Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM

Everything seems to refer to the branch having been dissolved. Have the individual members of the old Clontarf committee, or the ordinary branch members, been expelled from membership of CEE? If not, what's to stop them all joining the new branch, calling for new elections, and re-electing them to the new committee?

As a complete outsider, I am watching all this with fascination. So unlike the home life of our dear EFDSS. I can't imagine anything like Clasac ever getting built here in England.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM

The branch committee has been dissolved - individual members of the Clontarf branch have emphatically *NOT* been expelled from Comhaltas. Everything possible is being done to make sure that members of the branch have the full privileges as members of Comhaltas that they had before, whether they choose to re-affiliate or not.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing all such members from immediately joining the new branch and electing whomever they want. I'm not sure of the exact by-laws of the branch concerning the recall of officers or the calling of elections, but whatever procedure that is in place can be used. Actually, from the point of view of Comhaltas and the Ardchomhairle, now that funding has been secured for the theatre and the construction is back on track, everyone joining the new branch would be the best possible outcome. And if they want to elect the committee again, that's fine too. This wasn't a problem with the branch's *existence*, obviously -- everyone thinks that Clontarf has done a fabulous job as a branch over more than 40 years of affiliation. The contention was around the financial management of one very high-profile project by one particular committee. Now that the project is back on track, I'm positive that any duly elected committee of the Clontarf branch would be more than welcome.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Frances
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM

Breandan is busy spinning - like the bureaucracy in the HSE - full of contradictions and misinformation. And every bit as cynical as them. Keep at it Breandan - your posts don't intend to answer the questions ,u do just as your paymasters require u to. Clontarf members are rightly outraged about the treatment they have received from CCE HQ - a national organization claiming to represent TRADITIONAL IRISH MUSIC - an organization that receives substantial public money. Now that Bertie has gone it might give more people the confidence to get rid of labhras and reclaim the organization for the membership. The expulsion of the Clontarf branch is shameful and should be rescinded immediately. They have a more legitimate place in CCE than Labhras and his followers.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:29 PM

Frances, if there's anything that I can clear up for you, I'd be happy to help. But most who know me wouldn't describe me as "cynical."

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,fursey
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM

News stations and websites are reporting that Bertie Ahern,the Taoiseach (Prime Minister)of Ireland has today announced that he will be "stepping down" next month....The usual cliches abound... "for the good of the party", "in the interests of stability", "to avoid further rancour" ...etc are typical of the reasons cited for the Fianna Fail leaders resignation.

Leaving aside the fact that the Taoiseach's resignation comes in the midst of his appearances in front of the ongoing tribunal of inquiry regarding corruption in high places, one wonders if the Ardstiurthoir of Comhaltas has himself made provisions for the transfer of power within his own organisation on his eventual retirement? How old is the Senator now? Certainly he's above the age when he'd be long retired if he was a civil servant or a teacher? What will his legacy be? When will he follow the example of his party leader and cash in his chips?

I reckon the clash over Clasach will be as nothing compared to the inevitable scramble for position, power and privilege that will occur when, perish the thought, the Senator finally decides to ramble back to retirement in Cashel.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's exactly what's going on right now with the jockeying and spinning that surrounds this particular power struggle in Clontarf. Is it a precursor to an even greater power struggle to come -one for the control of Comhaltas? Are some of the main players in Monkstown even now staking out their claims to be the next Ardstiurthoir?

One glance at the bastion of cutting edge commentary on all things Gaelic and pure in Irish music that is "Treoir", the quarterly printed publication of Comhaltas, will confirm that it appears to be still very much an "uno duce, una voce" scenario in the higher echelons of CCE. Smooth transition of power is the mark of the clever, caring and conscientious leader. Who, one wonders, is "the annointed one" in CCE now that the Senator is over the age of the pension. Hardly one of those who is rumoured to be at the forefront of the smash (the branch) and grab (the property)attempt in Clontarf,

And now, in the spirit of levity and good humour that has marked this debate from the outset I have compiled a quiz. A prize of the entire Comhaltas CD output to the person who can answer the following.

What's the most numbers of photographs of Labhras O Murchu to appear in one issue of Treoir?

What do the Dear Leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung and Senator Labras O Murchu have in common? (Answer a,b,c in order of preference)

a. A devotion to openess, transparency and clarity in all public dealings.

b. A mutual love of B/C box playing

c. The same hairdresser.

d. One is supreme leader for life of a ruthless, stalinist-type organisation while the other.....


I'll get my (green) jacket.









Has "democracy comhaltas style" driven a

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:35 PM

"There is nothing whatsoever preventing all such members from immediately joining the new branch and electing whomever they want."
Then they can build new €multi-million premises, get expelled and so ad-infinitum.
Nothing wrong with Cohaltas as an idea - in practice it's a beurocratic nightmare (as Breandan Breathnach once remarked, an organisation to which a beheading wouldn't go amiss).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:35 PM

Breandan, are you saying that if the members re-affiliate with the new branch and then re-elect the "old committee" members to the "new committee", then CEE Head Office would be perfectly happy with that? Call ME cynical, but I think not.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,the white rabbit
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM

The more Breandain defends the legitimacy of the ard comhairle's dissolution the more transparant the whole process becomes. The members of the dissolved branch can apply to join the new set up branch. Then why dissolve the branch in the first place? Its clear that only some will be admitted to this bogus set up. Otherwise why bother? Its an old fashioned purge as was popular in stalinist times with the added complication that the elected committee of the dissolved branch carry the confidence of the vast majority as was evidenced at 3 general meetings. The members of the bogus ctte (and I mean bogus in the sense of its function not whether it meets the criteria to call itself a branch) would not get much respect never mind votes for the role they played in this sordid excercise in so called democracy, where you are tried and sentenced in your absence.

I have'nt experienced anything so cynical for as long as I can remember. The democratic process Breandain defends is a mixture of stalinism and Alice in wonderland 'Sentence first trial later in your absence'

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM

Be very careful or Jimmy Hoffa, sorry , Jim Carroll will have his opponents"face down in the Mersey", time I was out of here.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM

As I said, now that the theatre project is back on track, I think that reconciliation with the old committee would be absolutely the first priority. If Maurice and his crowd were to take positions in the new branch, I don't see why they wouldn't be welcomed. After all, it's the noise being made by the former committee that is currently causing such a kerfuffle, and isn't good for either side, frankly. Them being in the new branch would mean that we had some reconciliation, obviously.

In any case, people seem to have made up their minds. It's extremely easy to believe bad things about any biggish organisation, and so I'm not surprised that every fact presented is interpreted in that frame. It's been shown that people will believe the most extraordinary things in order to adapt a fact pattern to fit what they already believed as a matter of faith. I guess I'm a hopeless idealist - I voted for Obama in the primaries, after all.

I'll let you guys know if the new committee makes a public statement.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:30 PM

ard mhacha wrote   
>when a barrage of one-sided criticism is directed at one person namely Brendan

The barrage is aimed at Comhaltas, not Brendan. And the reason that 'one person' (who is a CCE employee remember) is having to work so hard is because no one else seems to be on that side. Not his fault, but if that were a popular viewpoint he'd have all sorts of other voices chiming in with support. Ask yourself WHY this criticism is one-sided.

The comment about Jim Carroll is a cheap shot, ard mhacha. If you're the sort of support that Comhaltas attracts in this argument, no wonder it's one sided. So far this discussion has been pretty clear of pointless personal insults. Let's keep it that way. And if it's a joke it's not funny.

Brendan, question for you though it has already been asked-- WHY, if they have general meetings every year, are proposals to change the constitution only allowed every 6 years? And don't just say because it's in the rules - Comhaltas's rules. I want to know how they can possibly justify it. There's NO WAY that's fair.   

You say (I don't doubt you) the regular members of the dissolved Clontarf branch are welcome to rejoin the new officially-approved one. What on earth makes you think they'd want to? Read some of those posts above who are obviously from locals. Can't you hear the fury in their voices? This action has done huge damage to that community, a split that will take years to heal if it ever does, and all their kids will all have to grow up in it. Great job you're doing, Senator Murphy. A real man of the people aren't you?

What specific year did he first become head of Comhaltas?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:47 PM

Caitlín, I don't know why the constitution can only be amended every six years. I assume that the point is to encourage stability in the organisation. How to weigh that stability against the needs of democracy is a legitimate debate, and I suspect that the correct answer could be a different number these days. Remember, the US Constitution also allows amendment, but the process of actually getting an amendment passed is hugely complicated and time-consuming. Again, for reasons of stability.

Much as I'm a fan of (most) of the amendments to the US Constitution, I'm also glad that the process is a difficult one. The result is stability. You could argue that the Founding Fathers (and the original Comhaltas founders) should have allowed for more direct democracy, and that the Electoral College and the Ardchomhairle are, in some ways, one step removed from direct, in-your-face local democracy. That argument could be made. When governments and high councils do particularly stupid or just controversial stuff, it's easy to call for amendments to the governing structure and to the governing documents. I'm not sure that's always in the best interest of democracy in the longer term.

I suspect that the lack of comment on "my side" has to do with the relatively few people involved in the theatre project. It's also much easier to rally people to a cause, fighting for justice, than it is to talk about capital structuring and administrative process. "My side" is dull, technical, and depends on knowledge that very, very few people have. Most of the people who know what went down are on the former Clontarf committee, and even many of those guys are keeping silent, leaving the outraged shouting to rank-and-file members who have been fed selective facts by their committee. And the outraged shouting is very credible - I have no problem admitting that. As I've said before, I'd be pretty outraged if my branch went away for reasons that I could neither understand nor control.

That said, some of the comments here are pretty definitely aimed at me, not at Comhaltas. I guess that's OK - I mean, it's the Internet, after all - but I try my best not to make Stalinist or "ethnic cleansing" references about those who disagree with me. I've spent some time in Eastern Europe, and I'm pretty sure that most former Soviet republics these days would welcome the relatively benign politics of an organisation like Comhaltas. Ineffective, often. But neither greedy nor malicious nor self-serving. I mean, in this whole thing we're talking about a fight between two committees of volunteers who play folk music, for heaven's sake.

Yes, I hear the fury. Yes, I hear the outrage, and I sympathise.

To answer your other question, Labhrás was appointed as Director-General in the early 70s, I believe, after serving in various volunteer positions. But he could be instantly replaced at the next Ardchomhairle meeting with a 2/3 vote if he lost the support of the membership. The fact that he's still there means that most people in Comhaltas think that he's doing a pretty good job, the job he's paid to do. Those of you in Comhaltas: if you want to change your leadership, just elect new guys to lead you. It's pretty simple.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: domo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

Brendan,
In one of the threads, the Clontarf Branch claims they were registered as a Charity Organisation, obviously for refund purposes. Are they the only branch that are registered as such? Is this in keeping with the constitution? Is this "stroke" not what caused the VAT refund problems? From reading the threads, surely the word charity is not in Larry's vocabulary.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM

Comhaltas itself is registered as a charity, registration #8762. I have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund - they haven't shared those documents with the Ardchomhairle.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:14 PM

Re Brendan's 6:47 message --

Stability? Oh come ON. That organisation is not under any threat of instability. And all those long comparisons with the US government are irrelevant. The US government has to coordinate 50 separate states, all with different laws, some of them pretty heavy (divorce terms, death penalty or not, etc). There no way you can compare a huge country which has a population of something like 200 million very different groups of people with one organisation in one city dedicated to one particular culture. I simply do not believe Comhaltas' stability would be threatened by giving its members a fair say in amending the constitution.

> How to weigh that stability against the needs of democracy

The needs of democracy are for fair representation. Don't try to muddy the issue with bringing in irrelevant comparisons with the American governmental structure.

If you don't know why the 6 year rule applies, someone there must. (So do we. Preserving the status-quo.)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,piaras
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:17 PM

Breandan, are you getting the head staggers from all that spinning? You're pushing it a bit when you state that what "is causing such a kerfuffle here" is the noise being made by what you refer to as "the former committee." The brazen action by your own paymasters to unilaterally disband the branch and then to tell us that their self-appointed committee is legitimate is what has caused the row here. These actions are what offends the sensibilities of the majority of the people the "new committee" now claim to represent.

Why do you think it is that, as you admit above, most people simply do not believe your/Labhras' position here? I can assure you it's not simply because Comhaltas is a "biggish organisation".

You tell us you had a vote in the US primaries. Are you from Florida? They know a thing or two there about twisting the democratic wishes of the majority!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:38 AM

Well, I haven't spoken up yet, but I have to say I'm pretty convinced by Breandan's arguments. CCE is not a "democracy," in the sense of a government, it's a charitable corporation. Many such corporations are far less democratic that Comhaltas, and have a non-elected board of trustees that reigns supreme.

Both governments and membership organizations have rules that keep them representative up to a point. Neither is completely representative, because you only have the opportunity to change officers, or change the rules, every so often. Neither holds individual referenda on every issue. In this case, the elected members of the national committee apparently voted to dissolve the Clontarf committee. That is constitutional, and it was accomplished by a full roster of duly elected representatives, not a "kangaroo court" as some have alleged. If you don't like the way your representative voted, you do have recourse: vote for someone else next time.

You can also change the constitution. It's no good getting mad at Breandan because the constitution can only be changed every six years. He did not make that rule, and CCE members have seemed to be pretty happy with it, since it survived the last opportunity to change it. If you think it's a bad rule, start agitating for that rule to change as soon as you can--but don't whine about it, or accuse anyone of ill-will or wrongdoing; no one, not even your opponents on this issue, can do anything about the constitution outside of the sixth year window.

One big difference, by the way, between a government and a charitable corporation, is that no one is forced to be a member of a charitable corporation. So if its laws seem undemocratic, you can use your membership to change the laws--as you can in a democratic government. But you can also leave CCE and found your own organization. Or just play music without an organization.

By the way, it can't have escaped anyone's notice that "stability" and "maintaining the status quo" are just two ways of saying the same thing. The only difference is your attitude to change. So if Breandan is "spinning," so are his opponents.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM

Breandán, am I correct in thinking that previously - and not that long ago- the time period between rule changes was just 4 years and not 6 years as it is now?
I'm sure it wont be difficult to find out if this was the case and when the new period came into play.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:27 AM

" time I was out of here."
ard mhacha
Following snide remarks like your last one, - at last - something we on agree upon.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:20 AM

> stability" and "maintaining the status quo" are just two ways of saying the same thing

WRONG. They're not. Maintaining the status quo means 'we don't want things to change from how they are now' usually voiced by those who already have the power. Stability simply means it's not unsteady or in danger of collapsing. They are not the same thing at all. Saying that one equals the other is 'spin' too, Nerd.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Geek
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM

Oh COME ON!!!
Caitlin, you are nit picking!!!

Piaras, spin away! spin away!

You are both alond with your many counterparts spinning in circles.
you don't like comhaltas,you don't like labhras.
You do like Comhaltas, you don't like labhras.
As perviously stated, either do something about it, or just get on with your lives.

oh! PLEASE!!!!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:18 AM

And your point is...?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:54 AM

Caitlin,

Your need to shout "wrong" in all caps underlines the weakness of your argument.

My point about "stability" is not "spin." It's just good English, being offered to you by a professional writer, editor, and English professor.

"Stability" means, among other things:

"Immunity from destruction or essential change; enduring quality."

and

"Permanence of arrangement; power of resisting change of structure."

Status quo means "The existing state of affairs."

"The existing state of affairs" is what will be maintained if change is resisted.

Ergo, Stability MEANS the tendency to maintain the status quo. That is one of the main definitions of the word "stability."

Shout all you like, but you will not change this. Language, too, has a certain degree of stability.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

Come on geek!!!
How can caitlín be nit picking? She is perfectly correct in pointing out the differences between the two phrases. There is a big difference and an important one. You CAN have stability with lots of change - something we badly need in C.C.E.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM

" Any union leader taking such liberties would have ended face down in the Mersey,", so have you got the heavy squad ready, what a silly statement to make, cool down Jim a hot-headed remark like that, shows your true nature.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM

If the Head Office was concerned that the project was running into financial difficulties and didn't have confidence in the local branch to sort it out, then I can see why it felt it had to intervene. What does seem to be in question is whether the way it intervened was appropriate. Breandan argues that the local branch didn't want to discuss it, the local branch seems to be saying that Head Office wasn't prepared to listen.

It is also understandable that the local branch was defensive about what it no doubt saw, and still sees, as its project, whereas Head Office sees it as a Comhaltas project.

There was clearly always going to be a gulf between the two sides. Perhaps dissolution was the only step open to Head Office, I don't know. Even if it was, the way they have gone about it seems to have widened that gulf, and drawn in many people who were not previously involved.

Whoever is right or wrong, the whole thing seems to have been handled pretty badly. The question now is whether the mess can be sorted out. At the moment its not clear that either side is very interested in doing so.

So far as the VAT refund is concerned, in my view its a red herring. The correct amount of money ended up back where it belonged. The issue seems to be that it did not go through the proper channels. No doubt that has put someone's nose out of joint, but it doesn't appear to me to be a major problem.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,caitlín
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:10 PM

My question is a fair one and it has still not been answered. Not allowing any changes to be even proposed for six-year periods of time means the people in power get to stay in power without being challenged. It does not mean that Comhaltas is unstable. Brendan's answer does not even address the issue.

If he doesn't know the answer, there are people in that organisation that do - but they are not telling us. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of democracy. And it's a question I still want an answer to.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM

Caitlín, I think it is rather a stretch to say that not providing for yearly amendments to the organisation's constitution "means the people in power get to stay in power." Elections are held yearly. If the membership wishes to replace their representatives, they are free to do so at any point. The organisation itself does require stability, and you are incorrect if you think that frequent rule changes would produce a happy result.

Also, for what it's worth, I believe that my analogies to the US Constitution and to other governing bodies is a perfectly suitable way of illustrating what can be a complex subject, now that we've headed away from capital structuring and into the realm of representative democracy. Many of the external constraints and even the underlying ideals are similar in the two cases, and such documents and governing structures have been formulated with similar results.

I note that the conversation has moved now from the bare-faced theft of a building at the start, through to a discussion of the constitutionality of dissolving a branch, and now finally to the governing structures and documents of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann itself. I can only assume that the lack of any coherent defence by the old committee indicates that the essential facts surrounding the mismanagement of the theatre project are not contested.

I'm interested to know exactly what is being proposed as a more suitable conclusion than that which occurred. If the high council had not intervened, the project would still be stuck with not enough money and no way to raise more, vendors would still be unpaid and a beautiful new arts centre would be sitting on the Alfie Byrne road with no water or sewer connections. While I understand the frustration of the branch members, especially those not on the executive committee, is it seriously being argued that such a result would be better for all concerned? I honestly don't see how that outcome would enhance the reputation of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.

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

"The essential facts surrounding the mismanagement of the theatre project are not contested".

These alleged facts are very much in dispute - in fact they are at the very centre of it. I don't know why the members of the old branch have not engaged in the debate here but if you read what is said on the Cluain Tarbh web site they clearly do not agree with the version of events given by the ard comhairle statement.

We are only hearing one side of the argument here and it would be useful if those who were directly involved in the project would come onto this thread and give their side of the story.

Howard I agree the VAT refund is a bit of a red herring, but the actions of the branch committee in refusing to give the monry to Head Office seem to have been a significant catalyst in provoking the dissolution of the branch.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:24 PM

Battle of Clontarf round two/ Comhaltas Interruptus.
The very naming of this thread,suggests the original poster has an axe to grind.
personally,I would like to have more information from both sides,before I could decide who is in the right.
Comhaltas do make mistakes,one example is[their system of marking for competitions with the over emphasis on ornamentation is in my opinion a mistake and is responsible for artificially altering style]
on the other hand ,through the fleadhs they have also provided a lot of people with pleasure,and been responsible for many children acquiring skill, self esteeem and musical satisfaction.
Comhaltas is in my opinion a Curates Egg.,and has a lot in common with political parties,there are many branch activists who give alot of unpaid time and dedication,and do a lot of excellent work,and then theres the bigwigs[who would best be stuck up a tree].
Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: knight_high
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:43 PM

Boy you sure are batting well for your masters Breandán!!! After all the discussions that have taken place re this and you still come back and say.
"I'm interested to know exactly what is being proposed as a more suitable conclusion than that which occurred"

You have read incountless messages, what HQ have done wrong. I realise that there was fault on both sides The kernel of the dispute is the illegal dissolution of the Branch. Do you realise that in 20 years - 40 years the story of the dissolution of Cluain Tarbh will be spoken of. Instead of being a showcase performance space, Clasach will be a permanent reminder of this dirty deed. I can tell you this. The building is not worth it if it generates such bad feeling disputes and animosity for decades to come. Better if it never happened. Solve it - and quickly. Swallow you pride Labhras and reinstate the branch. Let an independent arbitrator be appointed to try and bring some peace between the parties involved.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:53 PM

Oddly, the supporters of the former Clontarf branch committee seem to support tyranny whenever it results in their goals being met, and to oppose it whenever it doesn't. Case in point, knight_high's call for the director to "reinstate" the branch committee, thus overturning the decision of a national committee of elected representatives. In case you haven't noticed, knight_high, a single executive overturning the decision of an elected committee would be autocratic.

A better solution would be to re-convene the national committee and see if they would consider a different approach. Frankly, though, it may not be constitutionally possible, because dissolving a branch committee and constituting a new branch committee are different actions. The central committee may not have the authority to appoint the old committee members back to the branch committee, even if they wanted to.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:01 PM

I'm afraid you're correct on that score, Nerd -- I'm not aware of any precedent suggesting that the national committee can interfere in the duly elected officer makeup of a local committee, and those who are calling for such a move will probably not make much progress. The Director-General certainly doesn't have that power.

You are also correct in the separation of powers -- the act of dissolution was carried out by the national committee, while the new branch was formed under the auspices of the Dublin County Board.

The best chance of resolution that I can see is for the old committee members to run for office within the new branch. Of course, I'm hopeful that tensions will die down once the theatre opens and becomes the home of the branch. That's what everyone wants to see, after all.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Philip
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:24 PM

Brendan,
Cluain Tarbh were denied their right of appeal or any hearing because the Dublin County Committee made the decision in conjunction with the Ard Comhairle to suspend the branch. This decision should only have been made by the full county committee at very least. The full county board should have been involved and Cluain Tarbh should have been allowed to present its case. As regards the outstanding money owed to the contractors etc., the loans were approved and awaiting trustee signatures to draw down the funds but the trustees did not sign. The same amount of money has now been sourced by HQ and the trustee signatures would presumably have been required for these borrowings too. This project will need good will to repay borrowings and ensure its success. Local support is vital. As a cluain Tarbh member I respect your position and feel you should respect mine. As with all difficult disputes dialogue is the best way forward.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

Declan, you're right, the way the branch handled the VAT does seem to have been a significant factor in Head Office's decision, but I find it hard to understand why the Head Office was so het up about it. The branch may not have followed the correct procedures, but the money ended up where it belonged - how could that be damaging to CCE? There's been no suggestion of financial impropriety, so far as I'm aware, and the branch insists that it believes it acted legally. A rap over the knuckles for not following CCE's internal financial procedures might be in order, but to use it as one of the excuses for dissolving the branch does seem excessive.

The financial difficulty the project found itself in is another matter. In the circumstances I don't see that Head Office had any option but to take control.   Assuming dissolution of the branch was the only constitutional way to achieve this, the question then is whether both parties did enough to avoid this, by engaging in discussions. The fact that both sides now seem to have taken entrenched positions suggests to me that perhaps they did not, although exactly who should bear most responsibility for this is not clear.

What's important now is to find a way forward. The hierarchy of Comhaltas must find a way of bringing back the disaffected members of the former branch and continuing to involve as many of them as possible in completing the project, with new controls and safeguards in place

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

Philip:

I do respect your position, and as I have said before I can only imagine how frustrating it must be right now to be a member of Clontarf Comhaltas. I'm afraid that on the legalities of things, I do see the point of the Ardchomhairle: the high council does have the right to dissolve a branch, though as you say the County Board also has that right. With regard to the loan, I have answered that elsewhere: after waiting for an unconscionable period of time to secure such a loan, the branch presented an agreement to the trustees that could only be signed if the trustees had direct control of the money as spent. A simple enquiry to the trustees at any point in the process of arranging the loan would have confirmed this. I can only assume the hope was that the by-then-precarious financial situation of the project would have compelled the trustees to act despite their misgivings.

But considering the present, at this point a loan has been secured, and with control over the remainder of the construction project the trustees have indeed committed Comhaltas to cover the amount. The branch having been very unfortunately dissolved, my suggestion was that the best opportunity of working together (and continuing the dialogue) will be in the context of the newly-formed branch of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: magb
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM

Don't quite follow Nerd's gripes here. As far as I can see, there have been a number of Clontarf members contributing to this thread - none of them "tyrants". I completely understand why members of the 'old committee' would not idenitify themselves as such here - thus laying them open to litigious quotation/argument distracting to their main issues etc.
As far as I can tell from all info detailed above, the CEC can do exactly what they wish, and if that included reversing their decision to dissolve the branch, I'm sure they would easily justify their decision to implement this action. (And dissolving a newly self-elected branch should surely be pretty painless compared to dissolving a 45 year old branch)
Sadly, that won't happen unless they are faced with huge dissent and legal action. I hope that the 'old' branch has the will and the means to organise the latter.
Maggie




posted earlier by knight high
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

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:40 PM

To take a slightly different angle on this, it seems to me that, given that Classac was identified as a regional centre in an overall Comhaltas strategy that either:
(a) Comhaltas head office left the Classac Committee - part of a local Branch, to shoulder a large burden of responsibility of the project without providing the benefit of its expertise and assitance to the Branch in running the project or
(b) The project was being run jointly by the Branch and Head Office but HQ chose to distance itself from the actions of the Committee when things (in the HQ viewpoint) started to go pear shaped.

In either case HQ are culpable in the project going off the rails (to teh extent that it did) but the entire blame for this is being laid at the door of the Branch. HQ steps in as the white knight to resolve the situation and accuses the Classac committee of mismanaging the project. Somehting about this whole situation stinks!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Diarmaid
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:28 PM

Breandán,

Obviously, you have a different version of the Bunreacht than that which was issued to me.

The County Board does not have the right to dissolve a branch. It has the right to suspend a branch under Section 3 Rule 6(c) with the branch then having the right to appeal to the Provincial Council. Clontarf was not afforded the luxury of appealing suspension because they were not suspended by the County Board.

The Ardchomhairle on the other hand do not have the right to suspend a branch. However, Clontarf were notified in writing by the Ardrunaí that it was the Ardchomhairle who had suspended them. A copy of the letter (Feb 6th 2008) can be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm. I believe that, in coming to their decision, the Ardchomhairle were not aware of the facts because Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú and the other members of the Buanchoiste had prevented them receiving the facts from the branch.

The Buanchoiste also denied the branch the opportunity to state their case directly to the Ardchomhairle as can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter which was e-mailed on 31st Jan 2008, a copy of which can also be found at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm.

Breandán, you seem to be aware of what correspondence from the branch was received by Ardchomhairle members (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM). Perhaps you would enlighten us as to how many of the documents submitted by the branch for the attention of the Ardchomhairle members, during the 2 months prior to the branch's dissolution, were actually distributed by Labhrás & Co to the Ardchomhairle members.

The Buanchoiste also instructed the County Board not to accept the branch's correspondence or to allow their representatives to attend County Board meetings, thus ensuring that the true facts could not make their way through the channels of County Board, Provincial Council, Ardchomhairle which is how the Ardrúnaí had stated we should make our case in his letter of 31st Jan 2008 referred to above.

Breandán, you say (`02 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM) that you have no idea on what basis Clontarf applied for a VAT refund. That seems odd to me as Comhaltas HQ worked closely with the branch in agreeing the VAT application process and they supplied most of the information required.

Domo, you say that in one of the threads, the Clontarf Branch claims they were registered for charity. This is incorrect. Jim Carroll (16 MAR 08 - 04:30 AM) from Clare said that was the story as he knew it. Jim is not a member of the Clontarf branch and the Clontarf branch was not registered as a charity. In general, however, Jim does seem to have a very good grasp of what has happened and is a lot more accurate than Breandán whom, I suspect, has been a lot more closely involved than he lets on with his honest broker routine.

There was nothing irregular with the claim for VAT refund submitted to the Revenue Commissioners by the VAT entity set up by the Clontarf branch. The Revenue Commissioners agreed that they were entitled to the refund and approved the claim. When the Buanchoiste notified the branch in their letter of 5th Feb 2008 that they were seizing control of the Clasac project, it was clear that the VAT entity set up by the branch could not trade and, therefore it was deregistered for VAT purposes and the VAT refund returned to Revenue. The Revenue Commissioners confirmed in their letter of 04 Mar 2008 that the branch had acted appropriately.

As can be seen from the Ardrúnaí's letter of Feb 6th 2008, the only issue which the branch was asked to regularise was the VAT refund which the Trustees directed should be transferred to them.

In the days prior to dissolution of the branch, the Ardrúnaí confirmed by phone that the only issue for which the branch was under threat of dissolution was the failure by the branch to transfer the VAT to the HO account. For this reason, Howard Jones and Declan, I disagree with your assessment that the VAT refund was a red herring. It is the only issue that the branch were asked to 'regularise'. HO knew that the branch had acted appropriately in relation to the VAT at all times. They also knew, because the branch advised them of the expert tax advice that it had received, that it would be illegal to transfer the VAT to HO. Yet, they dissolved the branch for failing to do so.

With regard to your claim, Breandán, that the project was mismanaged, I would like you to give specifics. I am sure that I can answer to the satisfaction of others out there, any doubts that you might like to raise.

With regard to your numerous claims about the democratic nature of the Ardchomhairle and Senator Labhrás' position, you have an advantage over me in that, when I asked HO for details on the Ardchomhairle, I was informed by the person on the phone that she (I won't name her) was under instruction not to give out details of the Ardchomhairle members. She would not say who had issued the instruction other than 'management', nor would she tell me who in HO constituted 'management'.

You say (01 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM) that 'the council is composed of 31 elected voluntary officers who are accountable to their home districts'.

What do you mean by 'their home districts'? Please specify the home districts.
What do you mean by 'accountable to'? Please specify how they are accountable to their home districts?
Can you tell me who elected the 31 voluntary officers?
How many members were co-opted onto the Ardchomhairle?

I look forward to your response.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:46 PM

magb,

I was specifically referring to knight-high's suggestion that Labhras simply unilaterally "reinstate" the Clontarf committee. That is tyranny--in the sense that the Clontarf committee was dissolved by a representative body, not the whim of a single man. To "reinstate" it on the whim of a single man, or a vocal minority, would therefore be tyrannical. The new committee must be elected.

Breandan confirms my previous suspicion: neither Labhras nor the committee can "reinstate" the Clontarf committee. This is not unusual in electoral systems; in much the same way, the US Congress can remove a sitting President, but not install one. If they remove one, and then think better of it, it's too late.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM

Diarmuid,

I meant that the VAT refund was a red herring to the extent that, assuming the Ardcomhairle would have acted legally, that the VAT refund would have been returned to the exchequer in any event whether the money had been returned to Revenue, or via HQ and the Deprtment of Arts etc. The branch, in returning the money to the state's collection agency, from whence it came, simply cut out a number of intermediary steps.

It was obviously, as I have stated a few times, a major factor in triggering events in Head Office. I'm still at a loss as to why.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:23 AM

So far, this dispute has taken place articulately and, to one degree or another, politely; much passion and heat, even anger at times, but at least people on both sides of the fence have listened to the points of view of their opponents and attempted to answer them.
While I disagree with Breandán, I am very aware that he has appeared to listen to what I have to say and has attempted to deal with my questions politely and carefully – too seldom the case in such arguments.
I would be grateful to Ard mhacha if he didn't use a flippant remark of mine to drag this discussion down to gutter level.
Nerd; the classifying of organisations such as CCE and EFDSS as 'charities' is, I believe a nominal one, done for the purpose of convenience rather than definition. The roles of these and, say Oxfam, Save The Children and ISPCA are very different and require different relationships between those at the head of the organisations and the foot-soldiers.
Not only do I do believe that a democratic structure is not out of the question in our music organisations, I think it is essential if all members are to make a contribution.
One thing that all 'charities' music or otherwise, who are dependent on public support, from within or without, is total transparency and full accountability of action – not the case with the Clontarf affair, I believe.
Somebody said they couldn't imagine this happening in the U.K.; I beg to differ. It wasn't so long ago that EFDSS made the front pages by having to call in the Fraud Squad over the proposed sale of Cecil Sharp House; an affair which not only exposed EFDSS to ridicule and disrepute, but tore the organisation in pieces, a state from which, I believe, it never fully recovered.
Public organisations need to be aware that they are constantly in the public eye and largely dependent on public support and good will.
I don't know how the (rightly discredited IMO) 2000 report by Labhrás to the Oireachreas on the state of music in Ireland was received within Comhaltas; I do know it stirred up a hornet's nest of protest outside, which eventually led to it being shelved. The aftershocks of the affair are still being felt; I still have the scathing 'Pillars of Society article on Labhrás; not exactly helpful to him or CCE.
Breandán; thank you for answering my simple question and satisfying my curiosity, if not my cynicism. As I appear to be on a roll, hope you don't mind if I try another couple.
1.        (Somewhat impenetrable) rulebook and financial disputes aside - do you believe that the leadership have handled this affair well?
2.        Do you think that this affair has helped or hindered the cause of Irish traditional music?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:08 AM

All very good Jim, the gutter remark was in your post so I would be grateful to you if you cared to read some of your earlier posts, I see plenty of spite in them.

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

Diarmuid, Declan has summarised my view on the VAT issue. It was clearly a significant factor in the decision to involve the branch, but it should not have been. Whilst it may have contravened internal financial processes, the money has ended up back with the Revenue, and indeed the Branch states that it has been advised that legally it could not have done otherwise. To dissolve the branch for putting the law of the land above internal processes seems excessive.

That's what I meant about it being a red herring. It seems to be just an excuse to give an additional reason for dissolving the branch, rather than a genuine issue.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Sparkles
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:16 AM

Why is Breandan the only one speaking for Comhaltas? Why, when he doesn't know the answer to a question, it just doesn't get answered? Comhaltas is made up of a whole group of people and don't tell me they're not reading this. Why are they ignoring questions they don't like by leaving everything to Breandan? That 6 year thing has still not been explained. It just keeps getting sidestepped. So let's try again:

WHY is there no provision in place for amending the constitution more often than every 6 years? 'I don't know' just isn't good enough. If Breandan doesn't know, get someone who does to come on board and justify it. If they can.

An institution that does not allow enough scope for its governing rules to be changed is unfair. The possibility of reform needs to be made more available because it's one of the ways you keep power in balance. It should be a basic right.

And I'm not talking about yearly elections. I'm talking about the constitution. So often in this thread when a question gets asked the only answer is Because the constitution says so. That may be a reason but it's not an explanation. Maybe the constitution needs an overhaul? Tough. You can't. Not for years yet. That's NOT FAIR. The only real answer on this has been silence. What does that tell you?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:41 AM

What stands out to me is that the majority of people on this thread who are criticising (either party) are not (or not admitting to be) members.
Any club / society I am a member of has rules which the members follow, contest, amend, add to etc.
But to have 'outsiders' telling me how my adopted club should be run is unacceptable.(advice is acceptable)
This may be the reason for the silence of certain parties re. this forum.
In any 'club' there will be conflicting views but I have found that it is rare that 'outsiders' ever get the true facts, leading to false conclusions.
No matter the truth or final outcome, this affair will leave a bad taste in many mouths for decades (as said in a previous post)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:51 AM

Black Hawk, I'm quite prepared to admit that I'm not a member of Comhaltas. What's more, I'm an Englishman, living in England, and I'm unlikely to use or visit the Clasac centre. So perhaps I have no right to comment.

But this is more than a matter of internal discipline within a private club, it has ramifications which go far wider and which may affect traditional music outside the confines of Comhaltas. I submit that anyone who enjoys and takes an interest in Irish music has a right to an opinion on this.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:03 AM

I agree you have a right to an opinion as have I.
I am not questioning that.
Even if our opinions are based on false assumptions they are still only opinions.
I am commenting on the organisation being told what to do by non-participants. Not advice - instructions.
But again, just my opinion as an interested observer.
I think it a great pity when any organisation has a wedge driven in no matter the rights & wrongs.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:14 AM

Well, WE didn't drive that wedge into it.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:33 AM

I'll be happy to do a more detailed response to your post, Diarmud, though I'm actually somewhat incredulous that you are not more aware of the governing structure of Comhaltas. And while I'm sure our receptionist wouldn't have given you telephone numbers, the membership of the central council would be public record.

First, though, Jim raises some fascinating questions, which I think are quite relevant to the debate.

1.       (Somewhat impenetrable) rulebook and financial disputes aside - do you believe that the leadership have handled this affair well?

That would be a qualified "no." I think that the council took a difficult decision in the face of a difficult and complicated problem. Because they followed the rules and did what was necessary to get the project back on track, I think they acted correctly. However, in several areas there is much to learn from.

Communications between the Ardchomhairle and the Clontarf membership have been extremely unhelpful, from what I can see, both in person and in writing. To a certain extent, the Ardchomhairle will say that it isn't their job to talk to the membership - that they deal with the branch committee. And they're right, technically. From the perspective of goodwill, though, I think that animosities on both sides had been allowed to harden before any real communications occurred, and what we heard from both sides was excessively legalistic and stiff, exacerbating an already touchy situation. And as I've said elsewhere, I would have preferred that this action be originated at County Board level, escalated to Provincial Council and then to Central Council, if only to make sure that Clontarf felt they had been listened to at each step. I doubt that the outcome would be different, but a longer process (initiated earlier) would have addressed these questions of representation.

My choice would have been to initiate an action in Dublin County Board after the arbitrated agreement to pay contractors in December was defaulted, and let it go up the system from there. While the Ardchomhairle clearly has the right to do what it did, and while they were correct that some intervention had become necessary, I do feel that a process could have been followed which would have made it more clear to the membership of Clontarf what was happening and why. I believe that the council waited too long, hoping that the committee would start taking advice, and the disagreement became a very tragic game of chicken which could only be resolved drastically.

As I've said, though, I'm not an elected representative of any part of Comhaltas, and I was not privy to all communications back and forth. There may have been no alternative. But my own sense of process and fairness would have been better served by a more locally-originated debate. While constitutional, the acts taken made the Clontarf membership understandably upset, and certainly didn't do the organisation any favours in the area of public relations.

2.       Do you think that this affair has helped or hindered the cause of Irish traditional music?

This particular spat is definitely hurting, because it is contributing to a popular conception that whenever the government or a private organisation tries to get involved in culture, something gets screwed up. I don't agree with that - while I accept fully that Irish culture is no longer in danger of extinction or marginalisation, I believe that this continues to be in part due to organisations like Comhaltas. Note that I said "In part." The fact that Comhaltas has become sufficiently ubiquitous so as to fade into the unnoticed infrastructure of Irish life only underscores the point, not refutes it.

Yes, obviously people around the world could and should enjoy Irish music completely untethered to any structure or organisation. I'm glad that this happens. But the power of Comhaltas is in training the next generation of players, and ensuring that in any given area there will be a sufficient critical mass of music and musicians that the spontaneous ensembles and sessions and dances can take place, to the benefit of many. It is easy to underestimate this particular goal, and to assume that it was and always will be this way.

However, I think that a critical look will show that Irish culture still benefits from such support. For example, though Breton music and Moris dancing are still popularly performed by amateur musicians, we don't see nearly the involvement around the world by musicians who, day in and day out, focus much of their social energy on the amateur exchange of tunes and ideas. Spanish music has done well, but has largely become part of a performance-based tradition. Much of the indigenous music of the Middle and Far East survives throughout the diaspora, but has become relegated to marking major life events only. Irish music enjoys almost a unique status in the level of ongoing amateur support it receives, and I believe Comhaltas to be a part of that network. This far-flung network builds communities, fights cultural decay and provides focus for children and adults who are looking for a modern and collaborative answer to unidirectional mass-mediated culture.

Right now, the services of Comhaltas are heavily skewed toward children, which is in keeping with the educational goals of the movement. In the longer term, I hope to find new and better ways to facilitate the needs of adults within Comhaltas, through new collaborations, through better information exchange and through other community-building projects. But all of the potential for good work is hampered when there is division within the group.

It's understandable that people fight, and fight hard, for the structures with which they choose to align themselves. It's a sign of the strength of the Clontarf branch and of the movement as a whole that people are so passionate about this debate. I applaud the passion and energy. But when people feel ill-used, when the debate leaks out in to the public sphere, when the debate becomes acrimonious, the thing that we all believe in is damaged. The more it looks like Comhaltas can't get its act together, the more the aims of the movement are impeded.

So while the theatre and teaching centre itself will be a very good thing for the traditional arts, this particular argument is definitely hurting the cause.