Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus

Subject: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 01:26 PM

Does anybody have any information on what is happening in Clontarf regarding the world's most expensive traditional music venue (€11,000,000)?
It would appear that the leadership of CCE has taken over the premises which was built with money raised by the local branch, and has expelled the branch in order to finalise the dirty deed.
Any Comhaltas members out there?
Any details.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Shaneo
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 01:49 PM

Was supposed to open this week, not all the money was raised local, A grant from the Irish government through the arts council which in turn pased through Ceoltas.
The Clontarf branch wanted to run the centre themselves and decide what brand of the arts could be promoted there.
Ceoltas have a very strict policy [view] on what constitutes ''traditional Irish''
This is not the first time a local branch and ceoltas had a falling out as C.C.E can be very dogged.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM

Jim, can you fill us in a bit more? What (or rather which) dirty deed?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

Bonnie,
On the national news - interminably.
Local branch at Clontarf raised $11,000,000 to open centre.
Comhaltas has expelled branch and taken over centre.
More later
Jim

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Declan
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 09:18 PM

Don't know a lot about the internal Comhaltas politics here.

But I have attended a number of annual fund raisers for this centre. I know that a lot of the organisational work (and the performances at the benefit gigs) have been done by members and friends of Craobh Chluain Tarbh.

The Clontarf branch have always been, to my mind one of the least Comhaltas-like branches of the organisation - and as far as I am concerned that is a major compliment. I would hate to see all the effort that has gone into the completion of this centre ending up in another venue for the conservative wing of Comhaltas. A centre run by the Clontarf branch would almost certainly be much more to my liking.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 04:30 AM

Declan and Bonnie,
Couldn't agree more - this is pretty much the feeling being expressed here in the Wild West (Clare).
The story, as we have it at present, is as follows:
The Clontarf members raised a phenomenal sum to build a music centre, mainly from Arts Council grants.
When the work was completed they were told that, as they were registered as a charity, they were entitled to tax rebates of an unspecified, but very large sum, which they applied for and received.
There was some doubt raised regarding the validity of the rebate so, to be on the safe side (in the present climate of fraud investigation tribunals etc here in Ireland), they returned the cheque until the matter could be clarified.
President Labhrás ó Murchú, (known affectionately here as 'Larry-The Lab Rat') ballisticated, claiming that ALL money raised by branches which was not needed for local organisation, automatically belonged to Head Office.
He (his decision alone - that's the way Comhaltas democracy works apparently) has expelled the branch and turned them out of the premises they built. The building, technically, now belongs to CCE and those who built it have no access to it; nor do they have anywhere to hold planned events for tomorrows St Pats Day.
The first we heard of it was a very long radio phone-in programme on Wednesday (on which CCE head office refused to produce a spokesman).
That, as far as I know, is how things stand at present.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:03 AM

Have the locals any legal recourse? Google - even if you narrow the search to Irish web pages only - is astonishingly reticent on this subject. I couldn't find anything up to date except a brief mention in a couple of fora similar to Mudcat. No proper news that I could see, prompting temptations to paranoia.

Ah, the guiding hand of Labhrás Ó Murchú. Now why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:36 AM

Jim Carroll.

€11,000,000 or $11,000,000?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM

What are they going to do with their valuable Belgrave Square premises? Sell it to property developers? When you consider the prices in Dublin, just imagine what that must be worth. Then they can move into the Clontarf centre and let the rest of 'em eat cake.

You can bet HQ's lawyers went through everything with a fine-tooth comb before this move ever went public.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM

Jim,
11 million.
Bonnie,
As Lab Rat has so far avoided making a statement, there is no indication of his intentions whatever.
You may remember his expelling the West London Branch for refusing to donate to a political fund back in the 70s.
My friend Paddy Boyle (Maggie's father) was one of the cmbatants at the time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM

Word on the grapevine has it that Comhaltas has dissolved the Clontarf branch (with name-blackening into the bargain). This link has more info:

http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm

Can the membership not call for an E.G.M. and pass a vote of No Confidence, or something?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:01 PM

There was much talk on the Joe Duffy Show (RTE Radio1) this afternoon, including interviews with members, apparently the Clontarf branch hadn't received the formal letter of dissolution from HQ & yet Joe Duffy had a copy in his mits!

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 06:10 AM

Yes, they've been very underhand about the whole thing. There will be rules in place concerning members calling an Extraordinary General Meeting to challenge this action (which the branch only learned of for the first time when they heard it on the radio) - but if there IS no branch, they can't. And Murph the Lab Rat is a political animal with colleagues in high places.

http://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?ID=4131

In case that link goes bye-bye (see boldface passages in particular):

        •        The Cluain Tarbh (Clontarf) branch of Comhaltas is one of the biggest and most significant branches of Comhaltas in the world with over 400 members.
        •        For the past 15 years Cluain Tarbh has been the prime mover in the development of CLASAC - the magnificent new Centre for the Traditional Arts on Dublin's Northside.
        •        The branch ran a myriad of fund raising events, secured the site from Dublin City Council and successfully negotiated significant public funding for the centre.
        •        The Branch worked in partnership with Comhaltas HQ both on the development of the 2004 Comhaltas Development Plan in which CLASAC was a flagship project.
        •        However, in recent months, there has been a determined effort by Comhaltas HQ to take over the Centre and to exclude the Branch.
        •        False accusations have been made against the branch and every avenue to answer these has been closed off.
        •        The Branch was suspended from Comhaltas by the Dublin Co Board acting on instructions from the HQ. The manner of the suspension was contrary to the Comhaltas constitution. There was no right of appeal, no due process and no natural justice. A request to be heard distributed to delegates to the Co Board is here.
        •        Comhaltas issued a directive to the branch to transfer a VAT refund relating specifically to Clasac to the HQ account.
        •        The branch sought expert advice on this matter. The advice received was that such a transfer would be illegal and would put individual branch members at risk of substantial sanctions from Revenue.
        •        The branch unwilling to break the law and to expose indivdual members to potentially large liabilities returned the refund to Revenue. Revenue have confirmed the validity of the branch action.
        •        Comhaltas HQ dissolved the branch because it did not comply with a directive which would have broken the law of the land.
        •        Dissolution means that the assets built up by the current members can be seized by Comhaltas HQ. This means that the current members lose the money that they paid for classes, the musical instruments that they bought for use in the branch instrument loan scheme and all other assets.
        •        Absurdly, but consistent with the comtempt shown to the branch up to now, Comhaltas did not write to the branch to confirm the dissolution but instead wrote to RTE Radio personality Joe Duffy who was able to inform branch members on his show of 20th March that the branch had been dissolved six days earlier.
        •        There has been an attempt to 'reconstitute' the branch with an unelected and unrepresentative exceutive committee acting in concert with Comhaltas HQ.
        •        A meeting of the branch on 19th March unanimously rejected this attempt to undermine the branch, expressed confidence in the current executive and asked it to continue running the branch activities.
        •        The resolution which emerged from the meeting is available here [downloadable Word document].

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: redsnapper
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 07:14 AM

Following this with interest as I was also a member of West London Comhaltas in the 70s and remember Senator ó Murchú.

RS

Subject: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:52 AM

I am putting this up under another heading, as it seems largely to have escaped the attention of those interested in traditional Irish music, democracy, or simply fair play
For the uninitiated, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is the leading, most influential and wealthiest organisation representing Irish (or any other Traditional) music throughout the world. It has a reported 400 + branches and is run by an annually elected body which is presided over by an appointed director general, Labhras (pro. Lowros) Ó Murchú (Larry Murphy). In spite of its apparently democratic structure, in reality Ó Murchú runs the organisation pretty much like a private company, taking all major decisions on its behalf. He is also a State Senator, which gives him access to Government decisions on cultural matters (and the state purse in relation to grants).
In general, the branches do magnificent work, organising local session and running classes (though IMO this latter is somewhat spoiled by the fact that the pupils are scholled to be entered into competitions).
In 1979, the West London Branch   of CCE ran foul of the leadership by refusing to participate in a political fundraising event (on the basis that the branch was made up of members of all religious, political and national affiliations). The branch was subsequently expelled.
More recently the Clontarf Brach in Dublin raised over €11.000,000 to build what is claimed to be the worlds most expensive traditional music centre. I heard a little of the events following this on the radio last week, but received this, this morning.

"The Dissolution of Cluain Tarbh CCE - a Guide For The Perplexed.

The Cluain Tarbh (Clontarf) branch of Comhaltas is one of the biggest and most significant branches of Comhaltas in the world with over 400 members.
For the past 15 years Cluain Tarbh has been the prime mover in the development of CLASAC - the magnificent new Centre for the Traditional Arts on Dublin's Northside.
The branch ran a myriad of fund raising events, secured the site from Dublin City Council and successfully negotiated significant public funding for the centre.
The Branch worked in partnership with Comhaltas HQ both on the development of the 2004 Comhaltas Development Plan in which CLASAC was a flagship project.
However, in recent months, there has been a determined effort by Comhaltas HQ to take over the Centre and to exclude the Branch.
False accusations have been made against the branch and every avenue to answer these has been closed off.
The Branch was suspended from Comhaltas by the Dublin Co Board acting on instructions from the HQ. The manner of the suspension was contrary to the Comhaltas constitution. There was no right of appeal, no due process and no natural justice. A request to be heard distributed to delegates to the Co Board is here.
Comhaltas issued a directive to the branch to transfer a VAT refund relating specifically to Clasac to the HQ account.
The branch sought expert advice on this matter. The advice received was that such a transfer would be illegal and would put individual branch members at risk of substantial sanctions from Revenue.
The branch unwilling to break the law and to expose individual members to potentially large liabilities returned the refund to Revenue. Revenue have confirmed the validity of the branch action.
Comhaltas HQ dissolved the branch because it did not comply with a directive which would have broken the law of the land.
Dissolution means that the assets built up by the current members can be seized by Comhaltas HQ. This means that the current members lose the money that they paid for classes, the musical instruments that they bought for use in the branch instrument loan scheme and all other assets.
Absurdly, but consistent with the contempt shown to the branch up to now, Comhaltas did not write to the branch to confirm the dissolution but instead wrote to RTE Radio personality Joe Duffy who was able to inform branch members on his show of 20th March that the branch had been dissolved six days earlier.
There has been an attempt to 'reconstitute' the branch with an unelected and unrepresentative executive committee acting in concert with Comhaltas HQ.
A meeting of the branch on 19th March unanimously rejected this attempt to undermine the branch, expressed confidence in the current executive and asked it to continue running the branch activities.
The resolution which emerged from the meeting is available here."

Will happily pass on any references or further information to anybody interested.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM

Sorry Bonnie,
Didn't see this and posted in on another thread (see Comhaltas Interruptus)
Outraged from Miltown Malbay (Jim Carroll)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM

If you Google "Comhaltas" and "Clontarf" - as people are likely to do - this Mudcat thread comes up third in the line of hits (fifth on Irish Google) so it's bound to attract some attention. [I just Freudianly typed CONhaltas above...] The web link we have both quoted from is further down, not even sure where, so this at least makes it more prominent.

I wonder if the Mudcat clones would please combine our two threads, deleting one of the duplicated paste-ins? Google is perhaps a reason to keep this thread because it brings the two search terms together sooner on the page and seems to get a higher listing; or maybe we could ask them to re-title this thread "Comhaltas ousts Clontarf" or something which makes it even clearer! Assorted parties are bound to be net-surfing about this (including Them, no doubt). What do you think, Jim?

Subject: RE: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,guest maggie boyle
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:55 PM

Hello Jim...
You will of course know that this surprises me not one bit. For other mudcatters I will state that I, along with most of my family, was amongst the hundred or so members who were so unceremoniously and wrongly ejected by the comhaltas executive in 1979 - for insisting on operating within the constitutional rules.
A certain weasel of a man is, I fear, so well-ensconced in the corridors of power that any attempt to gainsay him is probably futile.
This recent case is even more harmful than previous misdemeanors, and I am very sorry indeed for all the members at the receiving end. They face the demolition of their community, despite their voluntary efforts for over 40 years. It's shameful.
I very much doubt that messages from England (or anywhere) will help their case, but do please let me know if you think I might be wrong about that.
Best Wishes to you and Pat.
Maggie

Subject: RE: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:23 PM

Jim, do you think it would help if we could get an on-line petition going?

Subject: RE: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Gulliver
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:40 AM

I'd really like to hear what Comhaltas HQ have to say on this--they surely can't keep quiet much longer. There was nothing in today's Times (at least, that I could find). My own acquaintances who are members are all on the south side of the city, so not directly involved.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 04:22 AM

Bonnie,
Agree entirely with combining threads - sorry for the mix-up; thought there wasn't enough response.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 04:33 AM

Hello Maggie,
Nice to hear from you again.
Gulliver,
Don't hold your breath for a response from Head Office - him indoors tends to be a law unto himself, and very much relies on branches who accept decisions without question.
Jim
Would rather think that any action should be guided by the Clontarf Branch first.
Will pass on any information I get, though there is another thread going on this (Battle of Clontarf),; I started this one because I thought the matter wasn't getting the attention it deserved.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:37 AM

Jim, if there is anything we can do in the form of letter writing both of support to those affected and of protest to those in charge of this farce let us know.

Dave

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:45 AM

There hasn't been! We ought not to be THIRD in the Google listings. Where IS everybody? I don't know if you're on the HEAnet Irish trad mailing group, but there have been exactly two posts about this. Both intelligently written, both expressing shock and concern, but two....??

I've PM'd Joe Offer to ask for a thread-combination, but it's two in the morning where he is, so he probably won't see it for a few hours. (Sleep, harrrumph, honestly, the excuses some people come up with... ;-)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: GUEST,Learaí na Láibe
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:44 AM

The relative silence of the net on this controversy is intriguing. Think Comhaltas needs an internal revolution.

Hi Bonnie, sorry for going off topic but how's the oul harping going? Are you still in Hibernia?

Slán

Learaí na Láibe

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:40 AM

Yep - in an old farmhouse out in east Cork, still harping away (and harping on, some may say...)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:58 AM

Blast these hidebound old men who are more concerned with their positions, their power, and their view as protectors of the purity. I have said many times that the one tradition in Irish music that is constant is that it will evolve by generations, while retaining the essence of its self. But if one leaves the actual music for a moment and moves to the organization, this becomes a travesty. As I understand it, you had a branch that was vibrant, and that its members got off their duffs and built this marvelous center, raised money for instruments, and had members that cut across age and class. WHAT MORE COULD ONE WANT FROM A BRANCH?????????

I am uninformed and far away, but my take is that these folks had something going that the HQ felt would threaten their primacy. This RAT fella seems to have felt threatened by it as well.

At a time when we are all trying to pass on to the next generation our love of these traditions and music, this can only be seen as a victory of power mad old men over what is best for the community.

To whomever perpetrated this I can only say,

Clúid ar do phoil ,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:20 PM

The full story of what is happening is to be found here.
I would suggest that anybody wishing to make their views known and offer the branch support should do so direct to the branch.
http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:49 PM

Publicity seems to be what's needed now.
Wonder if anybody has an in to fRoots, Musical Traditions, The Living Tradition, et al.... couldn't do any harm.
Have to say I'm appalled by the lack of interest shown by the Irish forum Irtrad!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: GUEST,the button
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:58 PM

I'd say The Living Tradition would definitely be interested, Jim. Unfortunately, the new issue's not long out, so it'd be a while before any story saw the light of day.

I don't have an "in" there, though -- just a subscriber.

I suppose the quickest one in terms of getting something out there would be a letter (well an e-mail) to Musical Traditions -- Rod seems to update the letters page once a month or more.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM

Jim, I just read the "Guide for the Perplexed" at the website you linked to (after I fixed the link). I sent an email of support, and am not sure what more I can do. I did suggest that they petition for a new election, and then re-elect the same officers, thereby putting HQ in a political bind.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf - round two
From: GUEST,redsnapper
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:26 PM

Perhaps a breakaway faction is now in order?

RS

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:47 PM

I just became a member of the Boston Hanafin-Cooley Branch. It's been at least 25yrs since I let my membership lapse, for reasons that are of no importance to the subject at hand. I'll be seeing my branch Chairman this coming Monday at the session I attend & ask what news he has.
There's the 2008 North American Convention coming up in Parsippany, NJ this March 27-30, 2008. I won't be attending but I'll ask if the subject can be broached & I'll ask about any news if it has been discussed.
It seems to me that this is of importantance to all members world wide & that an airing of this should be demanded.
It would also be great subject matter for any local members that are songwriters in the traditional style (please don't make that a subject of debate here!).
I'd also think that any members of the Local branch at Clontarf should be proud of what they've done & how they've carried on what should be the HQ's direction, unfotunately from all that's so far gathered it's the HQ's, who's leadership should be brought into question & disolved. After hearing from my local chair & hoping to becoming more educated on the subject I'll also be sending condemnation & support in an e-mail to any & all parties involved.
Thanks Jim for bringing this into the light.

Here is a link to Comhaltas
& here is a link to the Cluain Tarbh Branch


Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,doc.tom
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:29 AM

Useless, I know, but all sympathy to the branch and those who do/did the work. I've seen similar with English self-appointed custodians of the tradition - it gets very painful and very unjust - all you can do is have the members fight. Good luck.
Tom

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: MARINER
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 06:16 AM

I once heard Comhaltas described as "Cultural Facsists" . I took that with a grain of salt but after reading this ,i ain't so sure anymore

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:12 AM

You need to remember that Comhaltas is divided into two parts - (rank and file (branches) and leadership), and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The branches have kept the music alive for over half a century by organising sessions and classes and promoting the music, while on the other hand the leadership........... well!!! Breandán Breathnach once describes them as "an organisation with a great future behind it!"
Personally, I have a problem with any organisation based on competitions, but that's me.
It seems astounding to me that there has not been a murmer from any of the branches.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:29 AM

I saw & talked with the Chair of the Boston branch tonight. Not a long talk & not one of much depth either but.
It seems that this topic will be brought up for more than just a discussion during the upcoming North American Convention in NJ next week & that there may already be some sort of solution in the making.
I hope that it's a solution that the Clontarf Branch is very happy with, they should be made to feel happy & should be made to feel proud too.

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 04:40 AM

I am surprised, given the amount of money involved, that m'learned friends are not involved.

By and large I approve in principle of purity of traditions - that's what makes them traditions, otherwise they simply get assimilated - but traditions must also address the present or become no more than musuems (this is one of the aspects of genius of the 1954 definition).

This story, however, looks on the face of it less about the tradition and more about power politics. Follow the money!

Also, of course, be grateful that there are enough people in Ireland with an interest in the tradition for there to be two views about how best to deal with it! I often think that we could do with more pressure to retain and apply the English heritage.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,George Henderson
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 07:52 AM

Don't know what we can do to help but we can but try. I remeber the reason "report" authored by Labhras which tried to control all arts council money for the traditional arts through CCE.

After an uproar it was quietly shelved.

We must keep publicity about this injustice to the forefront.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM

Jim,

I have no brief for bullying of any kind.

If I can help in any way, you know where to reach me.

Slan leat, Bryn

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,aine in dublin
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:25 PM

A thoroughly undemocratic top heavy organization. There clearly needs to be a closer look at how the top brass in Comhaltas operate as a large amount of public money is given in grants to them on a yearly basis. Is there a role for the public accounts committe of the Dail or what about demanding an inquiry into the functioning of Comhaltas Head Office. Dissolving a branch in order to secure CONTROL over the new CLASAC centre is very strange and makes me believe that an investigation is long overdue. What about a petition demanding an inquiry into HQ of Comhaltas.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM

Just wanted to correct a few of the facts here. There's a bit more to this whole mess than is apparent from Clontarf's web page (quite a bit more), and actually the genesis of the dispute goes way back. (I'm speaking here as someone who works for Comhaltas, but isn't directly involved in the dispute. I have, however, spent lots of time working on the theatre project over the past year and I'm really, really looking forward to the new centre. I don't speak for official policy, though, not being an elected representative.)

Simply put, the Clontarf committee got in a bit of a mess over money, with construction cost overruns of about 2 million euro. Since the money was raised primarily from government grants, it's proving difficult to get the remaining money sorted out. The Clontarf committee has been making promises to pay vendors that they couldn't keep going back into last summer, and vendors have been ringing up Comhaltas head office every day for months to demand payment. Construction contractors and sub-contractors have started going to the media in hopes of embarrassing Comhaltas into paying -- to a contractor, it doesn't really matter whether the project is being run by a branch or by the parent organisation. The committee's been stonewalling.

Eventually Comhaltas asked the branch for a new arrangement to raise the remaining money and get the thing opened, but the committee's been stubborn about not giving up control, and not proposing any workable solutions for raising the 2 million. Eventually after a 5-week notice period and and a further period of moratorium, the branch committee was dissolved by unanimous vote of Comhaltas' elected high council.

Some members of the branch who know what's going on have formed a new committee and are trying to sort things out, while Comhaltas will do its best to get the construction project back on track. For the parents and children of the branch, there's no reason to think that the teaching programme and all of the rest of the great work of the branch won't continue — the musicians aren't and will certainly not be "homeless"!

Clontarf members who have been promoting and working on this project for the last 12 years should be extremely pleased and extremely proud -- this is a great thing for Irish music, for Dublin, and for culture. The centre is clearly needed, and I'm hoping that it will become a huge success, with lots of praise and appreciation for Cluain Tarbh Comhaltas. It does seem clear, though, that the branch needs new leadership if they're going to get this project working: the current stand-off with the vendors isn't getting the centre opened.

It should be noted that Comhaltas isn't *taking* anything here - the site is owned by Dublin County Council but leased to Comhaltas, and the building itself was always going to be vested in Comhaltas upon completion. The branch's role has been to manage the construction, make arrangements to appoint the first management board and hire staff for the theatre. They'll also use the building for classes and activities, of course, provide artists for the shows and participate in the commercial operations. None of that is in dispute. The dispute right now is about how to manage the rest of the construction and get the theatre opened.

The VAT refund is a bit of a side issue: the Department of Sports and Tourism instructed Comhaltas to obtain from the branch money that had been applied for and improperly refunded to the branch directly. Under instructions from Government, Comhaltas asked for the refund back in order to forward it back to Government. The branch instead made the refund directly to the Revenue, which is essentially the same outcome. This wasn't the reason for suspension -- the problem is the branch former committee's management of the construction project, which was deemed to put Comhaltas in a position of disrepute.

Just wanted to set the record straight -- you guys can all yell at me now. :-)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM

Not a yell from here but thanks for sheding more light on the subject.

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Highkingoftara
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:57 PM

Jim Carroll needs a ciggie to calm his nerves. Looks like he's gone off half-cocked here.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:59 PM

Talk about good timing. I was just about to post that I thought it odd that no one spoke out for the other side. It is very odd on the Mudcat for there not to be a person who says something to the effect of "wait a minute, there is another side....". So I came on to ask what that was and there was Breandan (sorry for the lack of fada). Thank you for the report. It will be interesting to see where the discussion goes after your very level accounting.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Don Meade
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:55 PM

I'm also grateful to Breandán for his level-headed contribution to this discussion. But in his position (employee of CCÉ), I would be uncomfortable serving as the informal spokesman for an organization that doesn't care to explain itself officially.

Regardless of the financial/managerial deficiencies that have been used to justify the dissolution of the Cluain Tarbh branch, and regardless of the right of the central office to do so according to CCÉ rules, the manner in which this was done seems to have seriously alienated not only the now-ousted leadership but the bulk of the active membership of one of CCÉ's biggest and most successful branches.

As Cluain Tarbh have a large membership and a lot of vocal support outside of Comhaltas, this could easily lead to the establishment of a competing organization. As I think it unhealthy to have one bureaucratic and politicized outfit soak up most of the funds available to subsidize traditional music activities in Ireland, this might even be a good thing (though no one in Cultúrlann is likely to think so).

It is telling that the top priority for the CCÉ brass in this crisis was not to attempt to resolve the dispute in a way that respected the branch membership, but to make a quick grab for control of the property and money. Who is really bringing Comhaltas into disrepute here?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: the button
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:59 PM

Quite -- it's a bit of leap from "you could have managed this project better" to "... so we're going to dissolve your branch."

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Concerned tina
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

Don, I suppose that in part I was hoping to present this issue in a larger context, beyond a "quick grab for control of the property and money." As I said, the property was already leased to Comhaltas (not to the branch). The money for construction was already subvented through Comhaltas' own grant from Government. The day-to-day contacts on site management were mostly handled by a Comhaltas staffer, and people like myself have been involved with aspects of the building fit-out. All that's been "grabbed" by Comhaltas is the responsibility for a large debt incurred by the former committee.

And am I uncomfortable as an "unofficial spokesman" - of course I am! Comhaltas is working on a press release at the moment, but as you've noticed, PR (and damage control in general) is something that Comhaltas isn't great at (read, "really bad"). Doesn't mean we're a bunch of crooks, though.

I'd agree that the mechanism of conveying the facts to the Cluain Tarbh membership was flawed, but I'd submit that if the members had been kept properly informed as to the state of things by their own committee over the past year, there wouldn't be nearly the bad blood that we see at the moment. This needn't have been such a dramatic problem - if the committee had made arrangements for a line-of-credit at a bank or even dealt more forthrightly with the vendors, this could have been resolved long ago. This isn't a sudden problem in the least, and I and others have been seriously concerned since last summer.

I also believe that once the Clontarf membership have a chance to hear the other side presented in a rational way, that there will be no objections to continuing the project more or less as originally envisaged. The staff members at Comhaltas who have the most to do with the project are, after all, long-standing members of the branch. The membership has done an excellent job of developing an outstanding teaching programme, well-regarded tour group, professional contacts and provided excellent support for the music community of North Dublin and beyond. I'm pretty sure that none of the elected officers at Comhaltas would say any different.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:28 PM

Brendan thank you for letting some light on to a one-sided argument, as old Will said,`methinks Jim dost protest too much`.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers for the long and considered response, Breandan.

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

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

was a reasonable course of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jury's still out on this, IMO.

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

Anyone think this guy might be a ringer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Mick

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

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

Cheers,
Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le gach dea-mhéin,      

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their response was to dissolve the branch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://comhaltas.ie/locations/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take issue with the following:

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

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

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

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

Neutral?

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

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

It also brings up this --

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great set of pictures Gulliver.

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

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

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

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

Wonderful pictures.

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

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

Very difficult from afar, eh?

All the best,

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you will permit a follow-up post:

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

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

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

Well, now that is news regarding the make-up of the committees, the plot thickens, what do you think Mick?.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY-
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

Would Dustin or Judge Mahon or some respected persona arbitrate on this ,and get on with a few tunes & primary agenda stuff --- we have just written a tune called "The Power Struggle "

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Gulliver
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:26 PM

Clontarf/Cluain Tarbh is Irish for "The Plain of the Bull"

Thereby hangs a tail:
Comhaltas took the bull by the horns and dismantled the branch. The branch in turn accused Comhaltas of behaving like a bull in a china-shop while Comhaltas accused them of making up cock-and-bull stories of the whole affair. Who is bull****ing whom?

(I'll get me coat...)
Don

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,MRS FLANNERY-
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM

A tale without a tail is not a tale at all --our newly written lamentation "The Power Struggle" a thugtar, is a classic manifestion , as caoine, of the falsely concepted hostilities that are born of mistrust and misdeeds that have been engendered by lack of adequate forward planning and major communication deficiencies--
Its beyond time that someone raised the white Cockade

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM

***LOL***, ard mhacha. This is getting to be an interesting intersection to be sipping a cuppa on, indeed. Back and forth, but one can see the various positions and how they are coming at it. I hope Breandain doesn't include you or I in the attacks on his character or integrity, but I do think it is obvious that he is more than what we first thought. It does appear he is putting out one point of view and doing it with much inside info, eh?

To be continued..........and I am really enjoying this, sad as the situation is.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM

Two sets each and now going into the final set, can the oul legs of O`Murchu stand the pace or will the young Turks finally win the day, watch this space.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Snuffy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:22 PM

By your leave Larry Grogan,
Enough has been spoken,
It's time to give over your sonnet, your sonnet;
Come listen to mine sir,
Much truer than thine sir,
For these very eyes were upon it.
It is of a buck slain,
This very campaign,
To let him live longer, 'twere a pity, 'twere a pity:
For head and for branches,
For fat and for haunches,
Exceeding the mayor of a city, a city.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:38 PM

Mick, I certainly wouldn't include you or ard mhacha in that characterisation - sorry if I implied otherwise!

If it's useful for anyone as far as credibility, I'm certainly not claiming to be just a Dublin musician. I'm employed part-time at the moment by Comhaltas - I designed and am the webmaster of http://comhaltas.ie. My authority isn't in the area of PR, but since no-one was speaking out and I happened to know a lot about the controversy, I'm posting kinda on my own. No-one asked me to post; but then as the "tech guy" around the office, I'm one of the few who's aware of the Internet.

I don't mind if people criticise Comhaltas or the actions of its officers or officials -- I spend plenty of time doing that myself. But before we can get into motivations, it seemed that there was/is an awful lot of misinformation (bred and reinforced by mistrust) out there.

I'm posting on my own time (and neglecting my studies!), but also chatting casually to staff and elected representatives who I happen to know. I've been in the room at Head Office when a lot of this went down over the past year, though (again) it's not really in my area. I designed some killer sound and light systems for the new Clasac theatre, and I can't wait to work some shows in there. I enjoy meeting the members of Cluain Tarbh at the Dublin Fleadh and at the Fleadh Cheoil, though my own branch is different one in Dublin.

Anyway, to refer to the very first post, where Jim says:

"It would appear that the leadership of CCE has taken over the premises which was built with money raised by the local branch, and has expelled the branch in order to finalise the dirty deed."

There's a lot there that's simply not true. It's not Jim's fault - he heard it on the radio, and then read Cluain Tarbh's website. But the leadership of CCÉ haven't taken over anything -- it always was a Comhaltas-owned building. Money wasn't raised mostly by the branch - the local branch raised about 2% of the money. The branch wasn't expelled to finalise the takeover of a theatre - Comhaltas' high council suspended and then dissolved the executive committee of the branch, because the project was in jeopardy and a year of negotiations hadn't resolved it. And fortunately, the branch executive has re-formed itself quickly with an experienced committee.

Personally, I think that the branch members should have been kept better-informed of the money issues. I also think that the branch shouldn't have let the theatre committee be run by the branch executive. I also personally wish that there had been another way to get the project back on track, and I wholeheartedly agree that the mechanisms of communication and public relations (even when talking to the branch) were severely neglected by Comhaltas leadership. Doesn't mean it was a mean-spirited greedy power-grab, though.

Anyway, those are the facts. I think that it might be quite productive to discuss funding or politics in arts-based non-profits. State sponsorship of traditional arts raises all sorts of interesting issues of governance and representation. It's also interesting to speculate on the Ardchomhairle debate. But none of that can be done meaningfully when people don't know what's going on.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,sparkles
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM

Or when there are two versions of what's going on for us not to know about.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM

I'm not trying to question anyone's credibility here either. Just trying to ascertain the facts, so I can make up my own mind as to the rights and wrongs of the situation. The lack of trust of Comhaltas leadership shown by a number of people here is not groundless and comes from various experiences with CCÉ as an organisation.

One thing that I don't quite understand. If the Classac project was being run by a separate committee, albeit apparently with a fair amount of overlap with the Cluain Tarbh Branch Committee, the why was it the Cluain Tarbh BC that was dissolved rather than the Classac committee. It would seem that 400 people have effectively been wiped out of the organisation (albeit apparently with the right to come back in if they would choose to do so (I must say I wouldn't)) because of the alleged incompetence of a few committee members.

And I am delighted to hear that the new members will be allowed to use the facility which they worked so hard to help create, but it seems to me the essential issue here is one of control.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM

Very astute post, Declan. Thanks for capturing it so well.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM

Thanks again for all who are posting with the way they see it & with the info they have. There are never enough views nor enough info, that we can't use more of it.
I await 1st hand reports of how this is being dealt with during this upcoming weekend's North American Convention. I suspect that the cat's got to be let out of the bag by this point & that there'll be some sort of public announcement/statement along with a hopefully better way at bringing this to a healthy solution that all interested parties can be happy with. After all is said & done it's the music that's the most important priorty & we all would love to see this in the future as only a past footnote in the continuation of a musical tradition that we all love, honor & respect.

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:19 AM

Breandán,
Sorry - I really don't buy any of this - just what is Comhaltas policy on expulsions (branch or individual) - does anybody have the right of representation or appeal?
I refer you back to a posting I made some time ago regarding a previous 'head rolling' session - this time concerning the West London branch expulsion (for not toe-ing a political (political) line).
Are we likely to have more expulsions of those who don't support Bertie in his hour of need?
Jim Carroll

"I wasn't associated with the West London Branch at the time of the expulsion, but the events went something like this (my information was gleaned from my friend and neighbour, the late Paddy Boyle, father of Maggie Boyle who posted above).

Labhrás ó Murchú decided that Comhaltas should raise money for a commemoration to Padraig Pearse; I think it was the centenary of his birth which would have made the date around 1979. Branch members in West London objected, claiming that it was not the job of an organisation devoted to music to participate in political events. A letter was sent saying as much and Larry replied saying (in so many words); "do as you're told or else". The "or else" was expulsion and the branch was expelled.

The expelled members continued to operate as a very active branch (I think they called themselves The West London Irish Music Association) and ran regular sessions at the Hibernian Club, Fulham, where they recieved the support of players such as Bobby Casey, Raymond Roland, Roger Sherlock, Danny Meehan, John Carthy, P J Crotty, John Bowe, Fergus McTeggart, The MacCarthys and many others, in other words, the cream of London/Irish music.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:25 AM

Jim I believe that Brendan put over his opinion very well, not an insult in sight, also 1979 is quite a long time ago, in the meantime Comhaltas hasn`t fallen apart.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 06:55 AM

"1979 was a long time ago" - ???!!!! Oh. So that makes it all right, then?

The whole point is not when it happened, but that it happened at all. The fact that a branch can arbitrarily be dissolved simply because they don't agree with the political opinions of the leader, on a topic that has nothing whatever to do with their group aims and objectives, was, is - and shall remain - unacceptable. The organisation is about MUSIC, which by its definition transcends political views, race, religion, gender and all else.

The point is that it clearly shows a behaviour pattern and abuse of power. I was THERE in London at the time, and though I lived in another part of the city (North London Comhaltas was our local) there was widespread shock and fury when it occurred. What makes you think that this sort of thing becomes "OK" simply because a number of years pass? And now the abracadabra-you're-history thing is happening again. Well, and why not? It sure works. And don't kid yourself, Labhrás ó Murchú's political affiliations with Fianna Fáil - the party in power, whose leader is currently under investigation for corruption - do him no harm at all.

Just for the record, I didn't know Jim Carroll in those days, and in fact have never met him at all except online, through this forum and the Ir-Trad email list. Therefore we are not personal acquaintances. I did know Maggie Boyle very slightly back in the 70s, pretty much on a hi-how-are-you basis in assorted sessions or backstage at various concerts. So, although it must look like we're a coterie, we're not. These are, in fact, independent views of the same situation, by people who witnessed it. Dissolving that branch over an opinion that differed with the leader's and had NO relevance to music was wrong then AND IT'S WRONG NOW. And it seems to be happening again.

I don't understand why you keep stressing that Comhaltas is still going strong. Of COURSE it is!! No one - and I mean no one - would wish it otherwise. But that is totally beside the point being discussed here. Whereas Jim's post is all too horribly relevant. Dissolving the opposition - because you can - is the most blatant injustice and abuse of power.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:33 AM

All of the Officers of the dissolved Branch have opted to keep quiet I wonder why.Yes there is a financial scandal, what surprises me is how could anyone appear to be shocked.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM

Ah yes, the Lord of Obfuscation raises his ugly head. For the clear view, refer to Bonnie Shaljean's post. Despite attempts to shift the premise, I believe the real issue is the one of process. As I pointed out earlier, there is no question that a parent organization has an obligation to watch out for the interests of the rank and file, and make sure there is no malfeasance in how their local organization is being run with respect to finances and delivery of services. That is one of the prime duties of all parent organizations which are run by dues and grants. But the fundamental issue here is not about that. That is what it appears CCE would like you to focus on. What I hear from Jim, Bonnie, and others is about process being denied by an autocratic leader who seems to use his position to bludgeon folks who don't agree with him, and reward those that go along nicely. Classic carrot and stick. Stay to it, Bonnie, because your point is an important one. The attempt to shift the discussion to the financial problems is an attempt to get away from the one of process. The financial discussion is only relevant in the actual appeal process, where the facts of the reasons for dissolution should be discussed. But the appeal process, and the discussion of the legitimacy of the Chief Officers actions is what is at risk here.

Sorry, friend ard mhacha, but I believe that using the length of time since 1979 would only be legitimate if the player was different, and if the same circumstance were not in evidence. I am sure that in the intervening time there are likely many more examples of heavy handed tactics that could be found.

Once again, these are simply the observations of a person who is interested and very far away. I await other details that will influence me, but this is how it appears to me.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM

http://www.cluaintarbh.net/clasac-docs.htm

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM

Breandan's comments surly brings to mind that old musical proverb"He who pays the piper calls the tune"

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:06 AM

Good on you Bonnie that`s me told off,but our old friend Guest-guest asks a very important question, any answers?.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM

You're right, Ard Mhacha (hey... we agree!) - it's a very important question indeed, and I am just as interested as you to know the answers. One can always learn something. But it's just too easy to anonymously whisper that there's "a scandal" and leave it at that.

Guest, if you have an allegation to make, MAKE it. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us who you are?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:45 AM

The original "frame" of this discussion was around theft - plain and bold-faced theft of resources amassed by an idealistic branch of Comhaltas. I made my comments with that in mind, and it seems I've been successful in showing, at the least, that there's another side to this matter.

Now, as you say, the conversation has moved to process - how, in the light of these difficulties with capital structuring, did the branch committee come to be dissolved? The answer there lies more, in my opinion, with the interlocking management of the branch and the project. Ideally, the problems with the construction project would be brought to the attention of the branch executive, who would have taken steps to resolve the problem. In this case, the management of the project *was* the branch executive, who actively screened their own membership from access to information. Needless to say, they did not suggest any changes to their own committee. In this case, the only way of getting the project complete was to put pressure on the branch, a process that was applied by Comhaltas' high council, the Ardchomhairle, working in concert with the Dublin County Board. In a stand-off between a local unit and the elected leadership of an organisation, I'm afraid that the leadership does have the right, constitutionally, to prevail, and that's what happened here. No matter the generally autonomous nature of branch activities and decision-making, when the elected leadership to which the branch has elected representatives asks the branch to do something, the local unit pretty much has to comply.

I'm troubled by the assumption (implicit, and never stated outright that I can see) that Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú is exercising some kind of unilateral and unchecked power. Though as Director-General he signs the checks, the process leading up to the dissolution of the branch is not an action that can be taken by him. There is an easy tendency to assume that, because he is generally the only member of the Comhaltas leadership in the public eye, he must be personally responsible for every decision taken by the organisation. Not true. His own ties to the Government are certainly useful to Comhaltas when it comes to fund-raising, but this is a question of a higher level of a democratic government putting pressure (justified, in my opinion) on a lower-level unit of the same elective structure. Not uncommon, in any field. This unwillingness of the branch officials (elected at the local level) to accept the authority of the Ardchomhairle (elected at the provincial level) led to the dissolution.

Senator Ó Murchú's job is to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of Comhaltas, a structure of which the branch executive is a part. I have not yet seen anyone make any factual statements indicating that the Senator made a personal decision to attack the Clontaf branch, and yet many seem happy to assume this to be the case.

I admit that this is, in part, a deliberately defensive posture on his part. By absorbing all of the public flack for the decisions and actions of Comhaltas, he is doing his job and protecting other levels of the organisation. While I appreciate that quality of his, I do find it annoying when it is automatically assumed that the good outcomes of Comhaltas are created by the idealistic grass-roots and that the negative or controversial outcomes are the result of naked autocratic power, exercised by a single man. It just doesn't work like that. If the Ardchomhairle wanted to replace Senator Ó Murchú, they could do so at their next meeting. That says something about where the power actually lies.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

I can't speak for the others, but in my case I was utilising his name as a sort of shorthand for headquarters and the committee in power, rather than singling him out individually. As he's the visible figurehead in all the PR, so he also tends to get used as an abbreviation which includes the faceless others working behind the scene, whom we don't see in the promotional material. I have enough experience with similar organisations over many years to know how bureaucratically they are run.

Politicians and leaders do stand out as the representatives for their organisations, and as such they have a public profile. (That old adage about heat and kitchens comes to mind.) I think most people are aware of this.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:23 PM

One thing about Comhaltas, interestingly, is that the actual running of the organisation is extremely un-bureaucratic. There is a tiny handful of full- and part-time staff who handle day-to-day operations, with Labhrás Ó Murchú one of probably 10 staff for an organisation providing services to 30,000 members around the globe.

All of the policy and decision-making for the body, along with the vast majority of event planning and all of the teaching programme development is done by volunteers, elected at local level.

At the head office of Comhaltas, we don't really have much in the way of memos, staff meetings, departments -- probably we're missing most of what you'd describe as a bureaucracy. The governing council, the ardchomhairle, is made up of elected volunteers, and is entirely and deliberately separate from the professional staff.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:32 PM

Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. I probably should have said "communally". In any case I didn't mean it in the critical sense, only as the opposite of autocratic. It was purely casual usage. (How many bodies outside of governments can even afford to be bureaucracies?)

Still waiting for an answer, Guest -

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:11 PM

Bonnie, you get a prize for being the first to use "opposite of autocratic" to describe the Comhaltas decision-making process. I'll count you as a firm supporter in future. :-)

Anyway, Comhaltas has (finally) released a statement on the affair. You might want to take a look, parse away, and let me know if there's anything I can clarify.

http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,trad
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM

That sounds cold, as usual.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,trad
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM

The long awaited response

:The Ardchomhairle of Comhaltas, which is elected by the general membership through the Provincial and Annual Congress structures, is charged with the proper governance of the organisation including financial matters and the rights of individual members.

Clontarf CCÉ set up the Clasaċ sub-committee to spearhead the building of a centre on Dublin's Northside. The Clasaċ building was subsequently to be recognised as one of seven Regional Resource Centres of Comhaltas and funded as such by the Ardchomhairle under the grant - aided Development Programme of the organisation. The local Comhaltas would also have a home in the centre. The local committee - as was the case with the other regional centres - was expected through fundraising to make a substantial contribution. This never materialised.

The cost of the project rose to over € 9,000,000. The Clasaċ development committee splintered with most of the early advocates of the project resigning, claiming mismanagement of the project and raising questions regarding financial matters.

Several other centres which were scheduled to receive funding under the Development Programme agreed to forego this funding to help prop up the Clasaċ project.

The Trustees of Comhaltas carried out an investigation of the project and issued a highly critical report, which was adopted by the Ardchomhairle. This report was discussed with representatives of the local committee who accepted its findings.

This situation reached crisis point in December 2007 when debts of almost € 2,000,000 incurred by the Clasaċ committee, remained unpaid. Several small contractors who have not been paid for their work on the project were facing financial ruin. The chairman of the local branch of Comhaltas who was also chairman of the Clasaċ development committee, in the presence of a professional arbitrator on the 7th of December 2007, met with the main contractor and undertook to pay a portion of the outstanding debts prior to Christmas. This payment never materialised.

The Ardchomhairle at this stage had no option but to intervene. It established a modus operandi to stabilise the situation. This is chaired by the Secretary General of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and includes the Treasurer General. The Ardchomhairle borrowed € 2,000,000 from the bank to pay the outstanding debts.

The local committee initiated an application for refund of VAT. It has refused to provide the Ardchomhairle with all documentation and information relating to the basis and process of the application by the local committee to the Revenue Commissioners for refund of VAT, which had in fact been paid by the Ardchomhairle. We have not had sight of the invoices submitted to substantiate this VAT claim. As the VAT had already been paid to Comhaltas by way of grant-aid, a refund would be deemed to be double funding and the local committee was informed of this. Invoices for all work carried out were in the name of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, 32 Belgrave Square, Monkstown, Co Dublin, which were paid by Comhaltas and re-claimed as such (including VAT) from the Department which was supplied with original copies of the invoices and the Architect's Certificates which were audited and certified.

In the course of the process initiated by by the Ardchomhairle to investigate and regularise all the financial dealings of the project, a decision was made by some people in the local committee to deregister the VAT status and the refund received was returned to the Revenue Commissioners. This fundamental and serious move did not have the required sanction of a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the local branch.

The various directives issued unanimously by the 31- member Ardchomhairle were not brought, within the specified time, to a properly convened meeting of the full membership of the branch to allow them to have an input into their future within the organisation. This was a clear breach of the organisation's Bunreacht.

The situation has now been stabilised; the Centre is in the process of completion and will be opened later in the year.

It is a source of regret to the Ardchomhairle that the local committee did not avail of the several opportunities provided to regularise its position within the organisation; take responsibility for its actions and be in full conformity with the Bunreacht of Commhaltas.

The Ardchomhairle, following several postponments of its directives was left with no choice but to fulfil its obligations and disolve the branch. However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 07:35 PM

Today's press release from Comhaltas Ceoltoir Eireann HQ (http://comhaltas.ie/press_room/detail/clontarf/) makes some serious allegations against the Clontarf Branch's management of the Clasac centre project: members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments, irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros, took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction, and generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ.

If true, these allegations would justify the dissolution of Clontarf Branch.

But are they true?

Sean Murphy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:46 AM

In the end I suppose it's down to whose version of events you believe; the articulate, rational one represented here by the postings of Aine, Dairmaid, and the statements from the expelled Clontarf branch members, or the one that appears to have been finally elicited from the CCE leadership that has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of its ivory tower to give an explanation for, (whatever version you accept) its outrageous behaviour.
After all, it's not as if we don't have precedent to go on to help us make up our minds; though I suppose it's a sort of progress that some explanation has been given at all - (I still don't know where 'democracy' stands in all this).
During the course of this dispute I re-read the report that Labhrás gave to the Oireachtas in 1999, and some of the protest submissions, and once again I was left with the overwhelming impression of 'Empire Builders and nodding-dogs, (like those you see in the back windows of cars); the former being those who trample on members and branches to get to where they are going, and the latter who let them get away with it.
Yes ard mhacha, the 1979 expulsion was 'a long time ago' and Comhaltas 'hasn't fallen apart' - surely that's the point; nothing has changed, the dinosaurs still roam the earth, and they will continue to do so until a decent form of democratic representation is put into place in CCE. As it stands at present, the view of the membership (and the taxpayer who provides the wherewithal) amounts to little more than 'a hill of beans' (as the man said!)
Whatever the outcome of all this, I have little doubt that it won't be too long before we are here again discussing yet another scandal. I do know that all this has little, if anything to do with the traditional Irish music that I know and love.
In the meantime; the branch has my support and, I am sure, that of many others of us who have been given this small peep behind the locked doors of head office.Wish there was more we could do.
Best wishes,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,PJ
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM

What I wish is that someone from Clontarf would log on and answer these charges. Right here in clear language, not with a bunch of confusing downloads. Those accusations are serious. Sean Murphy asked the question we all want to know - is this stuff true? And if they have an argument to put forward explaining their side, they need to do it. Keeping quiet is making them look bad.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 06:59 AM

PS
Whatever the outcome of all this, the words "The former Cluain Tarbh branch, at this point, has been dissolved, so does not exist" will stay with me for a very long time to come
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Learaí na Láibe
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 07:42 AM

Quote from statement of the Ardchomhairle:

"However there will be a modus operandi to acknowledge and recognise the members who were not afforded their constitutional rights to have an input into the matters under review."

Are they thus acknowledging that their dissolution of the branch was not carried out correctly.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter I find the relative silence of Comhaltas members from Ireland very strange. This is the only forum that seems to have any prolonged discussion on the subject, AFAIK - I'm open to correction. None of the popular Irish forums seem to show any interest. Is the Comhaltas 'culture' hostile to people who have outspoken views.

Beware the evil Meeja (media)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM

Yeah, I argued about that last bit - the statement sounds as if the Ardchomhairle deprived people of rights. That's not what they meant to say - it's supposed to be an indication that the former branch committee deprived their own members of the right to discuss and debate the issues around the financial mismanagement. And that the Ardchomhairle will be hoping to find a way to address that.

That's what I find a little odd about this whole argument, actually - what's happened is that a committee of a few people who didn't do a very good job managing a flagship project has been replaced by another committee of people who have vastly more experience with the whole issue, and the project is back on track. And I think you know that's what I meant, Jim - that statement could well (and should) have said, "The former Clontarf committee has been dissolved, and so does not currently represent the branch membership."

From the point of those here who care about process and democracy, that's a very good thing.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM

"That's not what they meant to say"
For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it!
"That statement could well (and should) have said, "
For an organisation whose job it it to communicate to the public they don't seem very good at it!
Come on Breandán - decide which hymn book you're singing from and get the words right.
Everything that has happened regarding Clontarf is completely in keeping with what has happened in the past.
Democracy to Comhaltas appears to be what Western civilisation was to Ghandi - a good idea - no more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: MARINER
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 04:13 PM

Maybe I got this wrong Breandán ,but are you saying that dissolving a committee at the stroke of a pen from onhigh is democratic??

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:08 PM

Yes, even for the very interested who take the trouble to read them, the Clontarf Branch documents accessible at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm can appear 'confusing' because they contain so much detail. However, having matched the Comhaltas official press release with said documents, I would venture the following thoughts on the charges against the Clontarf Branch:

Members failed to deliver on their fundraising commitments: how far short was the Branch in the matter of funds raised?

Irresponsibly ran up debts of 2 million Euros: was not HQ aware in good time that an additional bank loan would have to be obtained, and did not delay in finalising this precipitate a funding crisis?

Took it upon themselves to apply for a VAT refund and then returned same to Revenue without sanction: was the branch not legally obliged to sort out the VAT issue without delay?

Generally behaved undemocratically and ignored directions from HQ: the online documents show the branch holding general meetings, arguing their case with HQ and pleading to be heard, but ultimately being arbitrarily dissolved.

In general, the Comhaltas press release is a rather good example of PR spin, somehow contriving to give the impression that the problems with the Clasac project are all the fault of the former Clontarf branch, and that HQ and a more sensible local committee have now set matters right.

Sean Murphy
Irish Historical Mysteries http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:44 PM

And have they? Problems costing 2 million? HOW?

And how happy are the ordinary members with the new committee? Does anyone even know?

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:16 PM

Hello everyone

I will try keep this bit to a minimum, as current issues are obviously more pressing, but the 1979 West London case has been referred to a few times of late. I must say that ard mhacha's comment that 1979 was a long time ago, in the context of what happened to many families and a huge social group, was thoughtless & hurtful.
I'd like to straighten up the record in relation to this 'historical' but sadly now familiar expulsion issue. It was not a case of the West London committee disagreeing with Larry's politics (many would have agreed with his causes); the committee protested that it was against the constitution of CCE to use his position to attempt to raise funds for political reasons. He was fund-raising (via CCE) for the Padraig Pearse Centenary celebrations – a fine thing to do as Chairman (as he then was) of the Padraig Pearse Commemoration committee, but not something that should have been foist on all branches of CCE, in our opinion. The dispute became a matter of public discussion and it's this that became the reason for our expulsion. We had apparently brought the organisation into disrepute via the public discussion. You need to remember that 1979 hosted a different climate, and it was important – even to the most Republican of CCE committee members in London – that the constitution points (i.e. non-religious, non-political etc) – were upheld. People were working hard to promote Irish Music in England (West London had succeeded in producing a BBC documentary about the branch), and there were numerous non-Irish committee members.
Anyway, the process adopted by the CCE Executive at the time perfectly mirrors the current solution. People who could not countenance life with out Comhaltas, or those who did not understand the subtleties of the argument – or those who just agreed with Larry's actions and did not care about the constitution – were invited to form a new committee. It worked. I estimate that 10-15% of the old membership formed the new West London CCE, which celebrated it's "50th" anniversary in 2007 (with no mention of the schism in 1979 as far as I can tell). The whole thing at the time was just incredibly sad. There were people in the middle of the whole scenario who just did not know where to go anymore. Thankfully most of us re-grouped, and that set-up is still going strong – at The Kilkenny, Tooting, every Tuesday.

To more salient issues, and the statement issued by HQ….I think that it's important for as many people as possible to view the documents on http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ My 'take' on these complex issues around ownership/loans is that – in taking possession of the building, and subsequently asking the branch to secure the loans required for completion of works – there was an impossible demand situation. How could the branch possibly be expected to secure a loan of this size with no security? They'd have to put up their homes.
The documents are lengthy, but clear. The recent statement implies that HQ borrowed 2 million euros at end of December 2007, to bail out this irresponsible branch. Why, therefore, do I see documentation of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the branch on 8th January 2008, stating "We are very concerned to ensure bank funding is put in place immediately to complete the project" and pleading their case for this not being their responsibility? And there is another letter, dated 28th January, with similar concerns about payment of contractors.

This is only one aspect of a case, the whole of which we can't hope to fully comprehend. But it's an aspect that has been very neatly side-stepped in the statement from HQ (above). Unsurprisingly, I must agree with Sean Murphy that the statement is a "rather good example of PR spin".
Please research it for yourselves.
Responses from the branch members (ex or current!) would also be most welcome.

Maggie

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM

Thanks Maggie, for posting more of the "historical details". I for one think that in this case history is very relevent in this situation. If we don't study/examine history we are doomed to repeat it & it seems as if it's being repeated here.
Bad blood over musical issues/differences is bad enough but bad blood over political/contractual issues & differences is unexceptable. It seems that the 1979 "conflict" was cause for some bloody damage, it should've been a high priority for all involved, espically on the side of HQ that the same mistakes weren't repeated. But there's bad blood now & that's gonna have a negitive effect throughtout CCE. It seems to late for that now. The loans are in place, the project is resumed, now there seems to be blame enough to drown the spirit of the whole org in. Like a pebble with it's ripple effect in a pond, this will be a bone of contention for yrs to come just as the 1979 incident is now resurfacing again 30 yrs later. Does any one wish to relive this one 30 yrs down the line? Not knowing any of the envolved, past or present & being far away from any closely envolved it seems to me that for the good of everyone a sacrificial lamb might be offered up as a one time special for this evenings menue. Cut the head off the figurehead, (you'll get by without the head but can you survive without the heart?) isn't that where the buck stops anyway, at the head? Give him up if that'll put an end to bad blood & if that's what it takes to heal the new & old wounds. It certinlly seems that if he's not wholly responsible for poor choices in how to have handled this in a proper way he's at the least got his hand up far enough to be held more responsible that anyone else now as well as the last lasting distasteful issue & he's at the very least played an important part in both. His head seems to be the mostly likely way to start repairing the damage that's already been caused.

I hope that this does not get me expelled, I just renewed my membership after a 25 yr lapse, I won't live long enough to rejoin again.
Only the thoughts of one. Don't shoot the messenger just cause the message sucks.

Good Luck to all

Barry

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: Declan
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:06 AM

The official statement (as is the often the way with these things raises more questions for me than it answers. Some of the questions that come to mind are:

1. Who was actually running the project? We are told that the Classac committee was a sub-committee of the Cluain Tarbh Branch, but Diarmuid (who Breandán identifies as the Branch Secretary) states that the Project Manager was in Head Office (a statement which has not been contested) and the statement indicates that the bills were being paid from CCE HQ. It would seem that the project was not as far removed from HQ as we are being led to believe.

2. Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them? The statement seems to concur with the view that the refund wasn't properly payable in this case. The money was therefore the property of the exchequer, and ultimately the Irish taxpayer. This being the case we can only assume that the money would have gone back to Revenue in any event. While this is being played down at the moment, it would appear to me that the refund of the money directly to Revenue was the action that precipatated the dissolution of the Branch.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee? We are told there were technical reasons why the trustees felt unable to guarantee the loan and that they were exercising their fiduciary duties to protect other Comhaltas property. But statements from the branch on their website indicate that the loan was ringfenced to Classac - was this not the case?

Democracy is about people having the right to choose those who represent them. We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ. I'd hate to live in a "Democracy" run by Comhaltas HQ.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:39 AM

What-The-Others-Are-Saying dept:

http://dublinopinion.com/2008/03/25/lament-for-the-clontarf-branch-slow-air/

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=32745

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bitter-row-erupts-over-funding-for-trad-


Note that these are Irish websites, two blogs and a news report from The Independent.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:50 AM

Declan, I don't mind at all answering the questions that you raise:

1. "Who was actually running the project?"

Clasaċ is a Comhaltas project, but one initiated and run by the branch. The branch took responsibility for the running of the construction project, initial marketing of the centre, getting a management board in place, etc. They accomplished this through the working of a sub-committee. One member of this committee also worked in Comhaltas head office, mostly on unrelated projects, and in fact he also worked extremely hard on Clasaċ day-to-day. (Full disclosure: he's a friend of mine.) However, he was not in any of the committee executive positions (chairman, secretary or treasurer). Bills were paid through Comhaltas because the government grant was subvented through Comhaltas' grant-aid. Comhaltas would pay the bill (including VAT), get appropriate certifications and submit the invoice to Government, who provided reimbursement.

2. "Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them?"

Because VAT was already being reimbursed by one Government department (Arts/Tourism), it was completely inappropriate for the branch to independently apply for reimbursement of the same money through another department (Revenue). When the branch made this application using a newly-registered non-Comhaltas VAT number, the Revenue returned the money (we're not sure why - there's a Revenue investigation under way.) Once this was learned, the Department of Sport/Tourism directed Comhaltas to recover this money from the branch and forward it back to the department to avoid double-funding. Comhaltas complied with the government directive by requesting the money back from the branch, which refused. This refusal to recognise the authority of the Ardchomhairle was deemed a serious matter. The money was eventually returned to Revenue directly, but this decision was made independently by the branch, again not respecting the directive of Arts/Tourism.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee?

The loan was presented in Dec 2007, at least 10 months after the need became obvious. The branch should have known that there was no way to "ring-fence" a loan around the Clasaċ building itself; the terms of the original grant-aid required that if the centre failed the Department of Arts/Tourism would be the first to be paid back. The bank would not have allowed itself to be the "second in line" in a default scenario, and the bank would insist on other Comhaltas assets being in play. The Comhaltas trustees couldn't have signed such an agreement without having direct control over how the money was being spent and still meet their responsibilities. If the branch had done their research (and had talked to the trustees at one of the many opportunities over the year), they would have known that such a loan request, brought by the branch at the 11th hour, would be rejected.

(5.) "We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ."

The new committee was not "chosen by HQ". When the original committee was dissolved as a last-resort measure, some more experienced hands within the branch organised themselves into a committee and applied for membership to the Dublin County Board as a branch of Comhaltas. This new committee has committed to holding a number of open meetings with the full membership in the coming months. The former committee was the one acting in a non-democratic way by not allowing the membership of Clontarf to meet and discuss these issues in a public way, at least not until the very last minute when things were already in crisis. One reason that the committee was dissolved, in fact, is that they failed to hold meetings in a timely manner involving the full membership of the branch. Non-payment of vendors, besides being an example of extremely poor management, was also deemed to put Comhaltas in disrepute.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:53 AM

Interesting development, I see they (Clontarf CCE) are holding a gala concert shortly, interesting line-up! (see their website)

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,kevink
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

Over the last few days, the position of breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as acting out of purely selfless motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office.

AN ECHO FROM HISTORY?
In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily crushed in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR, courageously commented on the events and the 'official' version of same through the poem below,

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte, many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the 'officially' recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch.
Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre?
In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time.
The necessity and methods used for the dissolution of the branch is still not being explained despite all the thousands of words expended on this site and others by Breandain and this to me is the most important issue facing all members of CCE

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,kevink
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM

Over the last few days, the position of Breandain has evolved. Initially he presented himself as an impartial observer who respected both sides as both acting out of pure motives, now given the pure volume of his contributions to this and other sites and his unquestioning support of head office's version of events and despite the contradictions with his own earlier versions of events its my opinion that Breandain is acting as the main full time spokesperson for head office.

AN ECHO FROM HISTORY ?
In 1953, a popular uprising in what was then East Germany (the GDR) was crushed by Russian tanks. Responding to the irony of workers being militarily in what was laughingly called a workers democracy the great German writer,Bertolt Brecht, who lived in the GDR courageously commented on the events and the official version of same through the poem below,

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

I am not trying to directly compare such tragic events with the unfortunate row with Cluain Tarbh but there are some parallels in methodology. At the EGM where many Cluain Tarbh members heard the views of Labhras and the standing ctte many for the first time, the vast majority of parents and young people rejected their viewpoint and the resolution put to the meeting by a member of the Ard chomhairle by about 95%. The 5% minority, and I am being generous here, who supported the attacks on the branch executive are now the officially recognised self-selected Cluain Tarbh branch.

Does that not echo Brecht's jibe on dissolving the people and electing another. How can one have respect for the people involved in such a manoeuvre?

In Breandains more recent statements there seems to be attempts to airbrush very recent versions of events. The dissolving of the branch, a very difficult act to defend, is increasingly being changed to the dissolving of the branch ctte. Is it the truth that the branch had to be dissolved because the members wouldn't be bullied into submission? I use the word bullied because of the extraordinarily aggressive and contemptuous attitude displayed on that night to the upstanding and honest members of the branch who have no agenda outside the best interest of the branch and Comhaltas. They all have day jobs and are outstanding volunteers in their own time.

Despite the thousands of words written by Breandain on this and other sites he has not explained why it was necessary to dissolve (collectively punish) the whole branch and that is the most serious issue for all members of CCE

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,maggie boyle
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:58 PM

Here is the Clontarf Branch response to the CCE statement, a fuller version of which can be found here http://www.cluaintarbh.net/

Statement of Clontarf branch of Comhaltas 29 March 2008

Clontarf branch of Comhaltas rejects outright the version of events/statement issued yesterday by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. The statement is as mischievous as it is inaccurate and represents one more attempt by Comhaltas HQ to muddy the waters to cover up their own improper actions in dissolving the Branch and in taking over our CLASAC centre project.

Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music.

Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs.

For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open.

At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us.

In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required.

In making key decisions against the interests of the branch, Comhaltas HQ withheld vital information from the Central Executive Council, they refused to allow the branch make their case directly and they refused the branch any avenue of appeal. Furthermore, all requests by the branch to meet representatives of HQ to try and resolve the difficulties were rejected.

Branch members are incensed by their treatment and what they see as bullying and intimidatory tactics by HQ and by the continual distortion of the facts by them, including the latest press statement. At the most recent general meeting of the branch on 19 March the members unanimously endorsed the actions of the Branch executive committee and rejected the dissolution.

The branch activities will continue as normal, including the very significant teaching programme for children. Many messages of support have been received from Comhaltas branches at home and abroad and from the wider traditional music community

The Branch demands to be reinstated and the return of the Clasac project. Justice and fair play demand nothing less.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: Breandán
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM

Between the revolt of the GDR, the earlier "ethnic cleansing" reference and so forth, I'm starting to think that, as someone with fairly progressive politics, I must have signed up for the wrong team ...

To clarify. I have not claimed to be completely disinterested - I work for Comhaltas, after all. However, I am posting on my own time and I am certainly not being paid nor asked to speak out. I merely saw a situation in which there are probably fewer than 10 people with a true sense of what's been happening over the last year. Since most of those people are on the former Craobh Chluain Tarbh committee and are now making lots and lots of anti-Comhaltas noise, it seemed useful for me to present some facts being omitted, and also correct some misapprehensions which they seem to have no problem in allowing. For example, members of the committee have stated several times that the theatre was always a Comhaltas building, on a Comhaltas site. But the rehetoric continues to revolve around the big meanies in "head office" stealing a building from the hard-working branch. That simply isn't true.

I have some serious misgivings about what has happened, and (as I have said) would criticise especially the communications between the Ardchomhairle, the Buncoiste and the Branch Executive and Branch Membership as areas of concern. I also think that there was a disconnect between the branch executive and the membership. I'm not personally sure why this was handled at Ardchomhairle level rather than within the Dublin County Board, which would have answered any potential issues around representation. I know that it was a difficult decision. I have friends in the branch; I also have friends on the Ardchomhairle. Labhrás Ó Murchú is my direct boss, but it doesn't mean that I support every decision he's ever made. I would personally vote for an amendment to the Bunreacht (the Comhaltas constitution) that allowed for an appeal or arbitration of dissolution. But this is an area in which thoughtful people can differ, and when tensions are high, it's hard to trust even eye-witness accounts.

For example, I heard the story of the EGM in quite a different way than kevink presents. But I wasn't there, and it's obvious that people can disagree, even when they were there. I'm a full-time student in Limerick at the moment, and don't have the full inside track on what happened, especially in February. However, being aware of the conflict over a period of a year, I can perfectly imagine the branch committee digging in their heels and leaving the County Board and the Ardchomhairle no choice when it came to getting contractors paid. I personally do not think that the former committee acted in the best interests of their branch or their parent organisation.

As I have said many times, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the hard work of the Clontarf branch members. They have built and maintained an outstanding branch organisation and accomplished some very difficult large-scale projects in the past. Anyone who thinks it's easy to organise a tour of high-quality Irish dance and music in China hasn't tried it. In this particular case, I think that many members have been given false or misleading information. That, along with our shared and very natural mistrust of centralised authority, has led to a schism which I desperately hope we can find a solution for.

If you're sick of hearing from me, I'm more than happy to leave it to an echo chamber of quotes from the Clontarf website. But with so few people involved, and so few of those online, it seemed to me helpful to chime in. I'm even naive enough to hope that I can continue my relationships with those in the branch.

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interru
From: GUEST,Sean Murphy
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:28 PM

Clontarf branch has now issued a reply to the Comhaltas HQ press release, downloadable at http://www.cluaintarbh.net/index.htm, and from which I take the liberty of quoting:

Clontarf branch has been teaching traditional music in Dublin for 45 years. Clontarf conceived CLASAC as a world-class centre for the performance, teaching and fostering of traditional music.

Clontarf has led the development for the past 15 years, including acquiring the site, running many fundraising activities, securing public funding for the project, obtaining planning permission and managing the building project to completion. A professional design team has successfully controlled all costs.

For the past two years, during the building phase, the branch worked closely with HQ. However, it became progressively clear in recent months that their main interest was to take control of centre after the hard work was done and the building was ready to open.

At the eleventh hour HQ withdrew their support for previously agreed bank loans that had been successfully negotiated to cover all outstanding project costs. They then blamed us for not having the funding in place to pay contractors and used this as their excuse to take the centre from us.

In a further step in their campaign against the branch, they used the issue of repayment of VAT as a pretext for dissolving the branch. At all stages the branch acted with the benefit of professional tax advice, and the actions in relation to the VAT refund were vindicated in writing by the Revenue Commissioners. Allegations of any irregularities in relation to the VAT refund can only be treated as malicious as Comhaltas HQ were the original promoters of the refund, they agreed to the application process and supplied most of the information required.

(End quote)

As an independent observer and non-member of Comhaltas I suggest the following steps: (1) The dissolution of Clontarf branch should be reversed. (2) An agreed arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the differences between the parties. (3) Following the adjudicator's report, an

Sean Murphy

Subject: RE: Battle of Clontarf-round two/Comhaltas Interruptus
From: GUEST,Frances
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:40 PM

Breandain

Well I'm sure Breandan you will have a jolly good relationship with the new imposed committee. I leave you to it.

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.)

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.