other non-profit. (Yes, I know what Senator Ó Murchú makes, and no, I'm not telling you. :-) It's reasonable for the Director-General position of a major arts organisation, though, and I made a lot more than he does before I joined the staff of Comhaltas.) Suffice to say that this sort of thing is under the administration of the Ardchomhairle, which is a group of 31 volunteers from around the world who are not paid for their service to Comhaltas. (Yes, I know they generally get some expenses paid for when they travel to the Fleadh Cheoil. And they'll get some tea when they're meeting at the Cultúrlann.) Money stuff and salary is generally controlled by the organisation's Treasurer, of course, and almost all expenditures (including salary checks) are double-signed by a member of staff and a member of the elected executive. Having been in lots of meetings with the Senator, I can assure you that he is extremely conscious of the government auditor, and all procedures on the money side are designed to bear scrutiny on whatever level, should it arise. Anyway, in case anyone is feeling the need for some self-importance, I can report that when I was in Dublin this weekend I saw print-outs of this thread lying around Comhaltas Head Office. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM Big Mick, I agree with all you say, I have listened, took part and enjoyed traditional song and music before Comhaltas came to the fore, and I hope to continue doing so well into the future. Thanks Gulliver. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Fergie Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:39 PM Hi all, I just received an email from a friend that is a member of the Clontarf branch, he tells me that there is a fundraiser for the "branch" in the Teachers Club in Dublin on Friday, he provided me with this link that announced the event and also explains their take on the matter (hope the link works) http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,jimmartin81 Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM 'Fergie', I put that link on the BBC Radio 2 'Folk & Acoustic' message board (as well as the CCE HQ one), but so far, no responses from readers/contributors! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Sean Murphy Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:27 AM The coldest comment so far here remains: 'The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist.' Note that Comhaltas HQ has purged not just a few individuals, or a committee, but apparently a whole branch. I have yet to get up and view the building, but I understand that the Clasach Centre in Clontarf is substantially complete, and had there been serious local mismanagement, one would have expected simply a hole in the ground or just a few walls standing. I have been in Monkstown, and admit to harbouring a suspicion that HQ might like to get its hands on more salubrious premises, but no doubt this is entirely uncharitable. Having no connection or contact with the 'dissolved' people, I reiterate my suggestion that the dissolution of the Clontarf Branch should be reversed and an arbitrator brought in. Finally, whatever the outcome of the affair, I think the establishment in Comhaltas has received something of a shock, and may now feel that it has to be more transparent in its operations, particularly with regard to its finances and salaries paid to officials. Sean Murphy Irish Historical Mysteries http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:23 AM Uncharitable or not, I have wondered the same thing (my post 16 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM). I don't know enough about the brief of the ombudsman - who appears in fact to be an ombudswoman - but that recourse may only be applicable to government departments and local authorities; nor am I sure how complicated the political affiliations make things (i.e. does Fianna Fáil investigate Fianna Fáil?) but there must be some external arbitrator the branch can turn to. (European Court of Human Rights?) It's not even a deadlock, either, it's a fait accompli from what I read, which can only mean taking firm legal action. Presumably the ex-branch is formulating some plan of defense, though I suppose it's hardly surprising that they prefer not to spill it to all and sundry on the net, hence their relative silence. Breandán wrote "...now that we've had the duelling press releases from Comhaltas and Clontarf [,] Perhaps the new committee will chime in with a third." Good point. WHY DON'T THEY? As usual the silence is speaking louder than the words. Don't know if this is relevant to this case or not but: http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:24 AM Sean, in the structure of a member-based organisation, the local executive committee *is* the branch. And like most structures with substantial local autonomy, the only pressure available to the centralised elected committee is to exclude the local committee from the organisation. There are no other options. There is no way to get a local committee to do the right thing, other than by asking nicely, which the ardchomhairle has beeing trying to do for a very long time. Much of the project has been managed quite well, though I think the committee spent a little too much time arguing over the precise shade of blue for the letterhead and a little less time than necessary trying to get the required funding in place. And obviously there are no plans for Comhaltas to move staff from the Cultúrlann in Monkstown out to Clasaċ, which is a performance venue and teaching space. The building was already owned by Comhaltas - there would be no reason to dissolve the branch if headquarters inexplicably wanted to move. (I also think it's a bit unfair to single out one of my sentences, out of the thousands of words written trying to explain this situation clearly. That sentence was written to distinguish, on a technical level, between the old and new committees.) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:44 AM I really wasn't trying to selectively single it out, and my apologies if I misinterpreted your meaning out of context. It just seemed to make a straightforward statement, prompting a question any of us can ask off our own bats anyway. But it still needs answering. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:48 AM Bonnie, sorry - I was posting in response to Sean's quote, and didn't see your post until after I posted. :-) Anyway, I believe that the new committee is running classes and so forth - I wouldn't be surprised if they want to stay out of the political fray. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,PJ Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:44 AM Breandan, what are you telling us now that you haven't already said before? - "The only pressure available to the centralised elected committee is to exclude the local committee from the organisation". In other words, head office is allowed to kick the branch committee out and there's nothing they can do about it. Yes, we know that already. - "There are no other options" speaks for itself. But there should be. Having no checks and balances in an organisation allows for misuse of power. - "There is no way to get a local committee to do the right thing". So head office gets to decide what the right thing is and apply force/expulsion if they don't get it. - "I think the committee spent a little too much time arguing over the precise shade of blue for the letterhead and a little less time than necessary trying to get the required funding in place." Which committee is this referring to? Do you mean the head office one? Not spending enough time trying to get the required funding in place sounds serious enough to warrant more attention than half a sentence. If they didn't do this they are at least partly culpable. Basically this is just a re-tread of everything we've already heard. So what's new? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:53 AM If the local executive committee *is* the branch, then what are all the people who paid dues to belong to it? Who are all the mammies and daddies out there who bought the raffle tickets, sold the concert tickets, gave of their time and energies for free that Fursey speaks of? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: knight_high Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:10 AM Proper procedure was not followed in dissolving the Clontarf Branch. This is very obvious when we read all the correspondence. Brendán of course is very clear and reasonable in the arguements and comments he makes - except when he conveniently overlooks some vital points. There is no provision in the Bunreacht to dissolve a committee. The branch can only be dissolved by the County committee of C.C.E. Even IF the Branch HAD been dissolved according to the rules, then the next step , I presume would be to: 1. Inform all previous existing members , giving proper notice (21 days), of a meeting to establish a new branch. 2. At that meeting, hold proper elections to all posts , i.e. Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Delegates to Co. Board 3. A full report of the meeting tent forward to the next level, i.e Co. Board It is my contention that if points 1 and 2 had not been followed then the new Committee is illegally constituted and of course by extension, the Branch. A starting point to resolve this very serious situation is to reinstate the Branch. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,goofy Date: 01 Apr 08 - 12:05 PM Q |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM I don't like to wander too much into the land of legalese, but there are a couple of inaccuracies that I should point out in recent posts. The upshot being that while I don't personally like the fact that the branch was dissolved, the procedures followed were constitutional and democratic. Firstly, Knight, I'm not sure where you got that particular procedure, but it certainly isn't found in the Comhaltas constitution (Bunreacht). That document actually doesn't provide any guidance at all as to what happens to a branch after it has been dissolved. And beyond providing for an appeal from the County to Provincial level, it also does not specify an appeal procedure for a dissolved branch. It does, however, make it clear that the high council (the ardchomhairle) is responsible for and has jurisdiction over the entire organisation in disciplinary matters. This is reasonable: the council is composed of 31 elected voluntary officers who are accountable to their home districts. The relevant bit of the constitution is here: "The CEC (ardchomhairle) shall be the supreme governing body of An Comhaltas from Annual Congress to Annual Congress and the sole and final authority to interpret the Rules and Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall extend over the whole Organisation in all matters of discipline as well as those that pertain to funds, investments and property of An Comhaltas. It shall carry out the proper exercise of this jurisdiction through its Trustees." I personally would be happy to amend these rules to require that a) the branch is directly represented in the room during the discussion, and b) that there would be the provision for a separate grievance council responsible for resolving disputes, to which the dissolution could be appealed. However, those facilities are not in place in the constitution at the moment. I invite anyone interested to submit these amendments at the next Annual Congress, composed of representatives from all branches and councils. Also, the new branch executive was properly convened according to the constitution, and has been accepted as such by the Dublin County Board. The relevant bit for the creation of a branch is here: "A Branch of An Comhaltas may be established anywhere, provided that: (a) Not less than five persons inform the County Board, or Provincial Council where no County Board exists, of their intention to establish a Branch, to support the Aims and Objects of An Comhaltas and abide by its Rules and Constitution; (b) The necessary sanction for the establishment of a Branch has been obtained from the County Board or the Provincial Council as the case may be." So while things have certainly not turned out the way I would have wanted things to happen, these procedures were legal according to the Comhaltas constitution. I'm still hoping for another resolution, one that perhaps involves some members of the former committee. This schism in Clontarf isn't good for either the branch nor the organisation, and I'd like to see a way to resolve things amicably. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:49 PM To answer your question, Bonnie, at present the members of the dissolved branch are unafilliated members of Comhaltas. The Dublin County Board has indicated that all such members will be granted full Comhaltas membership benefits, for example with regard to Fleadh entries. Any who wish to remain affiliated with Comhaltas at the conclusion of the membership year in October will of course be very welcome in the new branch and its activities. And PJ, when I referred to the committee spending too much time on the letterhead, I was referring to the dissolved branch committee. The letterhead looks very nice now, but I would have preferred that they spent some time beginning in February 2007 making sure that they could finish the building. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,fursey Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM Hearty congratulations to Senator O' Murchu on his astounding success in thoroughly alienating some of the most significant families involved in music in Dublin - the O'Brien's,O'Connnors, Kelly's, Glackin's, Mulligan's.... The line up for the Concert in The Teachers Club, Parnell Sq, Dublin on Friday next to support the(wrongfully dissolved) Clontarf Branch includes musicians from these legendary northside Dublin families along with many other fine performers. By their friends shall ye know them! |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,PJ Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:21 PM >these procedures were legal according to the Comhaltas constitution. I don't doubt that the procedures were legal. But legality does not mean justice. It simply means there's no law against it. That doesn't make it right. Constitutional? You can bet your bloody boots they were constitutional. "The CEC (ardchomhairle) shall be the supreme governing body of An Comhaltas from Annual Congress to Annual Congress and the sole and final authority to interpret the Rules and Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall extend over the whole Organisation." No kidding. I do doubt that they were democratic by any definition of the word except the one Comhaltas chooses to put on it. Democratic means by the will of the majority. "Does not specify an appeal procedure" is a fancy way of saying that there isn't one. That last CCE post boils down to "We can because we say we can." Of course it's legal. The whole point is that they can do something like this and GET AWAY WITH IT. What this shows is that it's time to make the balance of power more fair. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM PJ, I would say that I am more in your court than not, but are not the members of the Ardchomhairle not elected from the branches by popular vote? And are they not accountable back to their members for the decisions they make? One of the things that drives me nuts in democratic processes is when folks don't take an interest in, or take seriously the elections for delegates to governing bodies, and then when that body acts on its constitutional duties, they cry about returning the organization to the members. This is a generic gripe, because I have seen it in many venues. Seems like it fits here. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM Simple question Breandán- does the Clontarf branch have a right to appeal the expulsion decision (decided on in camera)? If it does, what is it - if it doesn't, why not? There certainly was no such right in West London - but as somebody said, that was a long time ago. When the West London Branch was expelled it was a (crude but) simple case of them refusing to have O'Murchú's politics thrust down their throats - never any pretence that it was ever anything else. Here is somewhat different, with large sums of money and property involved. In the present climate here in Ireland, of corruption tribunals which go right to the top of the pile, is it not in the interest of CCE that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, especially when much of the money in question comes out of the public purse? So far, the whole affair has been conducted with the secrecy of a Freemason's Lodge, which indicates that the leadership appears to believe that they are not answerable to the membership on such an important decision as a branch expulsion (or maybe they feel that the subject isn't so important!!!. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,Frances Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:43 PM I find the response of Ard Mhaca to the gross injustice suffered by the Clontarf branch is patronising to say the least. If you have any association with Ard Mhaca as your web name suggests you should know what it feels like to be kicked around, as the nationalist people of Ard Mhacha have been in the past. Well that's exactly what has happened to the Clontarf Branch - an injustice is an injustice wherever it occurs. It would appear that some people's opinions on the Clontarf dissolution are coloured by Labhras' nationalist credentials, right wing as they are. While this should not be of any importance in this discussion I believe it does influence some contributors. I do not remember Labhras speaking out when released republican prisoners were being hunted down and extradited like animals across the border as occurred on numerous occasions despite the widespread knowledge that prisoners were being brutally mistreated in the north. Times may have changed but injustice whatever its source has not, and it should be rejected by all decent minded people. A kangaroo court is a kangaroo court whosoever administers it. Yes, we can all enjoy our tunes but let us not patronize or obscure what has happened in relation to the dissolution of Clontarf Comhaltas. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:59 PM Jim, as I said, the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle. However, as you say, there is a huge impetus to make sure that justice is done, and the ardchomhairle recognised in their statement that the members of the branch had not had a chance to exercise their constitutional powers of voting. According to the ardchomhairle statement, it is because the Clontarf committee did not convene meetings, while according to the Clontarf committee, it is because the ardchomhairle ignored them. Either way, there are two sides here that need, somehow, to be brought together. I would personally support bringing some members from the old committee into the new one, and to quickly constitute the Clasac theatre's board with the number of members from Clontarf that were tentatively agreed at the time. This outcome is not outside the realm of possibility, I'm told, and would probably ease the tensions a bit. Anyway, while there are large sums of money involved here, I believe that there has not been the slightest hint of impropriety or corruption with respect to those funds on either side. The issue is around management of the construction project, which is a local issue. I would think it unlikely, therefore, that this will turn into a legal case, since the proper ownership of the building and the use of the grant money has been stipulated by both sides. What I do hope will happen, though, is that a bridge can be constructed between the divided members of the Clontarf branch. That's what would be best both for the musicians and students involved, and for the reputation of the branch and for Comhaltas generally. (As an aside: as I heard the story, the West London imbroglio was about statements made in the press by the branch, not the Pearse campaign itself. But I definitely wasn't there, nor do I know much about it. Most organisations are pretty sensitive when it comes to public statements made by local units that are critical of the parent, including trade unions, professional associations and so forth. But like I said, I wasn't there.) |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:02 PM Big Mick - You have a very good point about the democratic process. But I think the real point is that the core structure of the rules needs to be changed so that NO governing body has such absolute power. A final authority that allows no redress is too out of balance. The high council may have been democratically elected by the grass-roots members (or maybe not - I'm not sure how the selection process is actually structured) BUT once in power the committee can then do what it likes. I think that power needs some limitation. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:08 PM Representatives to the ardchomhairle are elected in the usual way, yes, with a nomination, a second and a vote. And as I've said, I would invite anyone with a suggested amendment to make to the Comhaltas constitution to bring it before the annual congress, when representatives from all branches can present and vote on such amendments. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:34 PM On the question of the Ombudsman, the Comhaltas is a private organisation and doen not come in the remit of the Ombudsman, who is charged with investigation of complaints from members of the public into Public Service organisations. I'm sure there are many figures from within the traditional music community who would be able to act as an arbitrator in seeking to resolve the dispute if the Árd Comhairle were prepared to go down that road. However they seem to be so convinced that their actions were correct that I think it is unlikely they would be preared to do so. I'm glad to see that Breandán acknowledges that there is no implications of financial improprietry on either side. However the wording of the Comhaltas statement is such that it could be interpreted as implying that there were. I think it would be useful for the Ard comhairle to clarify their position on this. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: ard mhacha Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:18 PM Aye Frances I could write a book on the happenings up here in God`s country, so I am not unduly put out by the goings on in Clontarf. I still say Brendan has presented his case very well, the original board must take the blame for the financial blunders, well that is what they look like to me, going in over their heads by the sound of it, so you let them continue on their merry way?, I don`t think so. I would be pleased to hear some of the old branch come on hear and try and explain the reason why. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,knight_high Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:51 PM Ah Breandán please!!! You quote one rule and conveniently avoid another - exactly as I said in my previous post You posted this: _____________________ "The CEC (ardchomhairle) shall be the supreme governing body of An Comhaltas from Annual Congress to Annual Congress and the sole and final authority to interpret the Rules and Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall extend over the whole Organisation in all matters of discipline as well as those that pertain to funds, investments and property of An Comhaltas. It shall carry out the proper exercise of this jurisdiction through its Trustees." _____________________ And ignored this: ________________________ POWERS AND DUTIES (of County Board) 4 (c) The County Board shall have the right to suspend any branch, and/or remove from office, a branch officer or officers, where it has been clearly established that the branch or officers of the branch are guilty of conduct which is deemed to be contrary to the ideals and objects of An Comhaltas, as enshrined in this Constitution, and is calculated to bring An Comhaltas into disrepute. Where a branch is suspended, the County Board shall for the time being be empowered to exercise all the functions of the said branch. A branch or officer so suspended shall have the right of appeal to the Provincial Council ___________ At no stage is it mentioned in the Bunreacht that any other body can suspend or dissolve a branch. I assume it would be in the interests of natural justice to give the (ex)membership of the branch proper notice to reestablish a(the) branch in the Clontarf area and give those hardworking parents, musicians and all involved, a chance to elect the committe to represent them. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:07 PM Knight: You are correct - the county board also has the right to dissolve a branch. If that decision is appealed, it goes to the Provincial Council. Though it is not explicitly specified, an appeal from that body would presumably go to the Ardchomhairle. However, no matter the powers explicitly enumerated to the County Board, I believe that the quote I mentioned (explicitly giving the Ardchomhairle jurisdiction over "all matters of discipline") is pretty unambiguous - the Ardchomhairle, as the highest body, definitely has the right to take that step. Regarding natural justice, as it happens, I believe that all branch members have been notified about the new branch being formed, and of the opportunity to participate. I wouldn't personally be at all averse to the new branch deciding to hold special elections, just to enhance the legitimacy of the new group. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: GUEST,knight_high Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:47 PM Regarding amendments to the Constitution if you want to submit an amendment you better hurry. See this rule _____________________ 10 Proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall be put before Congress in 1996 and at six yearly intervals thereafter. ______________________________ I make that 2008. If not then the next opportunity is 2014!! Most Co. AGM'S are over by now. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM WHY do they only allow changes to be proposed every six years? That sounds draconian. What's the reason for not allowing this safeguard annually? Oh, wait, I know... Because the Constitution says so. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Declan Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM 2014 - the millennial anniversary of the original Battle of Clontarf. - How appropriate. While a rule change looks as if it would be a good idea, one is not required to resolve this controversy. What is needed is some generosity on the part of the Ard Comhairle to bring about a situation where the former Brnach members are no longer disenfranchised and control of Classach ie returned to a set of represntatives who are acceptable to those members. Anything else is a denial of democracy, no matter what the rules say. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM Hello Breandan, I am baffled by your statement here (1st April) to Jim i.e. "the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle". Is not 'ardchomhairle' the Central Executive Committee? Who else would the the branch wish to appeal to other than those who have ejected it, the governing body of CCE? Have I got something wrong? Please explain. If, as you say - and I have reason to believe - that there is provision in the Bunreacht to appeal to the ardchomhairle, then the branch should know about it, and be allowed time to act on it. Their website states that they were given no right of appeal. Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:58 AM "I believe that there has not been the slightest hint of impropriety or corruption with respect to those funds on either side" We have no way of knowing if that is the case - it's all been done behind closed doors. Why do the terms 'kangaroo court', summary justice' and 'self- interest' keep springing to mind? As you say, you weren't in West London - that was done behind closed doors as well. If it had been an employer in the work-place behaving like this, he would pretty soon find himself before a tribunal facing a charge of wrongful dismissal - is there anybody here who believes that 'justice has been seen to be done' - apart from Breandán and ard mhacha, that is? The fact that there is no recourse to appeal flies in the face of natural justice- feudal or what? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:51 AM Where can we see a copy of this Constitution? Surely it's available for public viewing. How does one get to read it? And if it's not accessible, why not? If this info is given above, I've managed to miss it though I briefly reread the thread, and did word-searches for Constitution, copy, and Bunreacht. Nothing on the website either. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,Observer Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:20 AM You'll find it at http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/comhaltas_constitution_bunreacht/ |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: GUEST,maggie boyle Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:34 AM Thanks Observer, I have tried there before. Despite it saying "AN BUNREACHT....This online document is a copy of the English version of the Bunreacht (Constitution) of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, and is provided for reference only" the only information it seems to access is how to pronounce 'bunreacht'! Breandan, I'm sure as webmaster that you can help with this - and, regardless, I'd very much appreciate a response to my question above (1st April 8.09) about your statement "the constitution doesn't provide for an appeal past the level of the ardchomhairle" Thanks Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM Maggie, that's the right page, just keep scrolling down. http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/comhaltas_constitution_bunreacht/ The reason it's marked "for reference only" and so forth is because I can't swear that it includes all changes that have been made at annual congress and so forth -- but it's correct as far as I know. As far as appeals, the Ardchomhairle is the highest level of government in Comhaltas, so any appeal would be from a lower level up *to* that body. Since it was the elected governing council itself that made the ruling on dissolution, there are no further appeals possible. Like a case that was decided by the US Supreme Court - it could be sent back down to an appellate level by the high court (just as the Ardchomhairle could delegate to a provincial council if it wished), but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, that's it. Both in procedure and in hierarchy, this structure is extremely similar to many other membership-based organisations, including professional associations, unions, international standards bodies, political parties and so forth. And as Mick says, it's very common for the democratic links between levels (the delegates) to be ignored until there's a problem, at which point suddenly everyone wants to question the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus From: Big Mick Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:26 PM And so the question would be, were all the steps followed, including those that give the branch its opportunity to put forth its position? Also, is there any point in the process in which the appeal is heard by an independent voice? The parallel in the civil setting would be a civil court, or in US labor, the NLRB? |
|
Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru From: Breandán Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:37 PM Yes, the branch was notified in writing and given the chance to present their case. They were also required to convene a general meeting of the membership during this time, which they did not do. Representatives of the Ardchomhairle attended other meetings that were called before and after the notice to listen to the branch's concerns, and the materials prepared by the branch were read. Some of the requested documentation concerning the VAT refund was not provided by the branch despite being requested in writing. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the defending side is not generally in the room during the discussion itself, which lasted 8 hours and was fully attended by the 31 members of the council. Irish music is not organised to the extent that US labour is, so there isn't the equivalent to the NLRB. Since we're talking about a private non-profit membership organisation, the only (and therefore worst) penalty that can be imposed is expulsion from the organisation. It is a penalty of last-resort, used just a couple of times in the 50+-year history of the organisation, and is imposed only after a period of more amicable discussion has broken down. In this case, over a long period of time the Clasac committee ran with the project while not taking the advice of the Ardchomhairle and trustees of Comhaltas. While branches are largely self-governing, they are still under the jurisdiction of the central council when it comes to money. (One wonders, actually, why it is that if Comhaltas is so terrible why the ex-committee is trying so hard to get back in, and to agree (again) to abide by the rules and procedures of Comhaltas.) |
| Translate Thread |
