Former Union boss paid €100k fees by housing quango over 4 years

anymore

Nodin wrote: »

As has been pointed out a number of times, theres been no detail of what he did or did not do in relation to the monies received. Your comments about it being a sinecure are - at this point in time - pure speculation. Rather than look for obscure pamphlets your time would first be better spent trying to ascertain exactly what he did in order to receive that money.

No my comments are based on the general practice of irish Governments doling out ' plum little earners' to its friends and supporters.
Remember this is a country of 4 million which has in excess of two hundred quangos. Now it these were generally effficient bodies, I presume we would not be in the predictament which we actually are in !
You of course may be more experienced in these matters than me - perhaps you could give us your analysis on our economic situation and the role the brave Chairmen/women of these quangos have played in it ?

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

No my comments are based on the general practice of irish Governments doling out ' plum little earners' to its friends and supporters.
Remember this is a country of 4 million which has in excess of two hundred quangos. Now it these were generally effficient bodies, I presume we would not be in the predictament which we actually are in !

well you have a valid point here but unfortunately your (and Shane Ross) approach has personalised the issue and so appears to simply be an attack on Des Geraghty

its the current system that is at fault, there are far too many political appointees to quangos recieving payment for little work...generally speaking...I have no evidence one way or the other for Des Geraghty's workload in this instance

P. Breathnach

anymore wrote: »

From my personal point of view, yes it is a substantial income and one which many who work a full time week do not earn.

So tell me what kind of hours were invloved in earning this income ?
How many Board meetings were held each month ? 2 or 3 or perhaps even fewer ?

You are suggesting that there is something wrong about Geraghty's role in the Affordable Housing Partnership. You have failed to produce any evidence in support of your view. And now you demand that people disprove your unsubstantiated claim.

anymore

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are suggesting that there is something wrong about Geraghty's role in the Affordable Housing Partnership. You have failed to produce any evidence in support of your view. And now you demand that people disprove your unsubstantiated claim.

This was the questionI asked :

Is it time to end the lucrative quango gravy train ?
Fell free to address the question if you wish - after all the moderator went to the trouble of changing the thread's title to accomodate you.
Of course you may feel that the quango sysytem we have is appropriate for us !

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

well you have a valid point here but unfortunately your (and Shane Ross) approach has personalised the issue and so appears to simply be an attack on Des Geraghty

its the current system that is at fault, there are far too many political appointees to quangos recieving payment for little work...generally speaking...I have no evidence one way or the other for Des Geraghty's workload in this instance

Well how can you not personalise the issue if you are talking about very substantial fees for an agency whose work has little public profile and whose workings seem to be such a mystery to everyone ?
Now if i had posted a thread about mary harney, then i am quite sure there would have much, much more 'personalisation' of Miz Harney and a great deal more critical comment, would you agree ?
Mr Geraghty is a public figure who has taken appoints to several public bodies who has taken an apointment to the EU as MEP, the Seanad and who as president of SIPTU has taken part in decisions and negotiations that has affected the lives of every signle citizen of this country.

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

Well how can you not personalise the issue if you are talking about very substantial fees for an agency whose work has little public profile and whose workings seem to be such a mystery to everyone ?

the issue should be that there are quangos with political appointees who seem to recieve significant amounts without transparancy of the work they do

it should not matter who that person happens to be

Now if i had posted a thread about mary harney, then i am quite sure there would have much, much more 'personalisation' of Miz Harney and a great deal more critical comment, would you agree ?

thats because the issue would be how she performs and the state of the health system

Mr Geraghty is a public figure who has taken appoints to several public bodies who has taken an apointment to the EU as MEP, the Seanad and who as president of SIPTU has taken part in decisions and negotiations that has affected the lives of every signle citizen of this country.

some would say that makes him a very experienced public sector linked person and perhaps ideal for the role he is in?

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

the issue should be that there are quangos with political appointees who seem to recieve significant amounts without transparancy of the work they do

it should not matter who that person happens to be





thats because the issue would be how she performs and the state of the health system




some would say that makes him a very experienced public sector linked person and perhaps ideal for the role he is in?

some would say that makes him a very experienced public sector linked person and perhaps ideal for the role he is in?[/QUOTE

It follows on from this that he and others like him must accept a portion of the balme for the near destruction of the Irish economy and the impoverishment of so many -

So is there so rule that public figures associated iwth the trade unions must be treated differently from other public figues ?
And if if the question of how harney has performed can be discussed, then why not the performance of a Trade union leader ?

P. Breathnach

anymore wrote: »

This was the questionI asked :

Is it time to end the lucrative quango gravy train ?

Really? That's not in the post that I was responding to.

Fell free to address the question if you wish - after all the moderator went to the trouble of changing the thread's title to accomodate you.

I rather thought that it was altered in the service of accuracy.

You have made a large number of posts attacking Des Geraghty's relationship with the Affordable Housing Partnership, yet it appears that you have no knowledge of what he did or did not do in exchange for the payments he received.

I operate on the basis of an apparently strange idea: if you accuse a person of doing something wrong, you have some obligation to back up that accusation.

Of course you may feel that the quango sysytem we have is appropriate for us !

Oddly, that's not the topic of this thread. Not only are you changing the point of attack; you are changing the target.

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

It follows on from this that he and others like him must accept a portion of the balme for the near destruction of the Irish economy and the impoverishment of so many -

So is there so rule that public figures associated iwth the trade unions must be treated differently from other public figues ?
And if if the question of how harney has performed can be discussed, then why not the performance of a Trade union leader ?

every post you seem to either twist the comments around or deliberately miss the point

IBEC were just as involved as SIPTU in social partnership agreements, are business leaders to blame? Neithrr Unions nor business leaders are elected as public officials, they may lobby but politicians, Government in particular are the ones who made the decisions

there are far more political types appointed to quangos than there are Union people...but you seem to be actually be about Des geraghty as oppossed to the wider issue, if thats the case then say so

I said that there would be much more debate about Mary harney because of her current position and what people hold her responsible for

Des Geraghty's perfromance as Chairman of the AHP would not be as interesting or high profile to most people...indeed even you have nothing to say about his performance

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

every post you seem to either twist the comments around or deliberately miss the point

IBEC were just as involved as SIPTU in social partnership agreements, are business leaders to blame? Neithrr Unions nor business leaders are elected as public officials, they may lobby but politicians, Government in particular are the ones who made the decisions

there are far more political types appointed to quangos than there are Union people...but you seem to be actually be about Des geraghty as oppossed to the wider issue, if thats the case then say so

I said that there would be much more debate about Mary harney because of her current position and what people hold her responsible for

Des Geraghty's perfromance as Chairman of the AHP would not be as interesting or high profile to most people...indeed even you have nothing to say about his performance

Start a thread about any business people or politicians invloved in quangos and I will contribute to it -
This thread is about Mr Geraghty becuase he is/was the chairman of this particular quango and there was an interesting story in the papoer about it ! Read the article, comment on it if you like. At least i have taken a position and offerd a point of view. How do you approach threads you post ?

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

Start a thread about any business people or politicians invloved in quangos and I will contribute to it -
This thread is about Mr Geraghty becuase he is/was the chairman of this particular quango and there was an interesting story in the papoer about it ! Read the article, comment on it if you like. At least i have taken a position and offerd a point of view. How do you approach threads you post ?

my point is that it is not clear exaclty what your point is

is it

(a) there is a big issue with political appointees to quangos, lack of transparancy on what they do for their money etc

(b) I have an issue with des geraghty and I dont think he should have this job

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

my point is that it is not clear exaclty what your point is

is it

(a) there is a big issue with political appointees to quangos, lack of transparancy on what they do for their money etc

(b) I have an issue with des geraghty and I dont think he should have this job

Perhaps I might be permitted to ask you if you are a trade union supporter or labour party or other socialist political party supporter ?
You seem very sensitive about the issues i have raised.

SlabMurphy

rightwingdub wrote: »

Its not bad money for a former Marxist:D

Yes, a former comrade of Eoghan Harris and co. in the Stickies ( Sinn Fein the Workers Party )

anymore

In response to posts, i have a little extra information on this housing quango, this time courtesy of the irish Indo :
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/developers--net-8364210m-in-land-swap-with-state-2029294.html

" In 2005, Bertie Ahern's government faced massive pressure to speed up affordable housing provision against the background of looming social partnership talks with the trade unions. It was also getting flak for diluting Part V of the Planning Act that stipulated 20 per cent social housing in developments, letting developers pay their way out of the provision instead.
Its big new idea was to swap state-owned land for cheap housing. Bertie announced the plan at ICTU's annual conference in Belfast in June of that year. The Affordable Housing Partnership (AHP)
would be set up, with former ICTU leader Des Geraghty cannily selected as chairman, and it would oversee this land swap for affordable housing drive. "

Now I am sure the information in this article will help shed some light on what it was that the Housing Body did.

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

Perhaps I might be permitted to ask you if you are a trade union supporter or labour party or other socialist political party supporter ?
You seem very sensitive about the issues i have raised.

so you wont answer the question, that's fine but how you expect people to discuss the issue if you wont say what the issue is I dont know!

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

Now I am sure the information in this article will help shed some light on what it was that the Housing Body did.

i think this might shed more

http://www.ahp.ie/

P. Breathnach

anymore wrote: »

... Now I am sure the information in this article will help shed some light on what it was that the Housing Body did.

But it sheds little light on what Des Geraghty did.

It looks to me as if the journalist was quite willing to comment on the fall in value of the houses and apartments acquired under the scheme, but presumes that the property exchanged in part-payment for them holds its value.

anymore

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it sheds little light on what Des Geraghty did.

It looks to me as if the journalist was quite willing to comment on the fall in value of the houses and apartments acquired under the scheme, but presumes that the property exchanged in part-payment for them holds its value.

You are quite right to emphasise that we dont actually know very much about what he did !
I mean, as i have said before, the quango has full time staff to do the daily work, so what did the board members actually do ?
It is a puzzle to be sure.
Thank you for raising the point again !

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

No my (.....)have played in it ?

So you're applying the general to the specific.....Great stuff. Fallacy of accident, though I'm open to correction on that.

Why are you trying to shift the focus to quangos generally?

anymore wrote: »

Well how can you not personalise the issue if you are talking about very substantial fees for an agency whose work has little public profile and whose workings seem to be such a mystery to everyone ?

...but you aren't criticising the lack of openess, you're criticising the fees, despite having no idea whatsover what was involved in the job.

anymore wrote: »

This thread is about Mr Geraghty becuase he is/was the chairman of this particular quango and there was an interesting story in the papoer about it ! Read the article, comment on it if you like.

I think the majority of us already have, and judge it as a shoddy piece. Theres no details as to the number of meetings, responsibilities or duties involved. How can we criticise Geraghty with no information?

anymore wrote: »

Perhaps I might be permitted to ask you if you are a trade union supporter or labour party or other socialist political party supporter ?
You seem very sensitive about the issues i have raised.

In other threads when questioned closely, you've raised the political affiliations of the Posters, as well as their membership of other boards and Forums. Here, as then, I fail to see the relevance.

anymore wrote: »

Now I am sure the information in this article will help shed some light on what it was that the Housing Body did

....but has no real bearing on the article you opened the thread with.

anymore

Nodin wrote: »

So you're applying the general to the specific.....Great stuff. Fallacy of accident, though I'm open to correction on that.

Why are you trying to shift the focus to quangos generally?



...but you aren't criticising the lack of openess, you're criticising the fees, despite having no idea whatsover what was involved in the job.



I think the majority of us already have, and judge it as a shoddy piece. Theres no details as to the number of meetings, responsibilities or duties involved. How can we criticise Geraghty with no information?




In other threads when questioned closely, you've raised the political affiliations of the Posters, as well as their membership of other boards and Forums. Here, as then, I fail to see the relevance.



....but has no real bearing on the article you opened the thread with.

I assume your contributions here are linked to my posts on other threads !:D:D:D

anymore

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it sheds little light on what Des Geraghty did.

It looks to me as if the journalist was quite willing to comment on the fall in value of the houses and apartments acquired under the scheme, but presumes that the property exchanged in part-payment for them holds its value.

Well it does show a lttle detail of how the State was willing to hand over our land to wealthy developers !

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

Well it does show a lttle detail of how the State was willing to hand over our land to wealthy developers !

....but has no bearing on the OP and article therein. Information on what was done for the monies received is what's missing here, as has been pointed out on numerous occassions.

anymore

Nodin wrote: »

....but has no bearing on the OP and article therein. Information on what was done for the monies received is what's missing here, as has been pointed out on numerous occassions.

Here is a letter in today's Irish Indo re Union leaders :
.
We have all suffered due to the cutbacks imposed on us in the recent Budget. There are many who believe that these cutbacks were necessary while others seem to feel there is a less painful alternative.
Our frustrations are not only with the Government, we have also been frustrated by the main opposition parties in the Dail who have offered no solutions but have assisted in undermining the whole body politic.
"Do not come to the table with problems unless you have solutions" -- that is my message to Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore. Our union leaders have also been shouting from the rooftops against the cutbacks. What irks me is the fact that these same people have felt little economic pain.
Some facts to dwell on:
Jack O Connor (SIPTU), salary €125,000; Peter McLoone (IMPACT) €153,000; David Begg (ICTU) €137,000; Blair Horan (CPSU) €120,000.
These men represent the workers who have suffered cutbacks, and I wonder if their own generous salaries have been cut? I

Unfortunately the writer didnt mention the very lucrative fees from quangos that Union leaders enjoy.

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

Here is a letter in today's Irish Indo re Union leaders :
.
(......).

...which yet again sheds no further light on what was done or otherwise to earn the fees mentioned in the OP.

anymore

Nodin wrote: »

....but has no bearing on the OP and article therein. Information on what was done for the monies received is what's missing here, as has been pointed out on numerous occassions.

And the people refusing to shed on light on this are the very people who keeo saying ; " Information on what was done for the monies received is what's missing here ".
It has just occured to me that the trade unions are quite anti Israeli so perhaps this is why you are so defensive on this issue.

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

And the people refusing to shed on light on this are the very people who keeo saying ; " Information on what was done for the monies received is what's missing here ".

I haven't refused to "shed on light" with regard to anything. I have no idea what specifically he did, whether it was worth what he received, how many meetings he attended etc. The problem is that you haven't either, yet have persisted in what can only be called baseless innuendo since. The lack of detail was established and remarked on within the 1st 10 posts. Since then you've brought nothing new to light, have attempted to drag in unrelated issues and made various efforts to shift the focus.