CRC used charity donations to top up pay !!

dj jarvis

Unbelievable !

Using charity donations to top up the pay of top executives, the Fing cheek !!

With this news you can bet that charity wont be getting any cash soon , and who suffers ??? you guessed it - the people that really need the help

any opinions ?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/central-remedial-clinic-admits-charity-money-used-for-topup-payments-to-senior-staff-29793138.html

SimonQuinlank

Not unbelievable at all really.Majority of executives of big name 'charities' (Focus,SVDP,Concern etc) are all on 6 figure salaries so I'd imagine this lark is fairly common.

road_high

SimonQuinlank wrote: »

Not unbelievable at all really.Majority of executives of big name 'charities' (Focus,SVDP,Concern etc) are all on 6 figure salaries so I'd imagine this lark is fairly common.

Yep the so-called "Charity" industry is big business indeed with eye-watering salaries to match. Where do people think all that comes from? Obviously the donations!

dj jarvis

not directly from the donations of the public , the children s hospital in crumlin were running a radio campaign looking for donations before all this broke 2 weeks ago , since then , they have changed the add to include the advisory that no money donation goes to topping up the wages

IFAIK these people are paid a wage by the charity , these other payments are a " supplement" to that wage , mostly hidden as far as i can make out from the media reporting

disgusting if true - no wonder they try hide it from prying eyes.

dj jarvis

road_high wrote: »

Yep the so-called "Charity" industry is big business indeed with eye-watering salaries to match. Where do people think all that comes from? Obviously the donations!

so absolutely no public funding and HSE involvement in deciding the wage level ?

if its all cool - why was it hidden in many cases ?
i understand the concept that a charity uses its donations to fund its staff , but these are coming across as something else - much like the hospitals who were paying the top brass " under the table "

All this only came to light by a HSE audit - if any public funding goes towards these wages and they are " skimming " , then its not feckin on

Busted Flat.

It is time to stop giving to these sham charities to top up the payments to the low life at the top of the heap. When someone sticks a collection box, or a donation card for these hospital charities. Ask them apart from themselves who are collecting who gets the big donation. You will be surprised that it is not the hospital, but the greedy ba$tard$ at the top who are bleeding the health service of their funds. The day has come to name and shame these parasites.

Mint Aero

This being one of the many reasons why I rarely donate to charity.

goz83

These executives are paid a public salary. I know one of them was being paid over 100k by the public and got topped up by about 130k, or more, leaving his salary at about 230k. That was the former chief exec. I am absolutely disgusted by this, because I was assured when I signed up that donations go to the charity and not to pay salaries. I pay them €15 per month and have doe for over a year. I will be cancelling that DD first thing tomorrow. SCUMBAGS! They should be forced to pay it back, as it breaches their public sector salary agreement.

edit: speak of the devil! 240k

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/central-remedial-clinic-used-charity-money-to-top-up-senior-staff-salaries-1.1610631

biko

The greed displayed by these managers makes me want to puke.
They are no better than the warlords in Africa that withhold UN supplies for ransom.

Twickers

All of those that received "top ups" from Charities, should be subject to Disciplinary Action (Dismissal) & moves put in place to recover such monies.
If anyone says that there may be "contractual difficulties in recovering such monies", they should still be dismissed and let them take the State to Court.
Head MUST roll over this situation

micosoft

SimonQuinlank wrote: »

Not unbelievable at all really.Majority of executives of big name 'charities' (Focus,SVDP,Concern etc) are all on 6 figure salaries so I'd imagine this lark is fairly common.

Well...No. There is a big difference between people who work for a Charity full time whose only income is the publicly disclosed income from that charity and someone who receives a significant wage from the state AND THEN gets an additional wage from monies collected from fundraising. Please don't tar all charities because of these unorthodox activities in the health care sector.

hansfrei

Thought I'd heard it all. Disgraceful stuff.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/charity-cash-used-to-pay-topups-and-pensions-at-clinic-29794060.html
€3,000,000 of charity money used by the CRC to top up pension payments!

conorhal

Well don't expect the government to do anthing about it. Brendan Howlin got what I consider a very rare media kicking from RTE this morning when he was pointedly asked what moral authority a minister who's own department has breached pay guidelines for special advisors had when it came to ordering other public bodies to be compliant.

You lead by example, and look at the leaders we have.

camel jockey

The Charity Industry is no different to any other industry. Looks like the general public are finally discovering this.

Specialun

is anybody really surprised anymore!

Phoebas

conorhal wrote: »

Well don't expect the government to do anthing about it. Brendan Howlin got what I consider a very rare media kicking from RTE this morning when he was pointedly asked what moral authority a minister who's own department has breached pay guidelines for special advisors had when it came to ordering other public bodies to be compliant.

You lead by example, and look at the leaders we have.

I wouldn't defend many of the individual top ups that were approved for various government advisors, but at least those were published decisions made by publically accountable Ministers.

These CRC top ups breached public pay guidelines without authority and without oversight.

king_of_inismac

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but I'd imagine the rationale for the top up payments is that based on HSE salary guidelines, they didn't think they'd attract or retain the quality of person required to do the job well based on a salary of 100K.

They made a decision that spending an extra 130K to increase the salary of the CEO (or whatever position they had),it would be of net benefit to the organisation. For example, a better CEO might organise the system better, develop better more sustainable funding initiatives, etc, etc. I doubt the board (or whoever made that decision) said "We'd prefer to give our friends a bonus, rather than help those sick Children".

In places where I've worked, I've seen the real tangible benefit of good management, and it's often worth a hell of a lot more than 130K per year.

The problem here is that by using money that people assumed/trusted was going DIRECTLY to the children, was being used (in the organisation's mind at least) to indirectly help the children by developing a better managed organisation.

It's a real pity that people will be less likely to fund-raise for these charities based on these revelations. If the funds are going on wages (or top-ups), then let people know that. A lot of good-will has been tragically lost over this.

Phoebas

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but I'd imagine the rationale for the top up payments is that based on HSE salary guidelines, they didn't think they'd attract or retain the quality of person required to do the job well based on a salary of 100K.

They made a decision that spending an extra 130K to increase the salary of the CEO (or whatever position they had),it would be of net benefit to the organisation. For example, a better CEO might organise the system better, develop better more sustainable funding initiatives, etc, etc. I doubt the board (or whoever made that decision) said "We'd prefer to give our friends a bonus, rather than help those sick Children".

In places where I've worked, I've seen the real tangible benefit of good management, and it's often worth a hell of a lot more than 130K per year.

The problem here is that by using money that people assumed/trusted was going DIRECTLY to the children, was being used (in the organisation's mind at least) to indirectly help the children by developing a better managed organisation.

It's a real pity that people will be less likely to fund-raise for these charities based on these revelations. If the funds are going on wages (or top-ups), then let people know that. A lot of good-will has been tragically lost over this.

The CEO may well deserve a salary top up, but as he is subject to public pay policy, they should have made that case to the minister who has the proper authority to decide if a breach of policy guidelines is warranted (and take the political flak for making that decision).

SEPT 23 1989

This State is rotten from the top down

king_of_inismac

Phoebas wrote: »

The CEO may well deserve a salary top up, but as he is subject to public pay policy, they should have made that case to the minister who has the proper authority to decide if a breach of policy guidelines is warranted (and take the political flak for making that decision).

Ideally yes. You'd justify the increase in salary (or ignoring the cap) and it would be approved by the Minister. However, in reality that would not happen (I know they're removed the cap for certain positions) or they'd delay the decision indefinitely. It's not good politically for the Government to be seen to be increasing salaries in a time of austerity.

The board probably took the pragmatic approach of paying the extra from their own funds (i.e. funds that were raised by you and me). Is that ethical? Is that right? I don't know. I just don't agree with the vilification of the board/CEOs for the decision.

I see Shane Ross "making hay" from this scandal (fat-cats making themselves richer at the expense of kids). It makes a good headline and lights up Joe Duffy's phone line, but it's a very one-sided view in my opinion at least.

king_of_inismac

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This State is rotten from the top down

I can understand your anger but these types of statements really get to me. Look at it from the perspective of each person involved:

• Minister - I put a cap on salaries. In times of austerity, that's a good approach - social solidarity. What did he do wrong?
• Board - I want someone good for the position but with 100K we'll get someone incompetent and the charity/organisation will be much less effective. Maybe we can find some funds to supplement the HSE salary.
• CEO - I am a very experienced professional offered a 230K salary to work for a charity I think I can really help. The details of the basic salary (and top up arrangement) are decided by the board, not me.
• Fund raiser - I'd prefer if the money I raised went DIRECTLY to benefit a kid (e.g. a new MRI machine), rather than something intangible like a CEO's salary, when in reality a good CEO could be of MUCH more benefit long term than any one piece of equipment.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I can understand your anger but these types of statements really get to me. Look at it from the perspective of each person involved:

• Minister - I put a cap on salaries. In times of austerity, that's a good approach - social solidarity. What did he do wrong?
• Board - I want someone good for the position but with 100K we'll get someone incompetent and the charity/organisation will be much less effective. Maybe we can find some funds to supplement the HSE salary.

The inescapable flaw in your argument is that when the CEO who was on €230,000 left in July this year the hire a highly competent person for €107,000, the salary approved by the HSE.

Big C

As a former director of a national charity and a person with a disability, and have been involved locally for many for the same charity I am totally sickened by the top ups. In 20 years involvement with this charity I have had one overnight hotel expense paid and I had one hotel dinner in my 20 years. I can't even begin to think how much time organising fundraisers, committee's, collecting flag days etc etc.

If I find out the ceo of this charity has received wage top ups I will give up all my involvement with this charity. The only thing I can't give up is my disability. SHAME on the greedy fcukers

king_of_inismac

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

The inescapable flaw in your argument is that when the CEO who was on €230,000 left in July this year the hire a highly competent person for €107,000, the salary approved by the HSE.

Competent by whose measure? Are you telling me that you'd get the same calibre of applicants if you dropped the salary by half? If that's the case, why not offer a salary of 40,000? or even 20,000. I'm sure you'd still get someone to take the job.

Consider your own job for example: If they dropped the salary by half and interviewed people for your position, do you think they'd be as good/competent/experienced as you?

The problem with what they did was it wasn't transparent. It's okay to offer a CEO a good/great salary, provided everyone is aware of it and knows where the money is coming from.

Phoebas

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I can understand your anger but these types of statements really get to me. Look at it from the perspective of each person involved:

• Minister - I put a cap on salaries. In times of austerity, that's a good approach - social solidarity. What did he do wrong?
• Board - I want someone good for the position but with 100K we'll get someone incompetent and the charity/organisation will be much less effective. Maybe we can find some funds to supplement the HSE salary.
• CEO - I am a very experienced professional offered a 230K salary to work for a charity I think I can really help. The details of the basic salary (and top up arrangement) are decided by the board, not me.
• Fund raiser - I'd prefer if the money I raised went DIRECTLY to benefit a kid (e.g. a new MRI machine), rather than something intangible like a CEO's salary, when in reality a good CEO could be of MUCH more benefit long term than any one piece of equipment.

That's probably not going to be the perspective of people who donate to charities.
This top up is more likely to do untold damage to their fundraising efforts and you'd have to call into question the competency of the board and the CEO for not having the foresight when they made this decision.

ScumLord

The clinic’s former chief executive Paul Kiely was on a State salary of €106,900 before he retired which which was supplemented with another €136,000 in privately donated funds.

That's more than just a top up, it's a better wage on top of your wage.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but I'd imagine the rationale for the top up payments is that based on HSE salary guidelines, they didn't think they'd attract or retain the quality of person required to do the job well based on a salary of 100K.

That's an excuse that they use and if they were some large multinational in a highly competitive and changing market I'd agree but we're talking about someone who can run a small national charity. I would say there would be plenty of people that would want that job and be more than happy with the money and may even see the post as a temporary one to make their CV look good when they go for something bigger.

They wouldn't get that kind of money in other countries, this idea that Ireland is a hot bed for world class managers that need to be paid obscene wages to stop them being poached by.... No one, because the markets to small! It's all a con.

Geuze

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but I'd imagine the rationale for the top up payments is that based on HSE salary guidelines, they didn't think they'd attract or retain the quality of person required to do the job well based on a salary of 100K.

They made a decision that spending an extra 130K to increase the salary of the CEO (or whatever position they had),it would be of net benefit to the organisation. For example, a better CEO might organise the system better, develop better more sustainable funding initiatives, etc, etc. I doubt the board (or whoever made that decision) said "We'd prefer to give our friends a bonus, rather than help those sick Children".

If the top-up was to reflect proven performance and leadership skills, I might think about it.

But this is Ireland.

The top-up is a reflection of who-you-know, cronyism, "I''ll scratch your back, etc", favours being called in, etc.

king_of_inismac

ScumLord wrote: »

That's more than just a top up, it's a better wage on top of your wage.

That's an excuse that they use and if they were some large multinational in a highly competitive and changing market I'd agree but we're talking about someone who can run a small national charity. I would say there would be plenty of people that would want that job and be more than happy with the money and may even see the post as a temporary one to make their CV look good when they go for something bigger.

They wouldn't get that kind of money in other countries, this idea that Ireland is a hot bed for world class managers that need to be paid obscene wages to stop them being poached by.... No one, because the markets to small! It's all a con.

I don't think you can really describe it as a small national charity when you see its scope: http://www.crc.ie/services.shtml

Lots of MUCH smaller charities have CEOs with salaries in the same ballpark (Enable Ireland €156,000, Irish Wheelchair Association €146,191).

My point is this, when you see what a really good CEO can do (think of Willy Walsh at Aer Lingus), then the salary becomes less obscene.

Would you still have a problem with the salary if the new CEO was shown to have reduced overheads by 400K, or had increased fund-raising activities by 900k?

It's really easy to say that all charities CEOs should be paid 50K (max) and we'd all sleep well at night knowing our money wasn't wasted. But the value of a good CEO is worth a lot more than 100k in the real world.

I honestly think the board thought they were doing the right thing. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how they benefit themselves by giving a good CEO a top-up payment.

ScumLord

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I don't think you can really describe it as a small national charity when you see its scope: http://www.crc.ie/services.shtml

Ireland is a tiny country. Our entire population would barely be a city in the UK. Everything Ireland does is on a small scale.

Lots of MUCH smaller charities have CEOs with salaries in the same ballpark (Enable Ireland €156,000, Irish Wheelchair Association €146,191).

It seems to have become the norm, that doesn't make it right.

My point is this, when you see what a really good CEO can do (think of Willy Walsh at Aer Lingus), then the salary becomes less obscene.

Would you still have a problem with the salary if the new CEO was shown to have reduced overheads by 400K, or had increased fund-raising activities by 900k?

Have they done anything like this?

I honestly think the board thought they were doing the right thing. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how they benefit themselves by giving a good CEO a top-up payment.

Maybe he held them over a barrel? Pay me more or I'll resign now and mess up the rest of the companies year. It would be easy enough to hold a company to ransom if they're dealing with dying people.

Although what happened with the CRC is a wrong, part of the problem is the government, in many areas, education being another one, they don't want to take responsibility for providing services that should be provided by the state so they give money to these not for profit agency's via a service plan to provide the service on behalf of the state.

They are not charities in the true sense they are huge not for profit businesses with a charity ethos, some of those are enormous much bigger than many business in the economy, they just go under the radar.

conorhal

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

The inescapable flaw in your argument is that when the CEO who was on €230,000 left in July this year the hire a highly competent person for €107,000, the salary approved by the HSE.

I think that the inescapable flaw in his argument is that many of those on the board of the CRC were Fianna Fail cronies and contributors to Da Bert's digout.
And I'm not just having a dig at FF here, the rate at which the current government has cried 'our turn' and stuffed boards, quangos and judicial appointments with their cronies would make even FF draw breath.
The reality is that we're not getting people who are 'worth what they are paid', competence is a marginal consideration for many such appointments, what we're getting is board appointments that are little more then rewards for party hacks and political patronage.

RoboRat

People giving out about heads of charities being on 6 figure sums need to appreciate that these are businesses and not in the public sector.

You need to pay big bucks to get a top MD that will drive a business and make it more money, thus increasing the amount of money that is given to those who need it. If paying a top MD generates 10 million with their salary being 150,000 and a volunteer taking a pittance only generates 500,000 which is better for the charity?

it would be great if the top MD's would do it for nothing but that is not the case and the charity has to do what it feels will generate the most money.

This is completely different from the top up's that are in the news at the moment due to issue of transparency.

snubbleste

♪ Show a bear, show you care, hurrah for Santa bear ♫

I really disliked that radio ad

Sir Humphrey Appleby

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Competent by whose measure? Are you telling me that you'd get the same calibre of applicants if you dropped the salary by half? If that's the case, why not offer a salary of 40,000? or even 20,000. I'm sure you'd still get someone to take the job.

Consider your own job for example: If they dropped the salary by half and interviewed people for your position, do you think they'd be as good/competent/experienced as you?

The problem with what they did was it wasn't transparent. It's okay to offer a CEO a good/great salary, provided everyone is aware of it and knows where the money is coming from.

Are you saying the current CEO of the CRC, who is paid €106,000 a year is incompetent?

animaal

RoboRat wrote: »

People giving out about heads of charities being on 6 figure sums need to appreciate that these are businesses and not in the public sector.

True, but only to a point. Not many businesses are funded by handouts from the public. If these places want to be seen as businesses, they'll have to accept the down side - which may include people not donating to them any more, or at least not as much as they used to. Then we'll see where they get the money for their film-star wages!

RoboRat

Not many businesses are funded by handouts from the public

All businesses are funded by the public but I can see what you are saying.

I have a bit of insight in this as I was part of a team that set up a charity. When we set it up, everybody was doing the work on a voluntary basis and we had a successful year. The charity got bigger and we couldn't sustain momentum on a part time basis so we had to employ a coordinator. This person was good but it soon became apparent that just having somebody full time doubled the turnover.

I knew that if I was to do it full time I could increase it ten fold but I was not willing to walk away from my current wages to a much lower wage. I still volunteer and provide my expertise when I can but I know that if we were to get somebody of a high calibre, the amount of money being raised would increase significantly and would therefore justify the expense as its for the greater good of the charity and more importantly, those who it was set up to help.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/former-central-remedial-clinic-chief-executive-paul-kiely-had-fianna-f%C3%A1il-links-1.1610967

Former CRC cheif executive had Fianna Fail links

Paul Kiely, the recently-retired chief executive of the Central Remedial Clinic, is just one of a number of figures from the organisation with strong connections to Fianna Fáil, and Bertie Ahern in particular.

Mr Kiely and Mr Ahern go back to the 1970s, when they worked in the Mater hospital together, alongside the now deceased Tony Kett, who later became a Fianna Fáil senator and was described by Mr Ahern as one of his “closest friends”.

Mr Kett went on to work as an administrator in the CRC, which also nominated him as a candidate for the Seanad.

Other board members include former Fianna Fáil chief whip and Charles Haughey ally Vincent Brady, as well as James Nugent, who told the Mahon tribunal he gave Mr Ahern £2,500 as part of whip-around.

The CRC’s founder Lady Valerie Goulding struck up a friendship with Mr Haughey after his arms trail in the 1970s, and Mr Haughey headed up the CRC’s fundraising committee.

Lady Goulding was later made a Taoiseach’s appointee to the Seanad by Jack Lynch. Her son Hamilton now sits on the board, and Des Peelo, the accountant who represented Mr Ahern and Mr Haughey during tribunal hearings, was also a director of the CRC.

All starting to make sense now.

I'd like to think that it's rare enough for a charity to be this closely linked to a political party ... I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

It was claimed the Central Remedial Clinic (CRC) received a €3m interest-free loan from its fundraising arm to help prop up pensions, despite the clinic having to impose cuts in services.

Independent TD Shane Ross claimed the Friends and Supporters of the Central Remedial Clinic -- which had funds of €14m in 2011 -- gave the CRC's private pension scheme the financial lift last year.

He insisted the €3m loan to the CRC would be better termed a "gift" and described it as "devastating".

Jesus wept. Whatever about paying top dollar for experienced Chief Executives and staff, they expect the donors to fund their pensions too?!

king_of_inismac

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

Are you saying the current CEO of the CRC, who is paid €106,000 a year is incompetent?

No, I'm not saying he's incompetent. I just don't believe every candidate is equal.

There are good CEOs and less competent CEOs. You generally have to pay more for the latter.

crusher000

All you will see come out of this is people that are involved in small local charities on a voluntary basis being hammered with more red tape and the high earning execs of the large charities getting away with the big wages. Of course they deserve to be rewarded for their work but some of them are earning more than our own President or Prime Ministers of European Countries. These are charities not bloody Countries they're running.

Cantona's Collars

How greedy is a guy who earns over €100k that he feels the need for €136k to top it up?

Tzardine

snubbleste wrote: »

♪ Show a bear, show you care, hurrah for Santa bear ♫

I really disliked that radio ad

Buy a bear, show you care, hurrah for CEO top up bear. :pac:

Busted Flat.

zerks wrote: »

How greedy is a guy who earns over €100k that he feels the need for €136k to top it up?

Parasite's, is a word that comes to mind, when you look at the health cutbacks to keep these ???? in a lavish lifestyle.

king_of_inismac

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Parasite's, is a word that comes to mind, when you look at the health cutbacks to keep these ???? in a lavish lifestyle.

Did he set his salary? Did he ask for the top-up? His pay is decided by the board. How many salary-increases/work benefits have you turned down in the past?

Busted Flat.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Did he set his salary? Did he ask for the top-up? His pay is decided by the board. How many salary-increases/work benefits have you turned down in the past?

Touched a nerve there.

ScumLord

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Did he set his salary? Did he ask for the top-up? His pay is decided by the board.

So a board sat down and said to themselves. "We don't have to pay this guy any more money, in fact it's illegal for us to do so, but he's such a swell guy lets give him more than double his current wages. It'll be a lovely surprise for him".

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

So a board sat down and said to themselves. "We don't have to pay this guy any more money, in fact it's illegal for us to do so, but he's such a swell guy lets give him more than double his current wages. It'll be a lovely surprise for him".

Of course the board made the salary decision - that's normal practice. He hardly decided his own salary level himself.

eviltwin

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Did he set his salary? Did he ask for the top-up? His pay is decided by the board. How many salary-increases/work benefits have you turned down in the past?

Is that you Paul?

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

Of course the board made the salary decision - that's normal practice. He hardly decided his own salary level himself.

I think the only reason for a board to make such a serious breach of their rules is if they absolutely had to, because their chief made some sort of threat that if he didn't get his money by hook or by crook he'd make their lives difficult.

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the only reason for a board to make such a serious breach of their rules is if they absolutely had to, because their chief made some sort of threat that if he didn't get his money by hook or by crook he'd make their lives difficult.

Let me guess - they're habitual cocaine users and if they refused to hand over large sums of money on a regular basis he was going to spill the beans?

king_of_inismac

I wish I was on that money or anywhere near it

I just think it's lazy analysis to blame the CEO. The board made the decision to offer him a package which included a top-up. He accepted it.

If someone offered me a top-up for 136K, I'd take it as well. Calling him a "parasite" is really distasteful. If any of you were in an interview and were told your job also included a yearly bonus, I don't think many of you would turn it down.

The problem is not:
1. A man accepting a bonus that was offered to him by his employer
2. A person being well-paid for his job

The problem is:
1. The questionable way in which the board was selected
2. The fact that the payments were hidden