Gormley Expenses Inquiry..

Sizzler

From todays IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0826/1224277612360.html

wrote:

THE HOUSES of the Oireachtas have declined a request by a member of the public to investigate more than €200,000 in tax-free expenses claimed by Green Party TD and Minister for the Environment John Gormley.

A constituent of the Dublin South East TD, James Casey, made a formal complaint last January about aspects of the Green TD’s tax-free expenses, most of them for the 10-year period before he became a Minister.

In the course of correspondence since then a Dáil official informed the complainant that Mr Gormley had observed the legal requirements for the expenses allowed under relevant legislation.

Mr Casey obtained details of Mr Gormley’s expenses claims through Freedom of Information requests and made his complaint on the basis of the information he received.

The core complaint involved:

* The payment of €143,151 in “turning-up” expenses to the Green TD during the period from 1997 to 2007. Days claimed for included Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve.
* The payment of €37,732 for setting up and operating a constituency office at Fownes Street in Dublin’s Temple Bar.
* €12,638 for a report from polling company Red C in 2009.
* Almost €9,000 for a redesign of Mr Gormley’s web page.
* Printing bills of €3,800 in 2009.

In his complaint to the Oireachtas, Mr Casey asked how Mr Gormley could have claimed the daily “turning-up” allowance, designed to cover travel costs, when he cycled to the Dáil from his nearby home.

He also queried the payment of expenses to the Green TD for a constituency office, at the address of the former Green Party headquarters in Fownes Street, saying Mr Gormley had never alerted his constituents to the fact that his office was in operation.

In response to Mr Casey a principal officer at the Houses of the Oireachtas, Derek Dignam, stated that the statutory authority for the expenses and allowances regime was the Minister for Finance.

“In practice, invoices are submitted by members for payment by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and are certified by them to be expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of facilitating parliamentary duties.

“In this context the main function of the commission in the processing of claims for members is to ensure that each claim is within the legislation which provides for the allowance and any applicable Department of Finance guidelines. We cannot comment on the detail individual invoices submitted and certified by individual members,” the letter added.

In further correspondence, Mr Casey asked the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine Mr Gormley’s claim for a constituency office between 2004 and the time he became a member of the Government when the office moved to his department.

Mr Dignam wrote to Mr Gormley on June 4th of this year asking for a response and on August 6th the personal adviser to the Minister, Diarmuid Hanifin, replied.

“The constituency office maintenance allowance payment to John Gormley between the period of 2004 and 20007 was in respect of a constituency office which was situated in Fownes Street, Dublin 2. During this time Oireachtas IT equipment, broadband and phone lines were installed in order to allow constituency business to be conducted from this office,” he said.

He added that the constituency secretary to Mr Gormley, Ann O’Conarain, worked from this office during the given period.

Following Mr Gormley’s appointment to Government she moved to the Custom House, where she continues to work for him.

“There is absolutely no question that the office was closed during this period,” added Mr Hanifin.

This information was passed on to Mr Casey in a letter from Mr Dignam last week.

“Your queries have now been addressed. However, as pointed out previously, the Minister for Finance is the statutory authority in respect of the allowances system. You may wish, therefore, to address any further queries about the statutory framework concerning such allowances to that Department,” he noted.

LEINSTER HOUSE 'TURNING UP' ALLOWANCE

The daily expenses claimed by Dublin TDs and senators to cover travel and subsistence for each day they come in to Leinster House is known as the “turning up” allowance.
Up until March of this year Dublin TDs submitted a form detailing the number of days they attended Leinster House and were paid the tax-free allowance of €55 a day.

TDs from outside Dublin were entitled to claim overnight expenses and mileage for attending Leinster House.

The system was changed in March to a standard unvouched €12,000 a year for Dublin TDs and senators with those from outside the capital falling into a range of payment bands up to €37,850.

Under the new system TDs and senators also get a public representation allowance ranging from €15,000 (unvouched) to €25,700 (vouched) as well as a special secretarial allowance apart from having a paid Dáil secretary.

Is this another Callely situation in the making?! A "constituency" office that nobody knew about and was several miles from his actual constituency :eek:

-Expenses claimed for Xmas Eve & New Years eve :rolleyes:
-€9K for a redesign of his personal web page....FFS dont even know where to start with this !
-Since when is a report for a Red C poll a chargeable expense to the taxpayer?

Interesting the dail wouldnt entertain a robust investigation into this and batted it onto the dept of finance for further reference.

Fair play to the guy who chased this one down and for getting it to national print.

Hope this gets the coverage it deserves, Gormley always quick to play the value for money card but I ain't seeing any here :mad:

Jeboa Safari

Looks a bit dodgy alright Hopefully another nail in the Greens coffin

Sizzler

Ah its OK, he says its grand....we can relax now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0826/breaking31.html

Yitzhak Rabin

Sizzler wrote: »

Ah its OK, he says its grand....we can relax now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0826/breaking31.html

Gormless wrote:

Look at my expenses. Compare my expenses with my constituency colleagues and it averages out at about €18,000 a year, that is substantially lower than anybody else

So his excuse is essentially. 'Sure everyone is doing it' and I'm the best of a bad bunch?

Its actually unreal how deluded they are in leinster house. The culture of entitlement is so pervasive up there, that they actually seem to believe that they are entitled to claim any expense that is available to them, whether they incur expense or not.

Laminations

He doesn't seem to get that it is the misappropriation of funds that people are mad about and not the amounts involved (although the amounts are still large). Its the 'entitlement' these politicians feel they have (and I'm sure you'll find it across the board) that disgusts people

In his complaint to the Oireachtas, Mr Casey asked how Mr Gormley could have claimed the daily “turning-up” allowance, designed to cover travel costs, when he cycled to the Dáil from his nearby home.

He claimed €143,151 in “turning-up” expenses. Rather than justify this, he says 'well I'm claiming the least. He is claiming the least possibly for the least valid reasons

PeterIanStaker

Another smokescreen to distract attention from Anglo/NAMA.

Laminations

You could say Anglo/NAMA is a smokesceen for the unmanageable budget deficit. All I know is that the entitlement culture of politicians is a barrier to getting the cuts to ordinary workers through. They should really cut their own cloth to sharpen their scissors

Sizzler

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Another smokescreen to distract attention from Anglo/NAMA.

Couldnt disagree more. Its the likes of this that gets brushed under the carpet and keeps the gravy train going for TD's who are frankly so withdrawn from society it isn't funny.

You could argue NAMA & Anglo sums being bounded around is taking away what is actually being done to deal with the people who got us in to that mess in the first place.

Now back OT, the subject is Gormley

PeterIanStaker

Well fair enough, but my reaction of total and utter cynicism at everything that comes out of Leinster House says a lot about the idiots inside it.

And as for John Gormless I hope he gets forced to resign over it, not that it will make a blind bit of difference to the morons who will continue to run the country into the ground unopposed.

reprazant

Laminations wrote: »

He claimed €143,151 in “turning-up” expenses. Rather than justify this, he says 'well I'm claiming the least. He is claiming the least possibly for the least valid reasons

He claimed it because each TD gets paid to turn up to the Dail.

The daily expenses claimed by Dublin TDs and senators to cover travel and subsistence for each day they come in to Leinster House is known as the “turning up” allowance.
Up until March of this year Dublin TDs submitted a form detailing the number of days they attended Leinster House and were paid the tax-free allowance of €55 a day.

Under the rules, he is entitled to the expenses. Either that or no Dublin TD is entitled to the expense.

demonspawn

Look at my expenses. Compare my expenses with my constituency colleagues and it averages out at about €18,000 a year, that is substantially lower than anybody else

That would pay the average working class wages for a year. I wonder how long before people just start attacking ministers/TDs in the street. It's obvious that going through the legal system is an absolute waste of time and energy.

Liam Byrne

reprazant wrote: »

Under the rules, he is entitled to the expenses. Either that or no Dublin TD is entitled to the expense.

Incorrect.

The other Dublin TDs drove cars, parked, took the DART or Luas, or even cabs.

They paid out to get to work.

The allowances might be WAY over-generous, but at least they did spend something.

Gormley chose to cycle.

If he wants to claim €150 for a rain-suit, or another €250 for a decent bike, then I've no problem with that.....feck it, I'll even be generous and give him €100 allowance for new tyres and puncture repair, and maybe even €500 for the occasional day that he sleeps in or the global warming creates weather too bad to cycle though.

But €18,000 ? Without spending a cent ?

Sickening (again).

Mr.Applepie

reprazant wrote: »

He claimed it because each TD gets paid to turn up to the Dail.

Surely the TD's salary covers them showing up to the Dail, it is their job after all.

Looking at those numbers Gormless is saying he showed up to the Dail everyday (Monday to Friday) for 10 years.

Good on him if he did but I don't see why he should be paid 1,200 extra a month to do his job

bamboozle

sure Callely nearly always cycled into the dail.
all TD's should take a leaf out of Finian McGrath and Leo Veradker and publish every cent of their expenses claimed...that would put an end to the issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen

A member of the Dail claiming as much in expenses as he can get away with without the need for a ballaclava?

Well, I never.

Scofflaw

An attendance allowance is an attendance allowance, not a travel allowance. It's designed to encourage TDs to be in the Dáil for their national role rather than in their constituency for their local role. It doesn't matter how one gets there - what counts is being there. Nor is it expenses - it's part of the pay.

And yes, it's common in parliamentary democracies rather than being a unique feature of Irish political life.

wearily,
Scofflaw

reprazant

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect.

The other Dublin TDs drove cars, parked, took the DART or Luas, or even cabs.

They paid out to get to work.

The allowances might be WAY over-generous, but at least they did spend something.

Gormley chose to cycle.

If he wants to claim €150 for a rain-suit, or another €250 for a decent bike, then I've no problem with that.....feck it, I'll even be generous and give him €100 allowance for new tyres and puncture repair, and maybe even €500 for the occasional day that he sleeps in or the global warming creates weather too bad to cycle though.

But €18,000 ? Without spending a cent ?

Sickening (again).

So what if he cycled.

He, like all other TD's, was being paid to turn up. How he got there is irrelevant and I am sure that there is a separate expense of that also.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

An attendance allowance is an attendance allowance, not a travel allowance. It's designed to encourage TDs to be in the Dáil for their national role rather than in their constituency for their local role. It doesn't matter how one gets there - what counts is being there. Nor is it expenses - it's part of the pay.

And yes, it's common in parliamentary democracies rather than being a unique feature of Irish political life.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Fine. So the €143,151 he claimed as 'turning up' expenses over ten years (given that it is €55 per day) means over the past ten years he was in the Dail on average 260 days a year (143,151 / 55 = 2,602 days over 10 years = 260 days)

Even going on the aspirations of how long the Greens wanted the Dail to sit (45weeks per year) and ignoring the fact they dont sit every single day (taking it as Monday to Friday) you get 45x5=225 days. So even with these overly generous Dail days, Gormley still managed to sit for 35 days extra a year?? The man is telling porkies.

Explain that?

And I reckon it aint just Gormley

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

An attendance allowance is an attendance allowance, not a travel allowance. It's designed to encourage TDs to be in the Dáil for their national role rather than in their constituency for their local role. It doesn't matter how one gets there - what counts is being there. Nor is it expenses - it's part of the pay.

And yes, it's common in parliamentary democracies rather than being a unique feature of Irish political life.

wearily,
Scofflaw

So what you're saying is on top of the disproportionately high salaries TDs get to do their jobs, they are given even more to......well, do their jobs? Is that correct?

Why isn't this extra cash just added to their salaries? Perhaps because when we add all these allowances and expenses together along with their salaries, we can clearly see how they are ripping this country off.

The only incentive they should have to come to the Dail is that they were elected to do so.

Do I have to pay the taxi man extra to pick me up as well as taking me to my destination? Of course not, it's all part of their job.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Fine. So the €143,151 he claimed as 'turning up' expenses over ten years (given that it is €55 per day) means over the past ten years he was in the Dail on average 260 days a year (143,151 / 55 = 2,602 days over 10 years = 260 days)

Even going on the aspirations of how long the Greens wanted the Dail to sit (45weeks per year) and ignoring the fact they dont sit every single day (taking it as Monday to Friday) you get 45x5=225 days. So even with these overly generous Dail days, Gormley still managed to sit for 35 days extra a year?? The man is telling porkies.

Explain that?

And I reckon it aint just Gormley

Since €143,151 divided by €55 isn't a round number, the calculation evidently can't be done that way. And if the expenses have been vouched by the Oireachtas (as the Oireachtas has said they have been), then he will hardly have got away with claiming for days the Oireachtas knew he couldn't have claimed for. Also, attendance is not just applicable when the Dáil is sitting, but on any day Leinster House is open.

The problem I have here is that it's being called expenses by people who aren't bothering to check whether that's what it actually is - the attendance allowance isn't expenses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

So what you're saying is on top of the disproportionately high salaries TDs get to do their jobs, they are given even more to......well, do their jobs? Is that correct?

That's correct, and it's hardly the only job of which that's true.

demonspawn wrote: »

Why isn't this extra cash just added to their salaries? Perhaps because when we add all these allowances and expenses together along with their salaries, we can clearly see how they are ripping this country off.

The only incentive they should have to come to the Dail is that they were elected to do so.

Do I have to pay the taxi man extra to pick me up as well as taking me to my destination? Of course not, it's all part of their job.

The TD is elected by his constituency - one could therefore claim, quite reasonably, that his duty is to be in his constituency and available to his constituents. In fact, his duty is to do both, but the allowance for attending the Dáil at least acknowledges the fact that from a politician's point of view, time spent in Leinster House adds virtually nothing to his chances of re-election, and may even damage them.

There's a disconnect there, certainly - TDs are supposed to be national legislators, but they're elected as local politicians. The only reasonable way around that is a list system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

donkey balls

maybe Rody Molloy the ex boss of FAS thought him how to claim extra expenses while gormless worked in FAS:rolleyes:

Coillte_Bhoy

demonspawn wrote: »

That would pay the average working class wages for a year. I wonder how long before people just start attacking ministers/TDs in the street. It's obvious that going through the legal system is an absolute waste of time and energy.

Thats just plain nonsense saying that it's equals an annual working class salary. get your facts riight ffs.

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's correct, and it's hardly the only job of which that's true.

Yes, but most people that work on commission get a very low wage, which is supplemented by the amount of work they put in. If you perform well, you get paid accordingly.

The TD is elected by his constituency - one could therefore claim, quite reasonably, that his duty is to be in his constituency and available to his constituents. In fact, his duty is to do both, but the allowance for attending the Dáil at least acknowledges the fact that from a politician's point of view, time spent in Leinster House adds virtually nothing to his chances of re-election, and may even damage them.

There's a disconnect there, certainly - TDs are supposed to be national legislators, but they're elected as local politicians. The only reasonable way around that is a list system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem with this system is TDs are not actually required to sit in the Dail to get the allowance. Most TDs show up in the morning, sign their name, then piss off again. Anyone who's ever watched the Oireachtas Report on RTE1 knows this to be true. 55 euros to sign your name? That's ridiculous.

demonspawn

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Thats just plain nonsense saying that it's equals an annual working class salary. get your facts riight ffs.

I was on 12k a year after taxes when I was working as a sales assistant. So tell me how it's plain nonsense? Maybe I should have said minimum wage, which most people in the service industry (the only jobs left in Ireland) are getting.

Coillte_Bhoy

demonspawn wrote: »

I was on 12k a year after taxes when I was working as a sales assistant. So tell me how it's plain nonsense? Maybe I should have said minimum wage, which most people in the service industry (the only jobs left in Ireland) are getting.

It seemed that you were suggesting it was the average imdustrial wage. As regards the difference between expenses and allowances you seem to be rather confused.

Coillte_Bhoy

demonspawn wrote: »

I was on 12k a year after taxes when I was working as a sales assistant. So tell me how it's plain nonsense? Maybe I should have said minimum wage, which most people in the service industry (the only jobs left in Ireland) are getting.

How on earth could you have been paying taxes on such a small salary??

demonspawn

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

How on earth could you have been paying taxes on such a small salary??

Excellent question which I don't have the answer for. I was getting 8.30 an hour (the minimum wage at the time) and walked away with about 260 a week after PAYE. Miscalculation actually, I was on 13,520 a year.

demonspawn

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

As regards the difference between expenses and allowances you seem to be rather confused.

Why isn't this extra cash just added to their salaries? Perhaps because when we add all these allowances and expenses together along with their salaries, we can clearly see how they are ripping this country off.

Eh, what? I've never suggested that the allowance to show up for work was the same as the expenses they are allowed.

Edit: One could easily argue that their expenses are just another allowance.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

Yes, but most people that work on commission get a very low wage, which is supplemented by the amount of work they put in. If you perform well, you get paid accordingly.

I was thinking more of jobs with an "on-site" allowance, like working at sea, piloting, etc, rather than commission. Mind you, I know some people who are on very high salaries plus commission.

demonspawn wrote: »

The problem with this system is TDs are not actually required to sit in the Dail to get the allowance. Most TDs show up in the morning, sign their name, then piss off again. Anyone who's ever watched the Oireachtas Report on RTE1 knows this to be true. 55 euros to sign your name? That's ridiculous.

That's because it's not a sitting allowance. If it was, it would be for sitting in the House. As it is, it's for being at Leinster House, and no TV show will show you TDs in their offices in Leinster House, where from my experience they do spend quite a lot of time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

reprazant wrote: »

So what if he cycled.

He, like all other TD's, was being paid to turn up. How he got there is irrelevant and I am sure that there is a separate expense of that also.

No, it's not irrelevant.

If there's a rule there that's wasting this much of our hard-earned cash, then they should represent us and fix that.

He's paid his salary to do his job.

As Scofflaw pointed out, the Dáil is one of those few cushy jobs that pays you extra to actually show up, but this should be related to expenses based on the fact that you can't "represent" an area without returning to it pretty often.

However, if you don't pay to get there, you shouldn't claim.

Maybe Gormley is "within the rules", but the rules are wrong, and it's up to the Government to fix that before preaching to the rest of us about how cycling is cheaper and how we need to tighten our belts.

The old argument of "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" won't cut it anymore; the TDs are there to represent US; they're OUR EMPLOYEES, and they need to start voting on things we want done instead of voting for the likes of NAMA.

Laminations

Scofflaw, even dividing the amount by 10 years and 365 days a year it works out about 40quid a day?

Care to explain to me how it's calculated? I'm guessing you, like me, don't know and that's the problem. Total lack of transparency. When asked to explain the amount Gormley simply says he's not the worst :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

When asked to explain the amount Gormley simply says he's not the worst :rolleyes:

Which, given the company he keeps in Government, he certainly isn't.

But the fact remains that we need accountability, and answers like that are simply not good enough.

Would that answer be acceptable, I wonder, if someone arrived at your door saying that you claimed far more in children's allowance than you should have ?

Sizzler

A lot of the thread has focused on the attendance element of the "expense" claim but for me one of the key elements here is how you can claim for a constituency office miles from where the people you are supposed to be representing and none of the constituents knew about it

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Scofflaw, even dividing the amount by 10 years and 365 days a year it works out about 40quid a day?

Care to explain to me how it's calculated? I'm guessing you, like me, don't know and that's the problem. Total lack of transparency. When asked to explain the amount Gormley simply says he's not the worst :rolleyes:

Agree with you there - it's pretty hard to explain the figure, and even harder to imagine how anyone else is claiming more than that. However, if you look at the new system that replaces the €55 allowance:

The system was changed in March to a standard unvouched €12,000 a year for Dublin TDs and senators with those from outside the capital falling into a range of payment bands up to €37,850.

There's not much difference between that and what Gormley has apparently claimed. The above works out at 218.2 days @ €55/day. So either there's more to the allowance than we're being told, or TDs are expected to spend pretty much a working year in Leinster House every year, and Gormley has done so for most of the last decade. I have to say my impression is that he's there pretty much every working day - which leaves this a question of whether there should be such a payment, and whether it's too high.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nijmegen

If he represents in Dublin it'd be easy enough to do most of his work from his Dail office and hold clinics down the road.

Still, it's a completely opaque system where we can't tell the legitimate expenses from the people riding the system - therefore, us - for all we're worth.

Scofflaw

Nijmegen wrote: »

If he represents in Dublin it'd be easy enough to do most of his work from his Dail office and hold clinics down the road.

Still, it's a completely opaque system where we can't tell the legitimate expenses from the people riding the system - therefore, us - for all we're worth.

I agree entirely with that. The new version is an improvement, mind you - attendance and payments records are here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=169&m=m

cordially,
Scofflaw

i57dwun4yb1pt8

wow , I need to advise my boss he needs to pay me 20% more from now on
for me to bother dragging my hole into work to do the job im paid for .

bijapos

Sizzler wrote: »

A lot of the thread has focused on the attendance element of the "expense" claim but for me one of the key elements here is how you can claim for a constituency office miles from where the people you are supposed to be representing and none of the constituents knew about it

Fownes St is in his constituency of Dublin South East.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

...either there's more to the allowance than we're being told, or TDs are expected to spend pretty much a working year in Leinster House every year, and Gormley has done so for most of the last decade.

And thats the problem, I smell bull****. TDs are expected to, and they are claiming that they do, but in reality thats not the case

Irish Times wrote:

THE ATTENDANCE records of TDs in the Dáil for the first two weeks of a new clocking-in system are only a “snapshot” of the new operation, an Oireachtas spokesman has said.
His comments follow the release of information showing 17 of 136 TDs listed had full attendance records at Leinster House for the 10 working days between March 1st when the system was introduced and March 12th.

source


And thats after the clocking-in system when they know their attendance is being monitored.

I have to say my impression is that he's there pretty much every working day

Really, the man hasn't been sick in ten years? hasn't attended to any constituency work in his secret office? hasn't gone on any junkets?

I want that figure explained, someone interviewing him should press him on it.

Scofflaw

DaDumTish wrote: »

wow , I need to advise my boss he needs to pay me 20% more from now on
for me to bother dragging my hole into work to do the job im paid for .

TDs aren't really "paid to do a job", though - they're compensated for not working while representing their constituency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

And thats the problem, I smell bull****. TDs are expected to, and they are claiming that they do, but in reality thats not the case


source


And thats after the clocking-in system when they know their attendance is being monitored.

Sure - I'm not sure why I'm being cast as arguing that the majority of TDs attend punctiliously.

Laminations wrote: »

Really, the man hasn't been sick in ten years? hasn't attended to any constituency work in his secret office? hasn't gone on any junkets?

I want that figure explained, someone interviewing him should press him on it.

I'd be interested to see it explained myself, but (a) he probably has been sick, but that would hardly make a dent in a 220 day working year, and (b) junkets and the like are actually paid as attendance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

My point is the turning up allowance is obviously not as simple as €55 a day because the figures don't add up, so I want it explained - how does one get €143,151 over ten years for supposedly attending the Dail and what is their attendance record.

Nijmegen

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree entirely with that. The new version is an improvement, mind you - attendance and payments records are here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=169&m=m

cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe I've said before that I'm all for as transparent as possible government.

I think that all of their pay, allowances, expenses, every receipt down to a pair of speedos at a hotel (I heard of a quango CEO pulling that one), should be recorded and justified, and rates and decisions set by a completely independant and aggressive (in the sense of approach to high standards) ombudsman.

maynooth_rules

Scofflaw wrote: »

TDs aren't really "paid to do a job", though - they're compensated for not working while representing their constituency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is their work not representing their constituents though? They don't have to run in an election, so why the hell should they be compensated for not working when they are elected. Being payed to turn up for your job, when the basic payment for your job is a good three times the average salary is a joke. I would love something to come of this issue as John Gormley is a person i could not have any less respect for

Mr.Applepie

Scofflaw wrote: »

TDs aren't really "paid to do a job", though - they're compensated for not working while representing their constituency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would be under the impression that a TD's job is to represent their constituency in the Dail (ie on national matters). Local issues should be left to local politicians and TD's shouldn't be involved in same.

P. Breathnach

maynooth_rules wrote: »

... I would love something to come of this issue as John Gormley is a person i could not have any less respect for

The core issue is not John Gormley: it is the system of expenses and allowances for TDs (and, by reasonable extension, senators). It looks as if Gormley used the system in the way it was designed to be used, so it is unfair to single him out for special attention.

Attack the system, and I will join you, because I think it is wrong. But if you attack one person who uses the system, and ignore all the others, I will suspect that you are not motivated by a desire that things be made right.

bijapos

Expenses Claimed 2008 Constituency Travel Allowance€2,745.12Miscellaneous Expense Allowance€5,481.81Telephone Allowance€6,348.68Constituency Office Grant€9,036.30Special Secretarial AllowancenilOffice EstablishmentnilMobile Phone Claims€331.00Travel and Subsistence€10,728.81ISDN AllowancenilNon-committee Travelnil Total€34,671.80


What do people think of these claims?

"Constituency travel" and "Travel and Subsistence" come to over €13,000! For a Dublin TD? As P.Breathnach says its the system.

Scofflaw

I would be under the impression that a TD's job is to represent their constituency in the Dail (ie on national matters). Local issues should be left to local politicians and TD's shouldn't be involved in same.

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Is their work not representing their constituents though? They don't have to run in an election, so why the hell should they be compensated for not working when they are elected. Being payed to turn up for your job, when the basic payment for your job is a good three times the average salary is a joke.

Their work is indeed representing their constituency, but the point is that it is not structured as a standard form of employment. For historical reasons it's structured as a series of compensation payments for a period of representation, and the payment for attending Leinster House acknowledges that the TD has no fixed "place of work".

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I would love something to come of this issue as John Gormley is a person i could not have any less respect for

I would say you're likely to disappointed there, since you can't really make much more out of nothing than what's already been made.

As P. Breathnach says, if there's a systemic fault that's one thing, but a press-led witch hunt against a representative you personally dislike (and who it appears the Indo dislikes) is another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Attack the system, and I will join you, because I think it is wrong. But if you attack one person who uses the system, and ignore all the others, I will suspect that you are not motivated by a desire that things be made right.

There's little point attacking the system. Healy-Rae was on the radio re the Mayor of Kerry expenses and when asked whether he thought it was right started repeating "It's the system", as if he was possessed.

Those who milk it are the very ones who should be fixing it.

As I've said elsewhere, it's no longer acceptable to say "turkeys don't vote for Christmas". The public likes Christmas, and the turkeys are our employees.

Gormley is in Government and so has the power to fix "the system". Instead he chooses to milk us for our cash while dreaming up new ways to tax our septic tanks and water.