He's given the money back.

General General

The Central Remedial Clinic’s chief executive who resigned yesterday has repaid the HSE extra funding he received in excess of official guidelines.
Brian Conlan, who took over as the clinic’s chief last July, was in receipt of a €125,000 salary until October of this year, though the salary level approved by the HSE was significantly less.
According to internal HSE documents, the approved salary for the CRC’s chief executive post that applied in July was €64,812, though this was later revised upwards to €83,252 in October.
A spokesman for Mr Conlan confirmed today that he reimbursed the HSE for additional payments he received by cheque this morning.

Linky

Well, well... what if this kind of thing sets a precedent?

I think he is quite worthy of praise.

Or am I being naïve?

(You're right, I did use the i with the two dots over it.)

splashthecash

General General wrote: »

Linky

Well, well... what if this kind of thing sets a precedent?

I think he is quite worthy of praise.

Or am I being naïve?

(You're right, I did use the i with the two dots over it.)

Fair play IMO, if only more had the good sense to do this.

melekalikimaka

id pay it back if i was still working for them... no chance if i retired... fool imo

General General

& thread polarizing nicely.

kneemos

General General wrote: »

Linky

Well, well... what if this kind of thing sets a precedent?

I think he is quite worthy of praise.

Or am I being naïve?

(You're right, I did use the i with the two dots over it.)

Paid it back when it became public.
Don't want to be too cynical but I would be concerned about my future job prospects from a PR point of view.

General General

kneemos wrote: »

Paid it back when it became public.
Don't want to be too cynical but I would be concerned about my future job prospects from a PR point of view.

Angle 3. I feel like we've got the beginnings of a debate here.

rubberdiddies

kneemos wrote: »

Paid it back when it became public.
Don't want to be too cynical but I would be concerned about my future job prospects from a PR point of view.

you could look at it that way but at least he paid it back.
under normal circumstances (and in other countries) this could be seen as setting a precedent, but I don't hold out any hope here.

if you think about it, €83,000 isn't a huge amount for a Chief Executive and if he is good at his job, could probably command at least twice that elsewhere. I don't necessarily blame the man here. After all if you were offered an extra 40 grand a year it'd be hard to turn it down.
Besides he has done 2 decent things now, resign and repay!

The system is at fault

Fratton Fred

Is it a full time job?

Gloomtastic!

But he's still not going to appear at the PAC. Why not?
Would it be because he has more to hide? How did he get the job? Where there others candidates for the role?
Returning the money is a smokescreen.

WoollyRedHat

Big ****ing deal and now he has weasled his way out of a PAC meeting, which if the article has it facts straight, has impertient questions to put to him that he should have an onus to answer.

Slimy and questionable in my opinion, and I don't think this will be the last we hear of him. As a person on the public expenditure, he should give a few hours to answer questions of the PAC committeee, as should everyone involved in higher echelons who would of been first aware of the discrepancies and also been involved in what I.T has stated was an unusual recruitment process.

rubberdiddies

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

But he's still not going to appear at the PAC. Why not?
Would it be because he has more to hide? How did he get the job? Where there others candidates for the role?
Returning the money is a smokescreen.

arent most/all of these quango positions given to mates of whoever is in power at the time though?

EDIT: of course he should appear before the PAC

tritium

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Slimy and questionable in my opinion, and I don't think this will be the last we hear of him. As a person on the public expenditure, he should give a few hours to answer questions of the PAC committeee, as should everyone involved in higher echelons who would of been first aware of the discrepancies and also been involved in what I.T has stated was an unusual recruitment process.

Except he's not on the public expenditure anymore. I'd imagine if one if my old employers asked me to come back for a day to answer some questions I would at best be discussing an appropriatly high hourly rate for my consulting time, I'm assuming he feels the same. There are plenty of still employed CRC board members who should have the facts to hand about their hiring decisions. Should make the PAC feel all relevant and important instead of the rather inept bunch of useless wannabees they actually are.

WoollyRedHat

tritium wrote: »

Except he's not on the public expenditure anymore. I'd imagine if one if my old employers asked me to come back for a day to answer some questions I would at best be discussing an appropriatly high hourly rate for my consulting time, I'm assuming he feels the same. There are plenty of still employed CRC board members who should have the facts to hand about their hiring decisions. Should make the PAC feel all relevant and important instead of the rather inept bunch of useless wannabees they actually are.

He's not on it because he resigned, which was carefully planned and now he doesn't have to appear on the PAC committe.. I agree though that there are a lot more CRC board members who can shed an interesting light on the situation and that the PAC are useless, unfortunately the government would never hand them powers where they could actually do something, so they are complicit in it all. It's all very shadowy in any case, par course. I would like to now who recommended Mr. Conlon specifically, that would be interesting.

Specialun

He was probably offered a present from the revenue if he was seen to hand it back

Wossack

disgraceful he took it in the first place.. especially considering hes apparently in the position to return it at the drop of a hat

damaged fundraising for these places irreparably

tritium

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

unfortunately the government would never hand them powers where they could actually do something, so they are complicit in it all.

We the people were given the opportunity to extend extensive investigative powers to oireachteas committees and, in my opinion, we bottled it. Sometimes you can't blame the politicians, especially when they're simply following our wishes

WoollyRedHat

tritium wrote: »

We the people were given the opportunity to extend extensive investigative powers to oireachteas committees and, in my opinion, we bottled it. Sometimes you can't blame the politicians, especially when they're simply following our wishes

I don't think we did, as far as I remember the provision was to give the polticians more power in these matters, and considering our history since independence, I can see why people were reluctant to do so with a distrust of our politicians. If an independent body, separate from politics was given the ability to investigate, I think it would get a more warm reception.

Look at the types you get on these committees, usually stuffed with party hacks full of bias.... the likes of Liam Lawlor, who onced charied the Dail Ethics committee.

The CRC was stuffed with people with connections to FF and had a series of people with questionable character, since its conception http://www.publicinquiry.eu/2013/11/30/fianna-fail-and-the-lucrative-crc-connections/

tritium

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I don't think we did, as far as I remember the provision was to give the polticians more power in these matters, and considering our history since independence, I can see why people were reluctant to do so with a distrust of our politicians. If an independent body, separate from politics was given the ability to investigate, I think it would get a more warm reception.

Look at the types you get on these committees, usually stuffed with party hacks full of bias.... the likes of Liam Lawlor, who onced charied the Dail Ethics committee.

The CRC was stuffed with people with connections to FF and had a series of people with questionable character, since its conception http://www.publicinquiry.eu/2013/11/30/fianna-fail-and-the-lucrative-crc-connections/

Thats however a very different point to the one you originally made. You said the government wouldn't give them the powers needed, I pointed out that they actually tries to but were prevented by the people from doing so.

Not for a minute disagreeing btw as to whether the PAC is fit for purpose. I made my view on them pretty clear in an earlier post. To be honest though I fully understand why someone would treat them with absolute contempt since the only group that holds the PAC in any regard is its own membership.