Primetime on FAS in Castlebar

quad_red

Good God. It gets worse.

Do people have any shame? Gorging themselves on money as the real providers struggled to provide meals on wheels services.

Really disheartening. And multiply this by one hundred nationwide

murfie

Explain please, i will watch it online later when they put it on the site. But is it more spending wastage in FAS, in my home town!! Shocking

quad_red

murfie wrote: »

Explain please, i will watch it online later when they put it on the site. But is it more spending wastage in FAS, in my home town!! Shocking

FAS providing enormous amounts of funding (hundreds of thousands of euro) to companies to provide meals on wheels and other services to the community.

When, in reality, they were doing absolutely nothing and the actual volunteers struggled with limited funding to actually provide these services. The head of the actual meals on wheels service (a retired Garda) tried to bring this to the authorities in a number of different ways. He claims the local priest, who was involved in these companies, told him to stop asking questions.

Basically, scamming FAS by drawing down hundreds of thousands of euro claiming to provide services that others were struggling to provide.

Shameful.

And FAS doing nothing to control not only the quality of services it was paying for but whether the services it was paying for were actually being provided AT ALL.

Soldie

FÁS were funding 'Meals on Wheels' to the tune of €2.3 million and much of the money was siphoned off to line the pockets of corrupt officials, instead of serving its intended purpose.

Nothing surprising really. Just another example of public money being pissed away to add to the list.

I can't help but think how it came to be that funding was even allocated in the first place.

yop

Oh sweet God, what fukin next.

Are we the new Russia, corrupt to the hilt

Kristopherus

We don't know what happened to the money. Just be aware that the main man through all of this was a senior Fas official in the town up to his retirement. The other main character was the local Parish Priest and he is dead.

juuge

murfie wrote: »

Explain please, i will watch it online later when they put it on the site. But is it more spending wastage in FAS, in my home town!! Shocking

Isn't that where beverly flynn is from? Why should anyone be surprised what goes on there?

cooperguy

At one stage the guy doing the scaming justified it by saying that the company was actually called Meals on Wheels and they were'nt necessarily providing a meals on wheels service. This sort of shit is really starting to piss me off.

Hopefully at the end of this recession the banks etc. will be regulated extremely heavily and there will be severe punishment for this kind of fraud. People seem to be getting away scot free :mad:

quad_red

There's a sense that allot of stuff is coming out in the wash now, isn't there?

NewDubliner

cooperguy wrote: »

Hopefully at the end of this recession the banks etc. will be regulated extremely heavily

By public servants...? I thought they were going to be culled & the remainder were having pay and pension cuts?

cooperguy

quad_red wrote: »

There's a sense that allot of stuff is coming out in the wash now, isn't there?

Ya there's nothing like a recession to bring out all the scams when the money dries up and there is nothing to cover up what is going on. My favourite story is still of the Wall Street investor who was one of the most respected investment bankers on wall street (and therefore probably the world?) and it turned out he was just running a massive pyramid scheme where the new money was used to pay dividends to the older investors. Some of the biggest companies and celebrities lost out in that!

What id like to know though is did the other major recessions in the past uncover this amount of corruption?

murfie

juuge wrote: »

Isn't that where beverly flynn is from? Why should anyone be surprised what goes on there?

True and its a disgrace to the town and county she is there also. She gets in on the back of her fathers name is all.

But man just watched that, unreal. How do the upper people in FAS let the people in the organisation get away with this. They all have their fingers in the pie!

Dannyboy83

I saw it myself.

What can we do about it?

TBH, I need to stop reading the papers for a bit, my blood pressure is starting to get high.

I'll never vote for Fianna Fail ever again so long as I live.

eoinbn

Wait: there was someone out there that doesn't know what a gravetrain FAS is?

It might of been more useful if this was done before all the damage was done.

P. Breathnach

Kristopherus wrote: »

... Just be aware that the main man through all of this was a senior Fas official in the town up to his retirement...

Are you sure that he was a senior FAS official? I saw the programme, and I didn't notice him as being identified as such. CE schemes are run by a management committee based in the community, and FAS provide funding to pay for a full-time administrator (locally recruited) to serve the management committee and oversee the scheme on a day-to-day basis. I presumed the individual in the programme had such a position, but I don't think that was made clear, either.

Soldie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you sure that he was a senior FAS official? I saw the programme, and I didn't notice him as being identified as such. CE schemes are run by a management committee based in the community, and FAS provide funding to pay for a full-time administrator (locally recruited) to serve the management committee and oversee the scheme on a day-to-day basis. I presumed the individual in the programme had such a position, but I don't think that was made clear, either.

Unless I'm mistaken he was identified as being a former senior FÁS official (having been at FÁS for 15 ish years).

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

CE schemes are run by a management committee based in the community, and FAS provide funding to pay for a full-time administrator (locally recruited) to serve the management committee and oversee the scheme on a day-to-day basis.

So, so long as this administrator reports things as going well no-one in FAS would know that funds were misappropriated?

nesf

Just watched it there. Brass neck and a half. I don't think your man was a senior official though, he worked there for 18 years.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Just watched it there. Brass neck and a half. I don't think your man was a senior official though, he worked there for 18 years.

Ah yeah, he was only a worker, no responsibility!

But YEP, The regulation was crap.

Whistleblowing seems to be actively discouraged in Ireland.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

So, so long as this administrator reports things as going well no-one in FAS would know that funds were misappropriated?

Initially, a clarification: the job title is supervisor (I'm dragging this stuff from the depths of my memory).

The supervisor works with and for with a community committee and is also subject to some degree of oversight from FAS. The local committee might be very interested and able, or it might not. That's the way things are with voluntary groups. So the oversight from FAS should be regarded as important.

Because the CE scheme works at a distance form FAS (organisationally and often geographically) I would guess that it is sometimes easy for control to be lost.

JonathanAnon

As was said already, why would anyone expect any better from a town that votes in Beverly Flynn. Just wish that RTE had had the balls to bankrupt her, no matter what it cost.

I thought that the report was a bit unsure of actually proving what it said. Though the guys on the thing did luck shifty. Why do none of these people ever get prosecuted for fraud and go to jail.

I am beginning to dislike this country more and more every day. I think Bertie's assertion that it's a "great little country", must have been on the basis of what he was getting from it.

skelliser

to clarify your man's title was supervisor but this position was voluntary, he didnt get paid.

No actual allegations or proof of wrong doing were but forward by primetime just insinuated.

quad_red

skelliser wrote: »

to clarify your man's title was supervisor but this position was voluntary, he didnt get paid.

No actual allegations or proof of wrong doing were but forward by primetime just insinuated.

Yeah, the same ambiguous stink that permeates the banking situation.

It's blatantly obvious there are serious problems here. But will anyone really pay?

dreenman

JonathanAnon wrote: »

As was said already, why would anyone expect any better from a town that votes in Beverly Flynn. Just wish that RTE had had the balls to bankrupt her, no matter what it cost.

I thought that the report was a bit unsure of actually proving what it said. Though the guys on the thing did luck shifty. Why do none of these people ever get prosecuted for fraud and go to jail.

I am beginning to dislike this country more and more every day. I think Bertie's assertion that it's a "great little country", must have been on the basis of what he was getting from it.

I totally agree with everything said about the Flynn stones , Bertie and the whole corrupt system. And the increasingly thick layer of scum floating to the surface in this country.

However I have heard that Prime Time may have overstepped the mark with last nights show. While the three stooges (well one buffoon and two stooges) were both scary and comical in equal measure - god forbid they were put in charge of anything - there wasn't actually any proof or even charge from RTE that these giys had pocketed the millions - I think the 'fat man' had taken one payment of 300 euro for something in 2002.

From what I understand from "sources close to Castlebar" the FAS contributions mentioned were really used to pay employees on work placement and used not only to support Meals on Wheels but a range of other community projects - the D'unbelievable jokers paraded last night should never have been let out in public to explain anything. Prime Time must have been rubbing their hands with glee when they first saw them.

But just to add to the mix.... the 'local spat' fleetingly referred to was, in typical Castlebar style, more than just a spat - the Whistleblower had his own very personal reasons to make trouble for FAS and has been trying to do that for a number of years. The real story has to do him and the dead priest!

... Come to think of it perhaps it was just a trailer for the new series of Kilnascully could be the funniest yet.

skelliser

yes the above post is alot closer to the actual facts, the funding from fas was used to pay the wages of people who worked on the various schemes which came under the remit of "meals on wheels".

From my understanding a disliking between the ex-garda and the other fella is the main reason behind this.

quad_red

dreenman wrote: »

From what I understand from "sources close to Castlebar" the FAS contributions mentioned were really used to pay employees on work placement and used not only to support Meals on Wheels but a range of other community projects - the D'unbelievable jokers paraded last night should never have been let out in public to explain anything. Prime Time must have been rubbing their hands with glee when they first saw them.

To be fair, the programme didn't accuse them of pocketing the money. It was a round house exposure of the complete lack of any financial oversight in that f**king money vampire that is FAS.

dreenman wrote: »

But just to add to the mix.... the 'local spat' fleetingly referred to was, in typical Castlebar style, more than just a spat - the Whistleblower had his own very personal reasons to make trouble for FAS and has been trying to do that for a number of years. The real story has to do him and the dead priest!

And if a group of buffoons were hoovering all the funding up in it's name whilst the actual meals of wheels service was struggling, then the whistleblower having a gripe is hardly incomprehensible.

P. Breathnach

skelliser wrote: »

to clarify your man's title was supervisor but this position was voluntary, he didnt get paid.

CE Supervisor is a paid position. While it is paid by FAS, I think that FAS do not regard the supervisors as part of their core establishment.

No actual allegations or proof of wrong doing were but forward by primetime just insinuated.

It was pretty strong insinuation, and some proof was adduced (e.g evidence that people were paid providing training when they were ineligible to receive such payment).

skelliser

P. Breathnach wrote: »

CE

It was pretty strong insinuation, and some proof was adduced (e.g evidence that people were paid providing training when they were ineligible to receive such payment).

Primetime failed to show us the break down of what the money was spent on, i.e. the vast majority went on wages.

Either way the damage is done.

At no point did primetime accuse anyone of wrong doing, why? because allegations of fraud are serious and need to be backed up for any future possible criminal prosecution, they made no allegation cause they had very little just insinuations which in this case was enough for their means.
I enjoy primetime but last nights report was pretty poor by there standards.

dreenman

quad_red wrote: »

To be fair, the programme didn't accuse them of pocketing the money. It was a round house exposure of the complete lack of any financial oversight in that f**king money vampire that is FAS.



And if a group of buffoons were hoovering all the funding up in it's name whilst the actual meals of wheels service was struggling, then the whistleblower having a gripe is hardly incomprehensible.

I think that is one of the points that wasnt explored or proved - were they struggling? Something was said about them not being able to buy a Chrsitmas tree but thats an old emotive PR trick.

I agree with the point about FAS being a money vampire - my point is that it was intimated that millions was misappropriated by these 3 guys with nothin said about what that money actually was used for. TV news editing can spin any angle on any story remember.

jmayo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Initially, a clarification: the job title is supervisor (I'm dragging this stuff from the depths of my memory).

The supervisor works with and for with a community committee and is also subject to some degree of oversight from FAS. The local committee might be very interested and able, or it might not. That's the way things are with voluntary groups. So the oversight from FAS should be regarded as important.

Because the CE scheme works at a distance form FAS (organisationally and often geographically) I would guess that it is sometimes easy for control to be lost.

It looks like there was no supoervision or oversight :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

CE Supervisor is a paid position. While it is paid by FAS, I think that FAS do not regard the supervisors as part of their core establishment.

It was pretty strong insinuation, and some proof was adduced (e.g evidence that people were paid providing training when they were ineligible to receive such payment).

So Fás pays people but they are not part of core establishment, so they have almost total indpendence ?

Ok if in this case they diverted the funds to some other projects, did not steal or pocket it, weren't they still not dishonest by not using the funds for what they were earmarked for and thus screwing the chances some other legimitate "meals on wheels" provider had of getting funding ?

Is this the thin end of the wedge and if you can divert funds to some other project in one instance, what is stopping someone else from diverting the funds into their own pockets or buddies poickets in another location ?

It just goes to show how badly managed the whole Fás organisation is.

yoshytoshy

Theres always been a few chancers working in fas ,but the majority of people in there are good.And the lads they train are hard working.

Remember hearing a story of a guy ordering in supplies for classes and using the goods to do his own jobs. But he was found out and got the boot as far as I know.

quad_red

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Theres always been a few chancers working in fas ,but the majority of people in there are good.And the lads they train are hard working.

Remember hearing a story of a guy ordering in supplies for classes and using the goods to do his own jobs. But he was found out and got the boot as far as I know.

And that's good enough oversight for hundreds of millions of euros of tax money? Never mind lacking oversight that it's being spent efficiently! But lacking oversight whether it's even being spent on what the hell it was claimed for?!?!

How can it not be fraudulent behaviour to claims hundreds of thousands of euro, year after year, for purposes different than you're actually claiming the money for.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

So Fás pays people but they are not part of core establishment, so they have almost total indpendence ?

"Almost total independence" might be overstating things a bit. The supervisors are answerable to FAS. But let's allow for human nature: the rigour with which control is exercised can vary from on CE scheme to another.

Ok if in this case they diverted the funds to some other projects, did not steal or pocket it, weren't they still not dishonest by not using the funds for what they were earmarked for and thus screwing the chances some other legimitate "meals on wheels" provider had of getting funding ?

Is this the thin end of the wedge and if you can divert funds to some other project in one instance, what is stopping someone else from diverting the funds into their own pockets or buddies poickets in another location ?

A CE scheme is set up and maintained on the basis of a proposal form a community group. That proposal sets out the projects and activities to be supported. Most of the support is in the form of paid CE workers, and there is some general financial provision for resourcing work and for training of the workers. A proposal might include, for example, the provision of two CE workers to assist in the preparation of Meals on Wheels. If no workers are assigned to Meals on Wheels, but two extra workers are assigned to working for the Tidy Towns committee, I would consider that wrong.

That said, I have heard suggestions (which I cannot verify) that FAS itself has re-allocated provision in existing schemes.

yoshytoshy

quad_red wrote: »

And that's good enough oversight for hundreds of millions of euros of tax money? Never mind lacking oversight that it's being spent efficiently! But lacking oversight whether it's even being spent on what the hell it was claimed for?!?!

How can it not be fraudulent behaviour to claims hundreds of thousands of euro, year after year, for purposes different than you're actually claiming the money for.

I don't understand that reply ,I have nothing to do with fas. Are you suggesting I am defending fas ?
Well I can assure you I'm not ,but they have and do provide a future for a lot of people in ireland.

Is fas going to be another scape goat for the real issues at hand ?

jimmmy

quad_red wrote: »

The head of the actual meals on wheels service (a retired Garda) tried to bring this to the authorities in a number of different ways. He claims the local priest, who was involved in these companies, told him to stop asking questions.

Basically, scamming FAS by drawing down hundreds of thousands of euro claiming to provide services that others were struggling to provide.

Only saw part of the programme, but I gathered that the Priest was involved in getting hundreds of thousands of euro for each of the 3 different companies, all based in the same church building, to provide meals on wheels, yet none were prepared or delivered from there ? And nobody knows where the guts of a million euro went to ?

As another poster said, the thing is shameful.

mayfire

The FAS guy is very arrogant and came across as a complete clown. He is well fit to fly his own kite though. Have a look here before it disappears.

http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/Mayo/News/ConnTel/Features/EHoban.htm

P. Breathnach

mayfire wrote: »

The FAS guy is very arrogant and came across as a complete clown. He is well fit to fly his own kite though. Have a look here before it disappears.

http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/Mayo/News/ConnTel/Features/EHoban.htm

From that piece, it appears that he was a FAS official, not simply a CE Supervisor.

If he sat the Leaving Certificate in 1949, he is probably about 77 years old now. He may have involved himself in CE schemes on a different basis after retiring. I wonder if he might be likened to a gamekeeper turned poacher.

JonathanAnon

"Dont answer that PJ, dont answer that" .... most memorable quote from the program. ... LOL

whadabouchasir

My favourite qoute was when the interviewer asks yer man "so you've been working in FAS for 18 years and you don't know the basic rules?" and the oul fella just says no. From what I can see he looked as guilty as hell.when he was asked what he did with themoney he just couldn't answer the question.

netman

from the article wrote:

"Eddie says it was not the bending of rules, but the making of ways, that enabled him to so some of the things he did"

hahahaha it sure was!

Faster Doudle

I think a few people in this thread have missed the point of the Prime Time piece last night. It wasn't about proving wrongdoing or explaining where the money went, it was about exposing the shocking lack of oversight and accountability that exists in Fas.

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so. They had drawn down funding based on providing meals and wheels and in the programme Fas head office was quoted as saying the schemes in Castlebar "never provided meals on wheels".

There's something seriously wrong there. It's not up to Prime Time to explain what went on - it's up to Fas. In that regard they failed miserably in last nights programme, both at a local and a national level.

nesf

Faster Doudle wrote: »

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so.

They weren't FAS lads.

skelliser

they were'nt employed by fas and are not on the fas payroll, the main guy used to work in fas but retired 18 years ago and worked voluntarily on these schemes. His position is described as a sponsor
He is not an employee of fas and was never paid.
The other two are supervisers on their respective schemes.

All or part of these schemes are funded in part by fas.

Sand

However I have heard that Prime Time may have overstepped the mark with last nights show. While the three stooges (well one buffoon and two stooges) were both scary and comical in equal measure - god forbid they were put in charge of anything - there wasn't actually any proof or even charge from RTE that these giys had pocketed the millions - I think the 'fat man' had taken one payment of 300 euro for something in 2002.

No one is saying they took the money. What is being said is that they drew down the money on the basis that they were providing a meals on wheels service.

The 3 morons in questions couldnt and wouldnt state clearly what involvement they had in the actual provision of meals on wheels. My bull**** detector is already going off the chart - as supervisors they should be able to say very clearly who was employed and what their duties were - thats the absolute minimum for anyone in a supervisory position. You have to at least know what the **** the guys youre supervising are doing or not doing.

In contrast, the Social Services that actually did provide meals on wheels stated clearly that FAS involvement was minimal and funding was tight.

When confronted, the three morons played semantics - they were called Meals on Wheels, so in theory that justified them drawing down funds to provide meals on wheels - thats something you get here on Boards, not from an organisation overseeing an annual budget of 400 to 500 thousand euros of *OUR* money.

One of the highlighted reports noted that without the three morons meals on wheels would not otherwise be possible - this ignored that actually Social Services were providing the meals on wheels service, not the FAS scheme. Another report refused to comment on if the FAS scheme actually was performing the service it claimed to provide - a diplomatic silence surely...

And where has the 2.5 million euro gone? On wages for the 2 part time FAS staff that were noted as having any involvement in the provision of meals on wheels? For 3-4 years work [ the last year after the meals on wheels service had completely disowned the FAS scheme ] ? Those 2 part timers were better paid than Bertie Ahern ever was, brown envelopes and all.

And I havent even mentioned the training fraud [ the amount of 350 euro is not huge] but it does again indicate the scheme was at best, poorly managed, and worst actively taken for all that was on offer.

The whole thing stinks. And trying to divert into a distractionary attack on the character of the representitive of the social services isnt going to change that. That man was a lot more clear, concise and to the point than the shower of chancers lined up to represent the FAS scheme.

Faster Doudle

skelliser wrote: »

they were'nt employed by fas and are not on the fas payroll, the main guy used to work in fas but retired 18 years ago and worked voluntarily on these schemes. His position is described as a sponsor
He is not an employee of fas and was never paid.
The other two are supervisers on their respective schemes.

All or part of these schemes are funded in part by fas.

Yeah I didnt' mean to say they were Fas employees. They were representing Fas though in that they managed the 2.3m that the 4 companies recieved in funding from Farce. The main guy signed company documents as a director - these people were in charge of contolling millions in Fas money at ground level - presumably employing others to work for Fa. So while they weren't themselves employees they were heavily associated with Fas.

It was mentioned in the programme that they did other things in the community - perhaps they weren't getting paid or drawing funds themselves. The question of what, exactly, the 2.3 million was spent on remains though. It's hard to imagine it all went to salaries for people working in the community. Why can't they name the people who worked for them and account for the money spent? They threw up a load of smoke and mirrors by avoiding specifics and thought that would do as an explanation (that kind of crap was obviously acceptable to Fas management for years). It's the lack of transperancy and accountability that's most important. Oh, and Fas' total failure to keep schemes like this in check.

They claimed to Fas that they were preparing 50 meals a day - didn't anyone from Fas need to see evidence of a kitchen, workers, a bus or anything like that? If they had, they'd have found nothing except the social services facilities. It's like Fas just don't give a ****.

old boy

Faster Doudle wrote: »

I think a few people in this thread have missed the point of the Prime Time piece last night. It wasn't about proving wrongdoing or explaining where the money went, it was about exposing the shocking lack of oversight and accountability that exists in Fas.

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so. They had drawn down funding based on providing meals and wheels and in the programme Fas head office was quoted as saying the schemes in Castlebar "never provided meals on wheels".

There's something seriously wrong there. It's not up to Prime Time to explain what went on - it's up to Fas. In that regard they failed miserably in last nights programme, both at a local and a national level.

what about certified accounts,

knex

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

MisterAnarchy

knex wrote: »

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Of course,all is clear now.
I wonder who you are ?:rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

knex wrote: »

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Are you aware of how many FAS employed workers you can get for around 2.4million Euros?

Bob Z

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Of course,all is clear now.
I wonder who you are ?:rolleyes:

Yea he/she only has one post

Faster Doudle

old boy wrote: »

what about certified accounts,

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think it's Fas policy to destroy documents after 6 years or so. Certified accounts. Certified by who exactly - Fas? The problem is that money was partially awarded based on the provision of Meals on Wheels, which Fas admits wasn't provided.

@ knew - As for the ex-Guard's past, I fail to see what that has to do with Fas funding. Maybe that's a subject for another programme, but it doesn't explain what the 2.3m of taxpayers money was spent on. How would you know whether certified accounts were presented to Prime Time anyway and what reason would they have to ignore such evidence?