• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

redhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
6,919
The Gardaí did.
fraud squad and ODCE did
Exactly how were they to know where to look for wrongdoing? IIRC even the Whistle-blower legislation didn't exist at that point.

Without PAC's enquiries these issues may not have come to light.

You can jump up and down about the legalities which are rightly there to protect individuals from the state, but making Kerins a martyr for that cause won't do you much good when the majority of people can tell right from wrong.

She may have been just legally in the right, and IIRC from the judgement it was 'just' , but that doesn't change the facts.
 

redhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
6,919
I have to go now, I volunteer two days a week for a reputable charity, that treats its staff (and volunteers) well, doesn't pay its management exorbitant salaries, and does a huge amount of good.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,983
Thats simplistic. Rehab, as a private entity, fill a gap the state should fill. The Irish Wheelchair Society are the only organisation that provide wheelchairs. Not hospitals. Not the HSE. The state cannot step out, leave it to a charity and then complain how the charity, legally, runs itself. AK is a hard case, but she broke no law. Her salary was obscene, granted.

At no point were Rehab, or the FAI, unable to point to state money in being used correctly. The issues are on the private side.

Govt monies to FAI were scrutinised by Sports Ireland and partially through their intervention the present crisis was identified.

Luckily only 5% of FAI's turnover comes from the State and they have the power to make Del Boy accountable, which he does not like and has dodged for years, however he is in serious bother now which may yet lead to a criminal case.

It would be nice if AK and FF were held as accountable as Del Boy but it does seem they were better political players than him.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
What's more shocking to me is that people are unable to see beyond the personalities and the few quid to the underlying principle here.
'the few quid' indeed
Allowing politicians free rein to attack citizens and destroy their reputations isn't a healthy thing for society.
There needs to be a more objective measure of how someone's reputation is "destroyed" in this way. It would seem to me that the politicians in question asked some pointed questions which AK was not prepared for. They grilled her for an extended period, which she was not prepared for. It was clearly an unpleasant experience. But, is it reasonable it should follow that any public figure in charge of such an organisation would react the way she did, and resign from their job, suicide attempt etc? I really don't think so. Like John Delaney she should have refused to answer any questions she believed were out of scope.

As pointed out many times before, AK is no shrinking violet. She was suing the state for an enormous sum of money because the National lottery muscled in on Rehab's gaming business. It is unconscionable that the head of such an organisation would need to be handled with kid gloves when being questioned by the Public accounts committee on a matter of relevant, genuine, public interest, even if the matter was out of scope of the terms of her invitation.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,920
Twitter
No
A lot of that is down to the failure of Enda Kenny's FG government to do what they said they would do. I know FF don't know the difference between corruption and a wage but FG aren't much better in a way for their casual avoidance of any necessary reform.

The expansion of the remit of PAC to handle just such issues was actually discussed in the run up to the 2011 election but of course FG failed to follow through and that's subsequently what gave Kerins and her lawyer the opening to sue based on the PAC hearing.

The interesting bit is that this is 9 years ago now and we've had the Kerins shambles and of course still no word of making PAC fit for purpose. No better than a Kings Inn piss-up, quite frankly, until the remit of that Committee is properly ordered.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,363
Get up the yard! That's creative accounting at its best.

The existence of the state money subsidised and allowed the private enterprise to function.

Why do you think the long-standing proposals for the formation of the Charity Regulator were pushed through?

Because the alarming lack of regulation and accountability in enterprises that were partially funded by the state and had been going on for years were finally coming to light. It wasn't about protecting how public donations were used.

Rehab, CRC, Goal, these were the tip of the iceberg.

The Irish Wheelchair Association is not Rehab. They are one of a number of excellent charities who do the work you're talking about. Charities with good governance have nothing to fear from accountability or transparency.

Rehab, who pay their front line staff a pittance, while taking state funds and indulging in private sector perks and salaries, shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath, nor should the FAI.
The subsidy exists because the state have outsourced its responsibilities, but still want to control the company that picked up the slack. Thats not how the real world works.

The IWA were definitely one of the bogeys listed as paying managers a fortune.

Who in the Dail decides what is or isn't too much to pay executives? Could we not be trusted to decide ourselves?
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
'the few quid' indeed
In the context of the national budget any award made to Kerins, even if it's at the wilder end of the speculation, would be insignificant.

There needs to be a more objective measure of how someone's reputation is "destroyed" in this way. It would seem to me that the politicians in question asked some pointed questions which AK was not prepared for. They grilled her for an extended period, which she was not prepared for. It was clearly an unpleasant experience. But, is it reasonable it should follow that any public figure in charge of such an organisation would react the way she did, and resign from their job, suicide attempt etc? I really don't think so. Like John Delaney she should have refused to answer any questions she believed were out of scope.

As pointed out many times before, AK is no shrinking violet. She was suing the state for an enormous sum of money because the National lottery muscled in on Rehab's gaming business. It is unconscionable that the head of such an organisation would need to be handled with kid gloves when being questioned by the Public accounts committee on a matter of relevant, genuine, public interest, even if the matter was out of scope of the terms of her invitation.
But the fact still remains that an Oireachtas committee acted unlawfully and a citizen suffered because of that.

You may not like the citizen and you may argue that her injury was trivial but it doesn't alter the fact that what our representatives did was wrong and the victim of that wrong is entitled to the protection of the courts.
 

redhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
6,919
The subsidy exists because the state have outsourced its responsibilities, but still want to control the company that picked up the slack. Thats not how the real world works.

The IWA were definitely one of the bogeys listed as paying managers a fortune.

Who in the Dail decides what is or isn't too much to pay executives? Could we not be trusted to decide ourselves?
Clearly not.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,920
Twitter
No
The subsidy exists because the state have outsourced its responsibilities, but still want to control the company that picked up the slack. Thats not how the real world works.

The IWA were definitely one of the bogeys listed as paying managers a fortune.

Who in the Dail decides what is or isn't too much to pay executives? Could we not be trusted to decide ourselves?
There are ways to curb excessive pay and those would be ensuring that executive pay is linked to general employee pay. In the last 30 years or so executive pay has disappeared over the horizon in terms of any links to the pay of the people who actually make the organisation work.

Can't recall but I think I read some numbers back last year in an article- I want to say from a ratio on boardroom pay of 50 euros to every euro earned by the shopfloor used to be an average, whereas now I believe it would be well in excess of 200 euros to senior management to every euro earned by someone on the shopfloor.

I'm using indicative figures as an example there as I'm not so certain I can recall the ratios in the article, but you get the idea. This is a metric being discussed by various companies who are sniffing the wind and realising that they are headed for trouble at the AGM from shareholders over excessive ratios, and in self-preservation terms weirdly out of whack looting by senior execs in terms of pay, bonus, options, massive contributions to pension by the organisation will be an open door to 'activist investors' where public companies are concerned.

Limited companies in my opinion should be restricted legally to a maximum in terms of remuneration, which can be played with in terms of someone taking a dividend rather than a wage or salary but the ratio regime should really be imposed. I would also announce a levy on special purpose vehicles, which are a tax evasion centre quite frankly in Ireland, LLPs and LLCs. Not enough to kill it, but a tickle for the state coffers nonetheless which might be substantial but that's for reforms on the finance/tax/economics threads more properly.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,920
Twitter
No
That bailout for rehab, where yet again mismanagement means the taxpayer pays. People like Kerins never pay. Over 70 million as a 'dig out' from the Irish exchequer, a bailout.

The organisation would never have needed a bailout and certainly not of that shocking size for an organisation with 3,000 employees, had it not been for the rottenness associated with the usual capers of some well connected person basically making a fiefdom for themselves out of an organisation which actively seeks public money either direct or via the exchequer in some way.

Rehab as an organisation was and is a great idea for a long list of reasons. The people who work there, volunteer there to do training, deserve better and so does Rehab itself than this utterly shameful exposition of corporate greed from an obese character who quite frankly should never have been in a position where she was earning more than a quarter of a million a year, or with an ability to spend thousands without question or backup on her own authority.

That's why corporate credit cards exist. There is an audit trail with them.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,920
Twitter
No
Best way to make Kerins sod-off would be to do what the Yanks do in such cases. Phone call to the IRS and arrange a thorough audit going back over ten years. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that none of the rather louche characters at the top of Rehab would want any tax officials going over their records to see that everything is straight. You can take that to the bank right enough.

It would take about 5 minutes to come up with a few interesting questions for Flannery, I can tell you that much.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
In the context of the national budget any award made to Kerins, even if it's at the wilder end of the speculation, would be insignificant.
Well, can I have a million then if it's so insignificant? :rolleyes:
But the fact still remains that an Oireachtas committee acted unlawfully and a citizen suffered because of that.

You may not like the citizen and you may argue that her injury was trivial but it doesn't alter the fact that what our representatives did was wrong and the victim of that wrong is entitled to the protection of the courts.
For the record, I know nothing about AK at a personal level. This is about the direction the courts are taking weakening the ability of parliament to make legitimate enquiries. Asking the head of an organisation in receipt of substantial amounts of public money, questions directly related to the national policy towards executive pay in such organisations, is entirely legitimate. The courts are throwing sand in the gears of parliament and that is the problem, nothing to do with AK herself.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
Well, can I have a million then if it's so insignificant? :rolleyes:
Oh come on, you're not that stupid. You know what the point is.

For the record, I know nothing about AK at a personal level. This is about the direction the courts are taking weakening the ability of parliament to make legitimate enquiries. Asking the head of an organisation in receipt of substantial amounts of public money, questions directly related to the national policy towards executive pay in such organisations, is entirely legitimate. The courts are throwing sand in the gears of parliament and that is the problem, nothing to do with AK herself.
That's a misrepresentation of the situation. The Supreme Court has done absolutely nothing to prevent the Oireachtas from causing any matter to be investigated. What it did is to make a finding that Kerins was treated unlawfully. It even pointed the way to the Oireachtas to put in place a redress mechanism for citizens abused by parliamentarians which would take the court out of the equation.

It's not too much to expect that the people who make laws on our behalf should respect those laws.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,548
Oh come on, you're not that stupid. You know what the point is.
I'm sorry, but your point was quite stupid. An award of potentially a million or more, is indeed a tiny percentage of the state's budget. It doesn't mean we can just throw millions around willy-nilly.
That's a misrepresentation of the situation. The Supreme Court has done absolutely nothing to prevent the Oireachtas from causing any matter to be investigated.
Here we go again ...

It most certainly has as you know well, going back to the 2002 Abbeylara judgement which stopped any Oireachtas committee from making findings of fact that could cause a person's good name to be impugned - the beginning of the judicial charter of impunity for the rich and powerful, continued most recently in the Kerins case.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
I'm sorry, but your point was quite stupid. An award of potentially a million or more, is indeed a tiny percentage of the state's budget. It doesn't mean we can just throw millions around willy-nilly.
But it wouldn't be thrown about willy-nilly. It would be an award in compensation for a wring done.

Here we go again ...

It most certainly has as you know well, going back to the 2002 Abbeylara judgement which stopped any Oireachtas committee from making findings of fact that could cause a person's good name to be impugned - the beginning of the judicial charter of impunity for the rich and powerful, continued most recently in the Kerins case.
Here we go again indeed.

The Abbeylara judgement didn't write a charter of impunity for anyone. It merely upheld the constitutional requirements in relation the separation of powers.

We had the chance to set that aside but wisely we decided not to grant politicians the power to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner over us.
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
21,450
Given what she was earning 240k + pension + benefits + expenses, she will be looking for 1m + and that's just on salary, she wants compo also for, let's call it distress.
I do wish that the word "earning" was not used in reference to the likes of AK, Delany anf their ilk. The reality is that they were (are) paid enormous sums that they have not earned.

I suggest that "paid" is more accurate.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
10,264
The expansion of the remit of PAC to handle just such issues was actually discussed in the run up to the 2011 election but of course FG failed to follow through and that's subsequently what gave Kerins and her lawyer the opening to sue based on the PAC hearing.
is the memory failing you lumpy? do you not remember the inquiries referendum? which was sponsored by shatsie of this case when shatsie and others had decided they were lord high executioners and the SC put in place the rules we have now
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom