IMO chief exec lump sum

Ryder

take everything wrote: »

Just read in today's Sunday's Business Post that the IMO are not progressing with the external review of this scandal.

They've "parked" it citing financial reasons.

Jesus wept.

The decent, transparent thing to do would have been to issue a statement to all members first....i presume they didn't. Instead they just create a strike smokescreen all the while forcing non members to join for protection. No personal regrets about leaving that group

Abby19

take everything wrote: »

Just read in today's Sunday's Business Post that the IMO are not progressing with the external review of this scandal.

They've "parked" it citing financial reasons.

Jesus wept.

Ryder wrote: »

The decent, transparent thing to do would have been to issue a statement to all members first....i presume they didn't. Instead they just create a strike smokescreen all the while forcing non members to join for protection. No personal regrets about leaving that group

Well I guess they were decent and transparent as they posted an update to members last Thursday. The appointment has been deferred due to the possibility of two legal actions which have more immediate need for these funds. Content of email posted below.

IMO Council Update



Dear Colleagues

As part of our reform of the IMO, I put great store on importance of communication with our members. I have already travelled to many meetings of members in different parts of the country and we are now scheduling further meetings for the months ahead. These meetings have provided a valuable opportunity to garner the views of members on all aspects of the Organisation but most particularly on what should be the priority issues.

I want to start a process of providing communication from Council on the thinking of the organisation on key issues and I think it is appropriate that members are updated from time to time on the decisions taken at Council through communications such as this.

Council is the governing body of the Organisation and it represents all specialty groups within our membership with representation from each of the Specialty Committees. Council now meets more regularly to discuss and debate the key issues around industrial relations and policy. Importantly it now acts as an additional forum for all the specialty groups to bring each other up to date on the particular issues facing their own grouping.

At our most recent meeting on 26th September Council dealt with a number of important issues as follows.

Agreement on a new venue for the next AGM

One of the things which members have been very vocal about on my visits to different counties has been the need to move the AGM away from its location of recent years in order to increase its accessibility for members around the country and, in part, to mark a break with the past.

It wasn’t practical to do that for the AGM last April (we would have lost significant booking deposits and so forth) but we have prioritised the need to move the AGM to a new location from next year and we have now concluded that search.

Council has agreed that the 2014 AGM should be held in Carton House, County Kildare, next April. Council has also agreed that the AGM should take place over the weekend of the 25th – 27th April. The venue meets the requirement of the Organisation to run a full business programme along with social and family activities. It is the intention of Council to revamp the AGM Programme so as to ensure members get maximum benefit from attending both in terms of industrial relations issues and continuing professional development.

Industrial Relations

Our recent Council meeting spent a considerable amount of time discussing IR issues.

Since the changes in the organisation that occurred at the start of this year, we have given renewed emphasis to industrial relations activity on behalf of our members:

We were at the forefront of the campaign to reject Croke Park II and to secure an improved (though far from perfect) Public Service Agreement – the Haddington Road Agreement.
We are engaged in a long running campaign on behalf of NCHDs to force the Government to implement the European Working Time Directive and end the abuse of NCHDs. IMO Council unanimously support our NCHD colleagues in this fight and condemn the HSE for its continued inertia over illegal working hours.
We have argued strongly for our right to fully represent our GP members in respect of the GMS and other publicly funded contracts. We are now defending the rights of GPs in a court case taken by the Competition Authority against the IMO.
We have initiated what we will ensure is an intense engagement with the HSE on career pathways for all doctors and on the inequity of the two tier Consultant workforce. We will be highlighting how the disparity in pay is not only unfair in the extreme but ultimately bad for the development of a consultant provided service which is the stated aim of Government.
The Council meeting heard detailed presentations on the two very significant areas in which we are currently fighting to defend our members’ rights:

Competition Authority v IMO: We are now committed to defending an action on behalf of our GP members being taken against the organisation by the Competition Authority. This is perhaps the most significant fight that we have been engaged in for almost a decade and we must commit all necessary resources to ensuring we defend our position and restore our rights to fully represent GPs in their dealings with Government. There is no denying that this will require very significant financial resources to be set aside by the Organisation so as to ensure that we are in a position to fight the fight. We are setting aside €1million as a legal fighting fund on this case.

NCHDs 24 No More: IMO Council unanimously supported the overwhelming majority in the ballot of our NCHD colleagues on escalating their campaign to put an end to illegal and dangerous working hours and condemned the HSE for its continued inertia on this issue. The campaign to date has required significant expenditure and, having considered the matter, Council has agreed in principle that, if required, the Organisation will back and fund a further case to the High Court for breach of the 2009 High Court Settlement Agreement.

Clearly this places significant constraint on our finances but the Organisation is committed to ensuring that its resources are spent in a manner that most benefits and serves members.

New Governance Structures

Council also heard a detailed update on the Governance Structure Review Programme. As agreed by you, our members, we have now established a Governance Committee which has representatives from each of the four IMO specialty committees. The key objective of the Governance Committee is to develop new structures which are transparent and deliver on accountability. The Governance Committee will, upon completion of its work, bring recommendations to IMO Council for consideration.

Given that the Committee is mandated to examine the structures and operation of the Organisation there will be some significant rule changes required to our constitution which will require the approval of the wider membership. The aim is to complete the work of the Committee by the end of this year and thereafter Council will develop new rules which will be circulated to the membership, along with a report on the new structures. Such rule changes require a 60 day notice period so it may be that rather than hold two separate meetings they will be brought to the 2014 AGM so as to facilitate the widest possible number of members engaging in the debate.

Retrospective Review

Council also heard an update on the Retrospective Review that was proposed and agreed at an EGM in March. Following that EGM, we published advertisements in the Irish Times. We secured expression of interest from eighteen companies. We invited those companies to submit very detailed tender documents and ultimately we shortlisted four firms – each of which we have now met and interviewed with a view to identifying the most appropriate firm to carry out the exercise.

However at its deliberations on this issue, members of Council expressed concern at the proposed review on two grounds.

Firstly the tender process has confirmed that the organisation will face substantial costs to complete a comprehensive independent review at a time when we are already facing significant costs in defending the Competition Authority case (in respect for our work on behalf of GPs) case and the EWTD campaign (in respect of our work on behalf of NCHDs). It appears, from the tenders and associated costs, that the potential cost to the organisation for this review exercise could be in the order of a quarter of a million euro and perhaps more given that we have been advised that there may be additional costs outside of our control, particularly potential legal costs which we are not in a position to quantify.

Secondly, members were also concerned that the tender process had raised serious concerns that a comprehensive review, while very expensive, could ultimately fail to provide the organisation with a document that we could distribute to members as we wish to at the end of the exercise.

So given the very significant financial commitments currently facing the organisation (Defence of Competition Authority Court Case re GPs and NCHD Campaign in particular) and conscious that Council is required to work in the best interests of members and has to ensure the financial stability of the Organisation, Council has deferred the decision to appoint appoint a company at this time with a view to bringing the matter to the wider membership at a future date along with the new structures.

Busy months ahead

Many members have commented to me in recent months about the new energy and dynamism that is evident in the organisation; members are encouraged that the old dogmas are now being challenged and that the organisation is now much more member-focussed than was the case previously. I am committed to ensuring that this new approach is embedded across the organisation in the coming months which are critical for all of us.

In the New Year, the organisation will mark the 30th anniversary of its foundation. We have achieved an awful lot over the past three decades and we’ve had our share of disappointments and own goals! But we are fighting fit and we are sharply focused. The health services are under greater pressure than ever and it is imperative that a strong IMO with the support of a united and confident membership exists to defend the health services from misguided policies and dangerous experimentation.

Thank you for your continued support.

Dr. Matthew Sadlier

President

IMO House
10 Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2

Ryder

Thanks. Fair enough I stand corrected. Maybe its just coincidence that this new 'dynamism' coincides with the financial strains,but I can't help being suspicious about the timing. 12 years of 36hr shifts and suddenly it a major issue? But as a past member I think I deserve at least some explanation of where and why my sibs were allocated. In the interests of transparency, why not publish the internal report? Redact names if legally necessary but please provide at least a chain of events.

his_dudeness

Ryder wrote: »

..... Instead they just create a strike smokescreen all the while forcing non members to join for protection. ......

Eh, as one of the newer NCHD committee members, I take exception to the accusation of a smokescreen and forcing non-members to join. People join and leave if they want to. The strike is certainly no smokescreen

ThatDrGuy

The strike is no smoke stream. The timing of the release during IA certainly is. The IMO body hired Gordon crisis media management (with member's own funds) during the scandal to figure out the best ways to bullsh1t their membership. In all likelihood this was part of their strategy to prevent any inquiry. A lot of big boys have had their nose in the trough at members expense for years. Some still do. They have been doing their damnedest to cover up their largesse. The IMO corporate body is a parasite that lives off the IMO's membership. They have ignored and exploited them for years. Right now their interests ( rebuilding the finances ) and ours converge. Going forward the IMO is a dead duck. The GP's, sick of being ignored and sick of the rampant financial misappropriation have effectively set up their own union. It will soon have negotiating rights. When it does, I assume the majority of them will not be interested in paying a thousand euro a year into such a mess of an organisation. The majority of consultants have left also. In a few months many of the new NCHD members will leave ( everyone I know is paying by direct debit and intends to cancel asap ) NB This has nothing to do with the sterling work done by the NCHD committees. It is a shame that we are forced to associate with such a shower.

laoisdoc

It is unbelievable although predictable that the IMO has chickened out of the external review. It cites the financial cost . The IMO has plenty of money for McNeice.

I was at the local CME meeting yesterday and spoke to several IMO members who had either not received the communique from Sadler or had not bothered to read it. It bewilders me that so many people remain with the IMO.

The IMO would not have the competition case on its hands if it had done something about it 5 years ago but it has let the problem fester, feeding us with the line that the government will do something about it.

The IMO just cant grasp the point that the government has absolutely no intention of negotiating with GPs. Any new contract will be take it or leave it.

echo beach

laoisdoc wrote: »

The IMO just cant grasp the point that the government has absolutely no intention of negotiating with GPs. Any new contract will be take it or leave it.

That is the key point. Free GP care for under 5s has been costed at €36 million a year, which doesn't sound a lot. The amount that will be paid to GPs has already been decided and is not subject to negotiation.
There will be an announcement with a big fanfare and it will be a brave GP who refuses to accept the offer 'in the current climate'. The manipulation of public opinion has already been done. The choice will be take it or face the wrath of the public and the media.

j.mcdrmd

The IMO's current position looks like a "dead cat bounce" to me.

The IMO have quite serious accounting and governance issues to answer to.

They seem happy to kick those to touch.

Accounting is there to protect the interested parties money.

Interested parties being the members, past, present and future of the IMO.

Questions need to be answered in this regard.

Zebb_Tech

I agree with Muiris Houston - you would imagine, considering the amount of members money that was involved in the McNeice fiasco, €250k is only a drop in the ocean in comparison & given the damage it did to the organisation, it would be a valuable investment for the IMO for its reputation going forward.

I also think that the fact that notification of the deferral of the review was bundled into such a lengthy memo to members again highlights the lack of transparency in the organisation


http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2013/10/a-question-of-best-practice.html

j.mcdrmd

Zebb_Tech wrote: »

I agree with Muiris Houston - you would imagine, considering the amount of members money that was involved in the McNeice fiasco, €250k is only a drop in the ocean in comparison & given the damage it did to the organisation, it would be a valuable investment for the IMO for its reputation going forward.

I also think that the fact that notification of the deferral of the review was bundled into such a lengthy memo to members again highlights the lack of transparency in the organisation


http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2013/10/a-question-of-best-practice.html

That makes sense to me. €250k is a drop in the ocean, in the context of this debacle.

Is there any way that the NCHD's can be absorbed into a proper Doctors union though? I mean a union where Doctors work together for the greater good.

I would be scared, if I was a GP, referring a patient to a hospital where I knew that Doctors were so overworked that I would be signing a medical cert. for them if they presented to me.

I would be even more scared, if I was a Consultant, depending on a team of sleep, fluid and food deprived zombies who I am expected to be responsible for.

j.mcdrmd

Looking at the reasons for dropping financial enquiries into this on Facebook (enough is enough) I felt uncomfortable enough to seek an opinion from someone who knows a bit about the financial world. This is what I got back.

For clarity, it is one persons opinion and should be seen as that.

"It seems very clear that for at least 5 years the accounts of the IMO presented its members and funders with completely misleading accounts. Accounts are meant to advise stakeholders about the true state of their interest in the organisation. If the 20m liability had been disclosed in a true and fair manner no member with the intelligence that we associate with the profession would have contributed a red cent. Instead they paid exhorbitant fees for at least 5 years to fill this invisible hole.

In any ordinary company the director of Corporate Enforcement would have been down on this organisation and its officers like a ton of bricks.

If we are being told that the nature of the legal status of the IMO is that it is not so accountable then it surely takes a raw nerve to ask members to continue to fund such an unaccountable setup.

The fact is that members should have their last 5 years fees refunded on grounds of gross misrepresentation and falsified accounts.

That is of course an appalling vista and explains why those currently in IMO office will seek to avoid in any possible way whatsoever, possibly even having convinced themselves that there is no accountability.

We all know there has been gross malfeasance here. If there was a will we would surely find a way to accountability.

But this is not just about accountability. The organisation has been duped into a financial millstone about its neck, €4 MILLION deferred liability (the bit of the pension that is being held back). At a minimum that should be removed, possibly members would agree to withdraw any claims for past fees paid under misrepresentation, at least then the future might look brighter than the past.

laoisdoc

Agree strongly. What can I do as an IMO member who left in disgust last Xmas? The current IMO members seem to think it water under the bridge. Should aggrieved IMO members and ex members get together to take a class action against the IMO for their misuse of funds and concealment of what was going on?

j.mcdrmd

Laoisdoc I asked on your behalf, this is the reply I received, of course it is the financial persons opinion.

"The members did not want a report per se, it was the best that could be squeezed out of the IMO at an EGM. It is cynical to now suggest that what was being demanded was a sort of “name and shame” Mahon style tribunal. We can be sure that such a tribunal would not be cost effective and we already know the names and we know that these names are beneath shame anyway.

What the members want is as much of their money back as possible whilst some of it still remains in the ownership of the IMO. The members are being bullied into a sense of helplessness – some are indeed becoming weary and want to move on, but is that based on false information?

The question which the members need to be answered is in the first instance hypothetical.

“If it can be proved that the accounts of the organisation were misleading in a material way and due to withheld information have the members any recourse in law to claim that their fees were paid under false pretences and have they then any legal claim to have them refunded.”

Remember that all those years the IMO was trading as an insolvent organisation as it had a hidden 20M liability to its CEO. That is against the law for an ordinary company. It would need someone more expert than I in company law to answer the above question definitively in the case of the IMO but it surely would not cost too much to get such an answer to such a straightforward hypothetical question.

If the answer is “yes” then the supplementary question is “how do the members go about proving that the accounts were grossly misleading”.

If the answer is “no” then the members are faced with the stark reality that this can happen again without accountability.

There is still quite a lot of money in the IMO’s coffers but most of it (4M) is earmarked for the former CEO. Consider if the members could win a legal case against the IMO and presuming the IMO would not defend itself that should not be a costly exercise. Let’s say it is found that the last five years’ accounts were misleading in a material way and let’s say a legal case is successful in securing that all the fees in those years were illegally garnered then the IMO would have a liability of say 16M to its members. It would have to be wound up and its assets divided amongst its creditors so the former CEO would probably still keep say 1M of his 4M pot. It’s still a 3M gain for the members but more importantly there would be a feeling that some just closure had been achieved. The members would I imagine agree to have their 3M transferred into IMO 2.

You can see that the IMO officer corps is not going to suggest that course of action. It clearly has a conflict of interest with its members.

As I say if there was a will there would be a way to get some redress for members, but it will not come from existing IMO channels."

I hope this helps.

laoisdoc

Thank you J.mcdrmd. Would you be happy for me to paste this onto the discussion forum in GP buddy? will only do this with your agreement.

j.mcdrmd

Laoisdoc, I checked with my contact and confirm that they are happy to stand over their opinion and have it posted elsewhere.

macknees

Where there is a will there is a way. The CRC guy was in the haflpenny place compared to our man, yet everyone is out to get the CRC guy's money back, minister talking about corporate enforcement, the gardai et. al.

The difference is that the people who need to show this level of resolve in the IMO case are the IMO officials themselves and they are hopelessly conflicted.

Zebb_Tech

The IMO are at it again - €118,400 paid to the Revenue Commissioners in penalties, interest and taxes

Whats another €118,400 of members fees!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0403/606519-imo-revenue/.

his_dudeness

Wouldn't the taxes have had to been paid anyway? Given the furore over the year, not surprising the Revenue targeted them, though only looked at 09 to 12. No doubt "someone" was hedging the accounts over the preceding years too.

DubDocX

Did anyone see Pg 6 of Phoenix magazine (11th April issue)? What in Gods name is going on in the IMO??

"Doctors have also been kept in the dark about the results of an internal inquiry held within the organisation over the past year, following allegations by a member of staff, who remains on sick leave. The review was conducted by a two member sub-committee, former presidents Dr Sean Tierney and Dr Paul McKeown, who have recently reported."

Who are they protecting? I read about bullying allegations in previous articles about the IMO - is this more of the same? Some behaviour for a Union!

Zebb_Tech

Maeve Sheehan has a very interesting article in today's Indo entitled "HSE pulled plug on GP website over cost"

The IMO are continuing to block the release of information regarding HSE funding they received - taxpayers money.

Heard new IMO president Prof Trevor Duffy on Radio 1 at lunch time - he was asked if the reason the retrospective review was 'postponed' was because they don't want to release what they have found or are afraid of why they might find! I reckon RTE have hit the nail on the head!

dissed doc

Zebb_Tech wrote: »

Maeve Sheehan has a very interesting article in today's Indo entitled "HSE pulled plug on GP website over cost"

The IMO are continuing to block the release of information regarding HSE funding they received - taxpayers money.

Heard new IMO president Prof Trevor Duffy on Radio 1 at lunch time - he was asked if the reason the retrospective review was 'postponed' was because they don't want to release what they have found or are afraid of why they might find! I reckon RTE have hit the nail on the head!

What's sad is that after all the hullaballo last year about the EWTD and conditions, the end result was still just to replenish the coffers.

Should be wound down, disbanded and forgotten about. Better to allow doctors form local unions around the country where they work and live and negotiate with the healthcare employers directly. One size does not fit all, and once it gets so big, the people at the top get paranoid and protective about the territory and cash they have coming in.

take everything

dissed doc wrote: »

What's sad is that after all the hullaballo last year about the EWTD and conditions, the end result was still just to replenish the coffers.

Correct.

DubDocX

According to yesterday's Independent (can't post link), the IMO are in the LRC tomorrow facing an embarrassing claim by a senior executive over a failure to pay sick pay. And what's even funnier is that George McNeice is set to give evidence on her behalf! The mind boggles!

j.mcdrmd

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1003/649851-imo/

Why would anyone trust Doctors?

ergo

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1003/649851-imo/

Why would anyone trust Doctors?

IMO votes not to hold McNeice pension inquiry

this is unbelievable - he wangles a €20 million pension entitlement and the (new) heads of IMO effectively force a cover up of it with scare tactics ahead of this vote

this vote and the massive number of doctors still in the IMO make me so angry and fearful for the future of medicine in ireland with this level of apathy towards such a scandal / not to mention zero appetite for positive change

take everything

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1003/649851-imo/

****ing pathetic.
Not surprising.

j.mcdrmd

take everything wrote: »

****ing pathetic.
Not surprising.

I agree that it is pathetic.

However, it could be argued that the IMO are doing an excellent job.
Imagine if your goal was to keep the budget for Healthcare away from Doctors who demand the best possible care for their Patients.

Doctors treating Patients costs money. Stopping Doctors from treating Patients must seem to cost less I suppose.

I also agree with the article by Muiris Houston in the IMT (link below).

(‘No’ vote has implications far beyond the IMO
While it must be respected, the ballot result against holding an investigation into the management of the IMO prior to the departure of George McNeice will continue the erosion of public confidence in the union and in doctors generally, believes Dr Muiris Houston.)

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2014/10/vote-implications-far-beyond-imo.html

RJM54

so did you resign?

DubDocX

It appears through negotiations with the IMO back in 2012 that GPs have been able to reinstate medical cards the last 2 and a half years!

RTE 6 o clock news (RTE Player)

Pg 21 of the 2012 IMO annual report (on IMO website)
" a joint IMO/ PCRS documents was agreed dealing with the 17 IMO recommendations contained in the IMO submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee. The system went live in March and was used to add new borns, reinstate patients
as well as remove patients from the system. In addition the system provides for sensitive renewals".

Did the IMO advise members of this at the time? And why the hell did they not mention it when cards were being taken away from patients? Also why did the GP chair make such claims on today's news when he wrote the above report in the first place????