Tom O' Higgins quitting Houses of the Oireachtas Commission's audit committee

workaccount

Hi,
Just after reading this - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-quit-says-political-expenses-watchdog-1879849.html

Funny how he decides to quit just when the whole thing is about to explode.

What's his reason? "He was reportedly left "seething" by the refusal of politicians to heed his concerns -- particularly over the expenses and allowances they pay themselves."

How long has he been on the board? - since before 2004 I know at least.

What was one of his jobs? A TOP accountant charged with overseeing political expenses.

Interested in hearing other peoples opinion on this one.

Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

P. Breathnach

workaccount wrote: »

... Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

Can you justify that comment?

workaccount

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can you justify that comment?

I already did.

Nehaxak

There's already another thread on this here started by Biggins http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055674406

...but I'd just like to say that having known and worked alongside Tom O'Higgins in the past myself, I know him as a man of utmost professionalism, integrity and honesty and fantastic work ethic.

He is not someone who would walk away from any job or task put to him lightly at all so you can bet he had very good reasons to do so now.

Biggins

I refer the right honerable gentleman to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055674406

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

I refer the right honerable gentleman to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055674406

I know the politicians are disgraceful and that's what your thread is about.

It was his job to oversee the politicians expenses - these crazy expenses you decided to create a thread about. Now you don't think the man who is supposed to oversee these is to blame - where's the logic in that?

Nehaxak

Well it seem to be par for the course these days that the government blame everybody else but themselves.
"No, it wasn't my fault, it was the bad advice I was getting from my advisors" - Eh no sorry, it *IS* and *WAS* your fault because you are ultimately responsible, not your advisors. You employed those advisors so you are responsible for them. If they insist on blaming everyone else for their own failings and faults then wtf do we even have them in there for, may as well get rid of all the politicians and hold an election for advisors.

If the person put in charge of trying to sort out and deal with the absolutely disgusting abuse and mis-use of the expenses system cannot even be given the room and required power and access to do his job then wtf is the point in him continuing with what is and was nothing but a PR charade, to show "look we're doing something about it, we have more of these advisor type fella's and an oversight committee".

No, what needs to happen is that those politicians who have abused and mis-used the expenses system need to be held at this stage - politically, morally and criminally accountable for their own actions and that of their offices. It's gone too far now at this stage and tough action needs to be taken.

fastrac

The usual knee jerk reaction of halting all payments simular to what social welfare recipients are subjected to even if they are homeless and starving would go down well with the taxpayers.At very least an online summary of expenses would make the taxes,levies,duties,charges etc a bit easier to bear for the majority who have never had the luxury of an open cheque book

L_gaucho

workaccount wrote: »

Hi,


Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

Have to admit, this is exactly what I thought when I read this.. (without any evidence, just perception..)

Biggins

A man of his extreme internationally high calibre does not walk away from such an important position without some serious reasons.
He alone knows it can have a detriment effect on his good name and doesn't take such a decision lightly.
I have to reiterate the same feeling as in the other thread, I think its disgusting that he has been put in this position by those that know far less (and clear qualification-wise) and only hold their elected positions because of those that elected them and know not better of their TDstrue character and money grabbing nature!

techdiver

I would like to know, why if he was in this position since 2004 and knew about the practises of politicians and expenses, did he not attempt to raise the issue then?

Biggins

techdiver wrote: »

I would like to know, why if he was in this position since 2004 and knew about the practises of politicians and expenses, did he not attempt to raise the issue then?

How do we know he hasn't been raising the issue? Just because he didn't go roaring to the media, making everything public, don't mean he hasn't been raising the issue repeatedly internally.
According to his letter of resignation it was just because of his work/advice been ignored, etc (and we can presume part of those duties was just that - raising the issue) that was the problem!

He was reportedly left "seething" by the refusal of politicians to heed his concerns -- particularly over the expenses and allowances they pay themselves.

I'm sure this means from the report that he's been going on about this issue for some time - quietly without feeling the need for public affirmation that he was doing just that!

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

How do we know he hasn't been raising the issue? Just because he didn't go roaring to the media, making everything public, don't mean he hasn't been raising the issue repeatedly internally.
According to his letter of resignation it was just because of his work/advice been ignored, etc (and we can presume part of those duties was just that - raising the issue) that was the problem!

This is ridiculous. 5 years in his position and you think it's reasonable that all he did was try to raise the issue internally. If he didn't want to go to the media he should have quit then. How many times would you get the chance to raise that in 5 years?

It's quite obvious to most including you that this spending was sick and should be criminal. Anybody from the outside could have seen that - yet it takes him 5 years! A top accountant!

Biggins

workaccount wrote: »

It's quite obvious to most including you that this spending was sick and should be criminal. Anybody from the outside could have seen that - yet it takes him 5 years! A top accountant!

Again, he could have been repeatedly bringing this issue up again and again - quietly with the proper decorum, paperwork and submitted regular assessments!
Who are we to say he didn't for crying out loud!
We all don't need to read it in the media just to know that he'd been doing his job, every time he brought it up!
I seriously doubt that he, given his well known integrity and experience, took the final decision he did just because he was ignored just once.
Come on for crying out loud....! It don't take much brains to see that he'd been possibly harping away about the issue BEHIND closed doors and was basically ignored again and again.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

Again, he could have been repeatedly bringing this issue up again and again - quietly with the proper decorum, paperwork and submitted regular assessments!
Who are we to say he didn't for crying out loud!
We all don't need to read it in the media just to know that he'd been doing his job, every time he brought it up!

Look were not here in court trying to decide a life sentence. I'm just saying I think there's a case. That's all.

Dannyboy83

workaccount wrote: »

This is ridiculous. 5 years in his position and you think it's reasonable that all he did was try to raise the issue internally. If he didn't want to go to the media he should have quit then. How many times would you get the chance to raise that in 5 years?

It's quite obvious to most including you that this spending was sick and should be criminal. Anybody from the outside could have seen that - yet it takes him 5 years! A top accountant!

Even if he had brought it up, 1 time or 50 times, would we hear about it?

Presumably the reason we're hearing about it now is because of his dramatic exit?

workaccount

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Even if he had brought it up, 1 time or 50 times, would we hear about it?

Presumably the reason we're hearing about it now is because of his dramatic exit?

Spending money on limos in London and the Cannes film festival. More than their annual earnings in expenses. I think so.

All I really want or care about anyway is a transparent system in the future. It would be nice for those who didn't do their job to be brought to justice - in all areas. It's not for me to decide though who is or who is not guilty. Some people seem to be saying "not guilty" outright. I just gathered an opinion based on what I got from the article. I think it sounds fishy and would like more information on the whole thing.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

I seriously doubt that he, given his well known integrity and experience, took the final decision he did just because he was ignored just once.
Come on for crying out loud....! It don't take much brains to see that he'd been possibly harping away about the issue BEHIND closed doors and was basically ignored again and again.

Your missing my point. Why did it take him 5 years to decide to stop raising the issue?

Biggins

workaccount wrote: »

Your missing my point. Why did it take him 5 years to decide to stop raising the issue?

The phrase "Flogging a dead horse" comes to mind - the other side of that coin is: well fair play to him if he has been pushing for cuts for five years!
Would we have done the same for so long in the face of the useless, pig-ignorant sods now resident in the Dail???

At least he was trying but still there is always one more out there to knock him for all or any of his attempts!
Thats the Irish way for some it seems still. Pure disgusting!

Every TD involved who is not willing to do what the rest of the country is being forced to do, should hang their heads in shame.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "Flogging a dead horse" comes to mind - the other side of that coin is: well fair play to him if he has been pushing for cuts for five years!
Would we have done the same for so long in the face of the useless, pig-ignorant sods now resident in the Dail???

At least he was trying but still there is always one more out there to knock him for all or any of his attempts!
Thats the Irish way for some it seems still. Pure disgusting!

Every TD involved is not willing to do what the rest of the country is being forced to do, should hang their heads in shame.

I've already gave my opinion on the politicians. If Tom wasn't able to do the job and fulfill his duties he should have left a long long time ago.

5 years of politicians drawing - for the sake of argument an average of 150k. That's alot of money when you add up all the politicians. Who was aware of it? Tom was and it was his job to oversee it.

I don't understand your argument. It's not really clear - can you clarify it? By your accounts (it seems to me) it's alright if you do a few jobs right and at least give some of your other responsibilities a try. In my opinion it's results that count only - intentions and attempts are worthless in and of themselves.

Biggins

workaccount wrote: »

I've already gave my opinion on the politicians. If Tom wasn't able to do the job and fulfill his duties he should have left a long long time ago.

5 years of politicians drawing - for the sake of argument an average of 150k. That's alot of money when you add up all the politicians. Who was aware of it? Tom was and it was his job to oversee it.

I don't understand your argument. It's not really clear - can you clarify it? By your accounts it's alright if you do a few jobs right and at least give some of your other responsibilities a try. In my opinion it's results that count only.

You don't understand? Good god! The rest clearly do!
The man stuck it out along with his staff in the face of adversity for five years. Fair play to him and his department staff.
It might be more useful if you directed the remainder of your disgust to those that truly deserve it more instead.

In my opinion it's results that count only - intentions and attempts are worthless in and of themselves.

Well pardon the rest of us for trying to get things done, trying to invent something, trying to achieve something and fail a few times before we finally succeed! Jeasus!

Tom was part of a department that was trying to implement much needed cuts.
He and his fellow staff were sidelined, ignored, and put off repeatedly.
If your truly advocating that he is the "villain" of the whole fracas, there's no point in further discussion. I'm only adding to a situation of possible continuous trolling.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

You don't understand? Good god! The rest clearly do!
The man stuck it out along with his staff in the face of adversity for five years. Fair play to him and his department staff.
If might be more useful if you directed the remainder of your disgust to those that truly deserve it more instead.

Tom was part of a department that was trying to implement much needed cut.
He and his fellow staff were sidelined, ignored, and put off repeatedly.
If your truly advocating that he is the "villain" of the whole fracas, there's no point in further discussion. I'm only adding to a situation of possible trolling.

Please don't try to make this into something personal. I know your getting annoyed now. The problem seems to be that we have a difference of opinion. You think that it's reasonable that it should take 5 years of failures to correct something in the system that to me does not seem to be that complex.

To me it seems that it's a fairly simple problem. May I suggest a solution? An independent board for overseeing the payments. The problem was/is with the government ultimately as they were Tom's boss! Still though Tom was there for the 5 years with no result getting paid by the taxpayer with duties of responsibility.

Biggins

workaccount wrote: »

...To me it seems that it's a fairly simple problem. May I suggest a solution? An independent board for overseeing the payments. The problem was/is with the government ultimately as they were Tom's boss! Still though Tom was there for the 5 years with no result getting paid by the taxpayer with duties of responsibility.

The department including him was set-up to make cuts amid other projects.
For 5 years they, we can assume, have done their (other) jobs reliability successfully otherwise they wouldn't still be employed.
Amid those suggestions given, was the need to address the far too much unaccountable expences allowed by TD to have at the drop of a hat.
The man clearly by his own words is pissed off, that for part of the job he (and his staff) was asked to do - when he did it - he (and they we can assume) were sidelined and/or just blanked because TDs didn't like what they heard or read in submitted reports!

If the thick headed skulls called TDs continue to do the expenses/cash grabbing that they are clearly doing, of course the man is going to fail!
The rest of us learning of their behaviour, are just amazed that he and his staff have actually managed to stick it out given the hassle he/they have been through over the years.
And to be honest, if he failed in his job AT ANY STAGE - why the feck did they still employ him and/or his staff still?

Given his international good sterling, well known work reputation, I (and many, many others it seems) greatly suspect he is NOT the villain of the episode, but just another victim of those in the Dail and their pure disgusting antics and greedy behaviour.
I hold the mans reputation to get any job done or at least tried, far ahead of any or all of the TDs reputations currently residing in the Dail.

Many people take his words more so to be closer to the truth than the lying, two faced, greed fecks in the Dail right now!

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

The department including him was set-up to make cuts amid other projects.
For 5 years they, we can assume, have done their (other) jobs reliability successfully otherwise they wouldn't still be employed.

I have nothing to go on to have suspicion that there were problems in any other area of his job.

Biggins wrote: »

Amid those suggestions given, was the need to address the far too much unaccountable expences allowed by TD to have at the drop of a hat.
The man clearly by his own words is pissed off, that for part of the job he (and his staff) was asked to do - when he did it - he (and they we can assume) were sidelined and/or just blanked because TDs didn't like what they heard or read in submitted reports!

So resign then or inform the public. Courage and principle are great qualities - I don't see them here. It should have been obvious to this "smart" accountant that he wasn't going to get changes the way he was going. It's seems to me he was happy to stay in the position he was with a nice paycheck I'm sure. It should be an independent board/commision that does this job.

Biggins wrote: »

If the thick headed skulls called TDs continue to do the expenses/cash grabbing that they are clearly doing, of course the man is going to fail!
The rest of us learning of their behaviour, are just amazed that he and his staff have actually managed to stick it out given the hassle he/they have been through over the years.
And to be honest, if he failed in his job AT ANY STAGE - why the feck did they still employ him and/or his staff still?

I'm amazed that he didn't get it out in the open or resign if he's so great or special.

Biggins wrote: »

Given his international good sterling, well known work reputation, I (and many, many others it seems) greatly suspect he is NOT the villain of the episode, but just another victim of those in the Dail and their pure disgusting antics and greedy behaviour.
I hold the mans reputation to get any job done or at least tried, far ahead of any or all of the TDs reputations currently residing in the Dail.

Many people take his words more so to be closer to the truth than the lying, two faced, greed fecks in the Dail right now!

Reputations falter - I wouldn't go on that alone.

Biggins

Clearly you think then he's completely in the wrong! However a great deal more think different from your good self.
End of discussion. Me continuing would just be trolling.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

Clearly you think then he's completely in the wrong! However a great deal more think different from your good self.
End of discussion. Me continuing would just be trolling.

I think it could have been blown open a long time ago.

Hootanany

Viva the Revolution

lostexpectation

article about o donoaghue nad tom o'higgins
info on who he is

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6832208.ece
O’Higgins is Blueshirt gentry. He quit in despair at the obduracy which greeted his advice to cap TDs’ expenses and make receipts for all claims a prerequisite. O’Higgins is the nephew of Kevin O’Higgins, the assassinated minister for justice. His father was Tom O’Higgins, the presidential candidate. He is a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission, former chairman of Concern Worldwide, a former president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, a former chairman of the Coombe hospital, and an auditor to the Courts Service, the attorneygeneral’s office and various other hallowed institutions of the state.

The call to public service is in O’Higgins’ DNA. Reports that he was unable to secure meetings with O’Donoghue, chairman of the Oireachtas Commission, have incensed even the most philosophical Fine Gaelers.

bigstar

workaccount wrote: »

Hi,
Just after reading this - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-quit-says-political-expenses-watchdog-1879849.html

Funny how he decides to quit just when the whole thing is about to explode.

What's his reason? "He was reportedly left "seething" by the refusal of politicians to heed his concerns -- particularly over the expenses and allowances they pay themselves."

How long has he been on the board? - since before 2004 I know at least.

What was one of his jobs? A TOP accountant charged with overseeing political expenses.

Interested in hearing other peoples opinion on this one.

Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

i think your wrong here tbh. its not his job to oversee anything, he is not part of an independent body, he works for the government. he makes recommendations to the government, the ministers must implement them, they havent, he quits. as for being there for 5 years and not doing anything, most td's have been there for a lot longer and done a lot less.

workaccount

bigstar wrote: »

i think your wrong here tbh. its not his job to oversee anything, he is not part of an independent body, he works for the government. he makes recommendations to the government, the ministers must implement them, they havent, he quits. as for being there for 5 years and not doing anything, most td's have been there for a lot longer and done a lot less.

He sat in his cushy seat for 5 years on a nice salary and decides to quit before it explodes. He would be still there for another 5 if things hadn't gone they way they have with the economy. Pushes all the blame away from himself then. Taxpayers were paying his salary. If he's so principled that he quits his top civil job because the TD's are not listening to him why didn't he do it a few years ago.

Whatever the TD's do doesn't excuse him at all.

thebman

workaccount wrote: »

He sat in his cushy seat for 5 years on a nice salary and decides to quit before it explodes. He would be still there for another 5 if things hadn't gone they way they have with the economy. Pushes all the blame away from himself then. Taxpayers were paying his salary. If he's so principled that he quits his top civil job because the TD's are not listening to him why didn't he do it a few years ago.

Whatever the TD's do doesn't excuse him at all.

lol and why should he stick around to take all the blame when he was making the recommendations and was being ignored?

He stuck around and made his recommendations, why weren't they implemented is the scandal TBH.

workaccount

thebman wrote: »

lol and why should he stick around to take all the blame when he was making the recommendations and was being ignored?

He stuck around and made his recommendations, why weren't they implemented is the scandal TBH.

The point I'm making is he shouldn't have been around and the fact that is around now he should be bearing some responsability.

It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.

bigstar

workaccount wrote: »

He sat in his cushy seat for 5 years on a nice salary and decides to quit before it explodes. He would be still there for another 5 if things hadn't gone they way they have with the economy. Pushes all the blame away from himself then. Taxpayers were paying his salary. If he's so principled that he quits his top civil job because the TD's are not listening to him why didn't he do it a few years ago.

Whatever the TD's do doesn't excuse him at all.

workaccount wrote: »

The point I'm making is he shouldn't have been around and the fact that is around now he should be bearing some responsability.

It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.

no his job was not to oversee payments, he worked for the politicians, it is their job to oversee him. thats what you have wrong. do you think that if he had quit years ago, then the expense system would have fixed itself. no it wouldnt, he can do more in the system than outside it.

look your entitled to your view, but neither of us know the man so talking about his principles is pointless. we only have the facts. the fact is he at least brought the abuse of expenses to the attention of those who could do something about it. the politicians ignored this and seeing a they are his employers and the only people who could change this disgraceful waste of taxpayers money, i think the blame obviously lies with them.

workaccount

bigstar wrote: »

no his job was not to oversee payments, he worked for the politicians, it is their job to oversee him. thats what you have wrong. do you think that if he had quit years ago, then the expense system would have fixed itself. no it wouldnt, he can do more in the system than outside it.

look your entitled to your view, but neither of us know the man so talking about his principles is pointless. we only have the facts. the fact is he at least brought the abuse of expenses to the attention of those who could do something about it. the politicians ignored this and seeing a they are his employers and the only people who could change this disgraceful waste of taxpayers money, i think the blame obviously lies with them.

I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.

thebman

workaccount wrote: »

I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.

True but then his hands were tied. If he came out a few years ago and said the expenses were too high and he couldn't do anything and steped down then nobody would have cared because sure we were rolling in cash attitude.

Doing it when we are bankrupt achieves a lot more. I think he stepped down at the right time. Hopefully could help and be the little bit of extra pressure required to get the expense problems fixed.

Don't know the guy either so this may not have been his intention.

bigstar

workaccount wrote: »

I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.

man this pointless. maybe it would, maybe it would be worse now, maybe it was worse when he took over and is better now but still crap, maybe he went to venice with o donoghue, maybe hes a mormon. again we dont know. we know he tried and didnt succeed while others would prefers things stayed as is. seems a decent man to me.

workaccount

thebman wrote: »

True but then his hands were tied. If he came out a few years ago and said the expenses were too high and he couldn't do anything and steped down then nobody would have cared because sure we were rolling in cash attitude.

Doing it when we are bankrupt achieves a lot more. I think he stepped down at the right time. Hopefully could help and be the little bit of extra pressure required to get the expense problems fixed.

Don't know the guy either so this may not have been his intention.

Yeah this argument has been put forth above. I think that people would have been very interested to know what Fianna Fail were up to and the money they were spending on ridiculous expenses. People already thought they were getting paid enough but some people getting the same or more in expenses than their salary?

I think it would have been tightened up then. Tightened up even more that were in recession? Maybe.

Mr. Higgins must have known there was going to be a recession for years - should have warned a few other people.

workaccount

bigstar wrote: »

man this pointless. maybe it would, maybe it would be worse now, maybe it was worse when he took over and is better now but still crap, maybe he went to venice with o donoghue, maybe hes a mormon. again we dont know. we know he tried and didnt succeed while others would prefers things stayed as is. seems a decent man to me.

That was a reply to someone elses post. If you don't have a serious point to make please refrain from meager remarks.

I've already given my opinion on conjecture and my argument is not based on that.

bigstar

workaccount wrote: »

That was a reply to someone elses post. If you don't have a serious point to make please refrain from meager remarks.

I've already given my opinion on conjecture and my argument is not based on that.

it was actually a reply to my post if you look above. im not looking for silly arguments but maybe this and that arent good enough reasons to blame someone. your argument is that this civil servant should have made more effort to address the expense problem. he did make an effort. unfortunately civil servants can only advise, they have no power to act on their advise.

and i did make a serious point. he tried, but was ignored.

Biggins

bigstar wrote: »

it was actually a reply to my post if you look above. im not looking for silly arguments but maybe this and that arent good enough reasons to blame someone. your argument is that this civil servant should have made more effort to address the expense problem. he did make an effort. unfortunately civil servants can only advise, they have no power to act on their advise.

and i did make a serious point. he tried, but was ignored.

Yep, but while workaccount is unwilling to let the rest of us think any different and say so, he still regurgitates the same version of his outlook on events!

...he tried, but was ignored.

Your wasting your time here - workaccount don't get that or is unwilling even to see that... let him keep deflecting and/or PR spinning away.
We can all make up our own minds without this further trolling on and on.

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

Your wasting your time here - workaccount don't get that or is unwilling even to see that... let him keep deflecting and/or PR spinning away.
We can all make up our own minds without this further trolling on and on.

I do get the "tried" part Biggins - did we not discuss this a few days ago already?

You just can't stay away from this thread can you?

bSlick

workaccount wrote: »

It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.

It was his job to recommend cuts, he had no power to actually implement them. How hard is that to understand? He can tell the politicians to cut this, that and the other til the cows come home but if they don't actually agree nothing will be done. And that is exactly what happened. Eventually he got sick of being ignored and quit. This line you are taking of 'he was at fault.....he did nothing in the job...' is nonsense as he never had the power to make any cuts, only the power to recommend them.

workaccount

bSlick wrote: »

It was his job to recommend cuts, he had no power to actually implement them. How hard is that to understand?

Very easy to understand. So his job was to recommend cuts then was it? Your the first to say it here. I read differently somewhere else though - I read that his job was to oversee payments and expenses. That's very different to what your saying isn't it?

bSlick wrote: »

He can tell the politicians to cut this, that and the other til the cows come home but if they don't actually agree nothing will be done. And that is exactly what happened. Eventually he got sick of being ignored and quit.

So what? Sit back and enjoy the salary. He didn't get sick of it and quit though - he quit when it was about to blow up.

bSlick wrote: »

This line you are taking of 'he was at fault.....he did nothing in the job...' is nonsense as he never had the power to make any cuts, only the power to recommend them.

Again where are you getting this information about what his job entailed?

workaccount

Just to add I think the politicans are a waste of space and should be held responsible.

I think this guy is a waste of space as well and should be accountable.

P. Breathnach

workaccount wrote: »

... I think this guy is a waste of space as well and should be accountable.

I have just read through the entire thread. It looks as if you don't know what O'Higgins's job actually was, yet that does not stop you from passing judgement on how he discharged it. This is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, verdict after".

Biggins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have just read through the entire thread. It looks as if you don't know what O'Higgins's job actually was, yet that does not stop you from passing judgement on how he discharged it. This is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, verdict after".

He just don't get it. He wants to shoot anyone else down and shut other folk up that thinks different, he's not willing to listen and even possibly see the other side of events.
At this stage he's just trolling.
I wish someone would lock this crap up!

tallaght01

He's not trolling. He's asking a question that a lot of people are. What exactly was this guy's job?

If it was to make cuts, then he should have capped expenses. if it was to recommend cuts, without any power, then there wasn't a lot he could have done.

It's all about his remit and responsibility.

If he had some power to do anything about it, then him resigning looks like he's jumping ship.

If he was powerless, then fair play to him for getting out when things are going bad. The only thing is now that things are out in the open and there's a good chance that reform will happen, it would be better to hafve a guy like that on the inside to suggest changes.

Biggins

tallaght01 wrote: »

He's not trolling. He's asking a question that a lot of people are.

He's not asking apparently, he's telling and lecturing at this stage!

tallaght01 wrote: »

If it was to make cuts, then he should have capped expenses. if it was to recommend cuts, without any power, then there wasn't a lot he could have done.

It's all about his remit and responsibility.

Thank you. EXACTLY!
He and his department according to the manadate they were given was to oversee the whole area of the Dail and government departmental systems and see where cuts could be implemented. Their role was NOT just to ONE area. They carried on in their duties in other areas - apparently successfully - otherwise we should be able to gather that their asses would have been fired a long time ago!

It seems that they had only a limited range of powers. One of the powers they hadn't got was that of altering the level of expenses of the TD's. That power apparently is reserved for those that are actually able to alter/control themselves, their own money! (Classic Irishness).

Your right again, with he and his department limited by what they could enact, there was not a lot more what they could do.
What was left to do - finally - was alter the money the TDs was getting.
After five years of trying to do this while he and his department was being ignored, shunned, stopped, stalled and plain barked at - he apparently decided right, we have done all what we can do (in other areas) and seeing as whats left is being repeatedly blanked over (to put it lightly), there was no point in being treated like schite any more!

To stay and just continue to take from the state in wages and further pension contributions, would have been wrong - and he knew it.

So he did the decent thing.
He killed two birds with one stone.
He publicised some disgusting actions (and lack of actions too) of those that were treating he and his staff like schite and he left so not to be remaining in a position where his (and department) were now just banging their heads against a not listening TD's wall or door!

...but workaccount don't get that nor is he willing to look at the facts of the case as they appear (but only as he can PR spin them).
He's just too busy lecturing us all on just how wrong the man was. :rolleyes:

workaccount

Biggins wrote: »

He's not asking apparently, he's telling and lecturing at this stage!

No I was asking actually. You were the one telling when you didn't actually have any answers yourself.

How many times have I said I'm not trying to hang him - I'm looking for answers, truth but you seem to ignore that consistently.

Biggins wrote: »

Thank you. EXACTLY!

Someone has finally been able to say what Biggins couldn't say all along.

Biggins wrote: »

Their role was NOT just to ONE area. They carried on in their duties in other areas - apparently successfully - otherwise we should be able to gather that their asses would have been fired a long time ago!

It seems that they had only a limited range of powers. One of the powers they hadn't got was that of altering the level of expenses of the TD's. That power apparently is reserved for those that are actually able to alter/control themselves, their own money! (Classic Irishness).

Your right again, with he and his department limited by what they could enact, there was not a lot more what they could do.
What was left to do - finally - was alter the money the TDs was getting.
After five years of trying to do this while he and his department was being ignored, shunned, stopped, stalled and plain barked at - he apparently decided right, we have done all what we can do (in other areas) and seeing as whats left is being repeatedly blanked over (to put it lightly), there was no point in being treated like schite any more!

To stay and just continue to take from the state in wages and further pension contributions, would have been wrong - and he knew it.

So he did the decent thing.
He killed two birds with one stone.
He publicised some disgusting actions (and lack of actions too) of those that were treating he and his staff like schite and he left so not to be remaining in a position where his (and department) were now just banging their heads against a not listening TD's wall or door!

Biggins - have you an original thought in your head at all?
Your reiterating the exact same things as have been said before - what is actually new here that everyone hasn't already been made aware of on this thread?

The only new thing you add is whatever point someone else has just made that's changed the dynamics of this argument.

Can you not just go away until you have something useful to add?

P. Breathnach

workaccount wrote: »

No I was asking actually...

From your original post:

What was one of his jobs? A TOP accountant charged with overseeing political expenses...

Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

That's not asking; that's telling.

Biggins

workaccount wrote: »

Can you not just go away until you have something useful to add?

No, I and others you have tried so silence, won't shut-up just because you say so or you don't agree with us.
We live in a democratic society with forms of free speech. Learn to live with it or leave.