What's this about?

Brendan Bendar

Lot of publicity about a Longford School Principal alledgedly gaming the system to falsify pupil numbers.

Apparently numbers of 96 ,94 and 66 over what were actually there were submitted over the years.

€450k involved apparently.

The questions that arise surely is how dos this not get noticed. ?

Beggars belief in my opinion.

Also it would appear that the defense lawyer alledgedly cited a defense that the defendant had no personal gain out of this ! !!

So it's less a crime to screw the taxpayer if you don't gain yourself!!!

Very strange stuff.

AllForIt

So, did the pupils get a better education? : D

Franz Von Peppercorn

He got more money for the school by lying about the numbers of pupils in the school.

Speedsie

AllForIt wrote: »

We don't get this. Did he pocket the money or what exactly is the problem?

She.
ðŸ˜

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

We don't get this. Did he pocket the money or what exactly is the problem?

This is the problem -


Ms O’Gorman, who had previously served as the principal of St Mary’s National School in Edgeworthstown, is charged with six counts of falsely attesting to the number of pupils at the school in order to acquire the services of a greater number of teachers and grant aid than the school was entitled to.

Source: Longford Leader

Hector Bellend

Is this templemore?

eeguy

So she lied to get more teachers and resources for pupils?
She should get a medal.

Hector Bellend

eeguy wrote: »

So she lied to get more teachers and resources for pupils?
She should get a medal.

What about the mpre deserving and honest schools that went without because of her?

eeguy

Hector Bellend wrote: »

What about the mpre deserving and honest schools that went without because of her?

Why would they? If you meet the criteria you get the money. No one lost out because of her fraud.

When you have TDs and civil servants regularly taking the p*ss with public money, it's nice to see someone fighting for the good of her students.

One eyed Jack

eeguy wrote: »

Why would they? If you meet the criteria you get the money. No one lost out because of her fraud.

When you have TDs and civil servants regularly taking the p*ss with public money, it's nice to see someone fighting for the good of her students.

What part of 'what she did was illegal' are you having difficulty with exactly?

Rows Grower

Isn't this old news or is it a separate case?

Rows Grower

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part of 'what she did was illegal' are you having difficulty with exactly?

That was covered in the part where it stated what she did was for the good of her students.

facehugger99

eeguy wrote: »

Why would they? If you meet the criteria you get the money. No one lost out because of her fraud.

Of course they didn't. It just means that you need to harvest a bit more from the money trees - not sure what the big deal is

Bubbaclaus

eeguy wrote: »

Why would they? If you meet the criteria you get the money. No one lost out because of her fraud.

Um...except several million taxpayers????

Brendan Bendar

eeguy wrote: »

Why would they? If you meet the criteria you get the money. No one lost out because of her fraud.

When you have TDs and civil servants regularly taking the p*ss with public money, it's nice to see someone fighting for the good of her students.

Fighting , hardly ....

Lookit, what I can't get my head around is how nobody copped onto this .

Like 96 pupils is three classes!!

Was there no governance or oversight over this school.

What also puzzles me , and it seems to be supported by some posters, is that alledgedly screwing John Taxpayer is ok?

This case is very interesting and the outcome will shine a light into the Irish attitude to behaviour like this.

Will keep an eye on the proceedings.

Brendan Bendar

:cool:

Rows Grower wrote: »

Isn't this old news or is it a separate case?

Well it's top of today's 20April 1900 news on RTE1. So hardly old news, buddy.

eeguy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Um...except several million taxpayers????

The Irish government is incredibly inventive in wasting billions of taxpayers money.

Don't understand how people have a problem with a principle getting a few extra k for books and pencils and heating.

I'd much prefer it going towards that that being spent on kayaking classes on the Liffey.

One eyed Jack

Rows Grower wrote: »

That was covered in the part where it stated what she did was for the good of her students.

It's fairly hard to argue that setting a bad example for the students in the school is for their own good.

Brendan Bendar

eeguy wrote: »

The Irish government is incredibly inventive in wasting billions of taxpayers money.

Don't understand how people have a problem with a principle getting a few extra k for books and pencils and heating.

I'd much prefer it going towards that that being spent on kayaking classes on the Liffey.

Almost half a million alledgedly illegal 'expenses' would buy a lot of HBs?

iamwhoiam

Rows Grower wrote: »

That was covered in the part where it stated what she did was for the good of her students.

Well I could help myself to a trolley full of food for the good of the children so ? What she did was theft of your and my taxes .

facehugger99

eeguy wrote: »

I'd much prefer it going towards that that being spent on kayaking classes on the Liffey.

Didn't realise that's where it was coming from. I was actually worried that it might have been coming from something else like heating grants for old people or paying nurses or something.

Kayaking classes? Fcuk that - more pencils I say.

eeguy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Almost half a million alledgedly illegal 'expenses' would buy a lot of HBs?

It doesn't say how many years. If it was over 10 years then thats just the wages for an extra teacher. I doubt any parent is complaining about the fraud.
Education is criminally underfunded as it is. A principal having to resort to fraud to keep her school going and ensure the best for the pupils is a shame on the minister for education.

Brendan Bendar

eeguy wrote: »

It doesn't say how many years. If it was over 10 years then thats just the wages for an extra teacher. I doubt any parent is complaining about the fraud.
Education is criminally underfunded as it is. A principal having to resort to fraud to keep her school going and ensure the best for the pupils is a shame on the minister for education.

Four years alledgedly.

Shows the Irish attitude to alledged fraud if no parent who was aware complained?

I realise you are just trolling, but to try to justify stuff like this in any way kind of stinks in my opinion.

I would prefer a genuine discussion on the attitudes to this event.

Rows Grower

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Fighting , hardly ....

Lookit, what I can't get my head around is how nobody copped onto this .

Like 96 pupils is three classes!!

Was there no governance or oversight over this school.

What also puzzles me , and it seems to be supported by some posters, is that alledgedly screwing John Taxpayer is ok?

This case is very interesting and the outcome will shine a light into the Irish attitude to behaviour like this.

Will keep an eye on the proceedings.

It's a huge amount of pupils to falsely declare no matter how huge the school actually is. I'm equally shocked.

There obviously is some governance seeing as how the principal is now facing criminal proceedings.

I have attended many meetings over the years in attempt to keep small rural schools open. When I think of the time, energy and expense that was involved for all sides over the years simply for the sake of a school being short one or two pupils to keep it open I can safely say I won't lose any sleep from this case. It is intriguing no doubt about it.

Is it better to have a highly educated, qualified, enthusiastic teacher emigrate away from family and friends after going through the system here.

Should they be costing the state money on welfare payments or should they be doing what they dreamed of?

Teaching our children and thus making another contribution to society by paying taxes.

There are other places to be shining lights and keeping an eye on in the overall scheme of things in my humble opinion.

eeguy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Four years alledgedly.

Shows the Irish attitude to alledged fraud if no parent who was aware complained?

I realise you are just trolling, but to try to justify stuff like this in any way kind of stinks in my opinion.

I would prefer a genuine discussion on the attitudes to this event.

Let's get one thing clear. The principal didn't do this on a whim. She didn't do it for personal gain. She probably did it because it was necessary and the alternative was additional strain on her limited resources. You can throw the book at her if you want, but conditions for teachers are worsening and I applaud any principal willing to put her staff and pupils ahead of her own interests.

One eyed Jack

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Four years alledgedly.

Shows the Irish attitude to alledged fraud if no parent who was aware complained?

I realise you are just trolling, but to try to justify stuff like this in any way kind of stinks in my opinion.

I would prefer a genuine discussion on the attitudes to this event.

You can't really extrapolate from a single case the national attitude to any particular issue, let alone the fact that no parents would have been aware of what the Principal was doing, because the Principal knew what they were doing was illegal and the consequences would be quite severe if she were caught.

There really isn't any oversight as such, as the Department of Education doesn't have the resources to send out an inspector to every individual school on a regular basis, so it could indeed well be four or five years before an inspector would examine the enrolment books to see do they tally with the figures the Principal was sending into the DOE, and do they tally with the number of pupils enrolled in the school.

One of the ways in which this kind of fraud will be harder to do in future is with the introduction of the Primary Online Database, where there won't be mountains of paperwork buried under even more mountains of paperwork that nobody has time to examine or go through. At least with the POD, anomalies like this will be much more noticeable and will be easier to investigate.

Brendan Bendar

Rows Grower wrote: »

It's a huge amount of pupils to falsely declare no matter how huge the school actually is. I'm equally shocked.

There obviously is some governance seeing as how the principal is now facing criminal proceedings.

I have attended many meetings over the years in attempt to keep small rural schools open. When I think of the time, energy and expense that was involved for all sides over the years simply for the sake of a school being short one or two pupils to keep it open I can safely say I won't lose any sleep from this case. It is intriguing no doubt about it.

Is it better to have a highly educated, qualified, enthusiastic teacher emigrate away from family and friends after going through the system here.

Should they be costing the state money on welfare payments or should they be doing what they dreamed of?

Teaching our children and thus making another contribution to society by paying taxes.

There are other places to be shining lights and keeping an eye on in the overall scheme of things in my humble opinion.

Rather confusing post, for me.

Could you perhaps explain your position a bit better.?

If it's my fault, apologies.

Rows Grower

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Rather confusing post, for me.

Could you perhaps explain your position a bit better.?

If it's my fault, apologies.

It is what it is, try reading it again.

Brendan Bendar

eeguy wrote: »

Let's get one thing clear. The principal didn't do this on a whim. She didn't do it for personal gain. She probably did it because it was necessary and the alternative was additional strain on her limited resources. You can throw the book at her if you want, but conditions for teachers are worsening and I applaud any principal willing to put her staff and pupils ahead of her own interests.

I have to say you are making a lot of assumptions.

To have a sum of nearly half a mill involved would appear to me that it wasn't so much alleving strain but pouring on a lot of 'gravy'.

I find it strange that people would support alledged criminal actions irrespective what the issues were.

One eyed Jack

Rows Grower wrote: »

It is what it is, try reading it again.

It's a long-winded way of attempting to excuse fraud, is what it is, and when that doesn't work, there's an attempt to say 'oh look over there' as if two wrongs make a right. The end simply doesn't justify the means in this case, no matter how much you wish it could. If it did, and if Principals were ever to think they could get away with committing fraud, then while it might keep a rural school open, it's hardly the sort of lessons in education I think should be taught to any child.

currants

This is not the first case of this:

http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28853-former-principal-s-fraud-threatens-swinford-school-s-future

This woman is facing charges whilst we are using €150,000 of our money to fund the resurfacing of a new hockey pitch for a "private" school where the current "fees" parents pay wouldn't cover the teacher's wages -these are also paid by the state. Surely the only difference is the fee paying schools have enough power to lobby govt to legalise their soakage of public funds whereas the rest of the great unwashed struggle to make do and end up in court for entrepreneurial endeavours like this designed to give their pupils decent doors and windows or a viable pupil teacher ratio.

26,000 children of the rich and powerful attend private schools-these are the same group that the very small pool that will grow up and rule us (whether in govt, law, finance or public service)come from and will continue to ensure the system props up their interests.

The inequality in education in this country is shameful and repulsive.

eeguy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I have to say you are making a lot of assumptions.

To have a sum of nearly half a mill involved would appear to me that it wasn't so much alleving strain but pouring on a lot of 'gravy'.

I find it strange that people would support alledged criminal actions irrespective what the issues were.

I'm making no more assumptions that those on the other side.
Since there's no breakdown of how the money was spent bar more teachers, then I would assume the pupils benefitted from this far more than the principal.

eeguy

currants wrote: »

This is not the first case of this:

http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28853-former-principal-s-fraud-threatens-swinford-school-s-future

This woman is facing charges whilst we are using €150,000 of our money to fund the resurfacing of a new hockey pitch for a "private" school where the current "fees" parents pay wouldn't cover the teacher's wages -these are also paid by the state.

The inequality in education in this country is shameful and repulsive.

Exactly. Schools have to beg borrow and steal to survive. We all have stories of unheated classrooms, cracked windows and prefabs. Selling tickets to raise money for new books and the like.

Rows Grower

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a long-winded way of attempting to excuse fraud, is what it is, and when that doesn't work, there's an attempt to say 'oh look over there' as if two wrongs make a right. The end simply doesn't justify the means in this case, no matter how much you wish it could. If it did, and if Principals were ever to think they could get away with committing fraud, then while it might keep a rural school open, it's hardly the sort of lessons in education I think should be taught to any child.

My post wasn't really what you state it was.

Pot, kettle..............

iamwhoiam

eeguy wrote: »

Exactly. Schools have to beg borrow and steal to survive. We all have stories of unheated classrooms, cracked windows and prefabs. Selling tickets to raise money for new books and the like.

And this lady drew money away from other schools . Regardless of motive she was taking money from a pot that was for sharing and not just for her school

eeguy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And this lady drew money away from other schools . Regardless of motive she was taking money from a pot that was for sharing and not just for her school

Really? Show me some proof that she did. Schools are allocated money based on criteria.
If one school gets more, the others do not get less.

iamwhoiam

eeguy wrote: »

Really? Show me some proof that she did. Schools are allocated money based on criteria.
If one school gets more, the others do not get less.

Surely its not a bottomless pit ? There must be a budget set ? And regardless it is our taxes she falsely claimed

One eyed Jack

Rows Grower wrote: »

My post wasn't really what you state it was.

Pot, kettle..............

Not really a pot, kettle situation so much as it's a matter of interpretation. It's a bit like currants there using the term 'entrepreneurial endeavours' to describe what is clearly a case of fraud. The difference of course between entrepreneurial endeavours and fraud is of course that one is perfectly legal, the other is fraud - illegal, and can land a person in Court.

The Principal in this case would have been fully aware of what they were doing, and they are just one of the many thousands of Principals up and down the country who have to manage the daily running of the schools with the funding they are granted from the DOE on the basis of the number of pupils enrolled in the school. In the very same way as the DOE are allocated funding with which they have to budget, so too do the school and the Board of Management have to do the very same thing.

If the Principal had wanted extra funding, there are grants available that they could apply for, the same as the Boards of Management have to do in any other school, and committing fraud to circumvent procedures is never acting in the best interests of either the school, or the children. The Principal doesn't have to benefit financially themselves, but there can be no doubt that they benefit personally from committing fraud as they maintain the appearance that they are competent in their position in the school, whereas the reality is that they clearly aren't.

Rows Grower

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Surely its not a bottomless pit ? There must be a budget set ? And regardless it is our taxes she falsely claimed

Loosely translated to;

Oh ****, you know what you're talking about and I caught out trying to bluff.

Are you sure I'm wrong?

I paid tax last year.

eeguy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And this lady drew money away from other schools . Regardless of motive she was taking money from a pot that was for sharing and not just for her school

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Surely its not a bottomless pit ? There must be a budget set ? And regardless it is our taxes she falsely claimed

So in one post you make some serious accusations. In the second post you admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Maybe do some research first.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not really a pot, kettle situation so much as it's a matter of interpretation. It's a bit like currants there using the term 'entrepreneurial endeavours' to describe what is clearly a case of fraud. The difference of course between entrepreneurial endeavours and fraud is of course that one is perfectly legal, the other is fraud - illegal, and can land a person in Court.

Can't argue with any of that. I suppose the exact circumstances will all come out in court. There may be mitigating factors or reasons as to why she needed the funding, but until there's more info, it's all just speculating.

One thing I'll add is that while she was aware what she was doing, she would also be aware of the consequences when she was found out. Personally, I would assume the best intentions. It's not easy to run a school and there's been a huge amount of extra, non teaching related work heaped on teachers, particularly around social issues and child protection. Teachers almost have to be child psychologists and social workers too.

iamwhoiam

eeguy wrote: »

So in one post you make some serious accusations. In the second post you admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Maybe do some research first.

I wasn't the only accusing her was I ? The law seems to agree she did wrong
The money is falsely claimed from our taxes . Its that simple in my eyes . And why are you so abrahsive ?

pablo128

This woman is charged and before the courts. The thread should be locked.

eeguy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I wasn't the only accusing her was I ? The law seems to agree she did wrong
The money is falsely claimed from our taxes . Its that simple in my eyes . And why are you so abrahsive ?

Because you haven't a notion what you're talking about, and now that you were called out on it you've gone back to the ol "well everyone else was saying it" excuse :D The law has said nothing yet, since there hasn't gone to court.

The more you know about something the less simple they become. It's not just a case of "shur she stole the money". There may be mitigating factors and other reasons that forced her hand.

Bubbaclaus

eeguy wrote: »

Really? Show me some proof that she did. Schools are allocated money based on criteria.
If one school gets more, the others do not get less.

Do they dig up the funds from the bottomless pit or do they harvest them from the money trees?

iamwhoiam

eeguy wrote: »

Because you haven't a notion what you're talking about, and now that you were called out on it you've gone back to the ol "well everyone else was saying it" excuse :D

The more you know about something the less simple they become. It's not just a case of "shur she stole the money". There may be mitigating factors and other reasons that forced her hand.

Fraud is fraud and adding 60 pupils to your books is not the truth . But sure its grand isn't it really because its for the kids . No I don't know about school
budgets or Department policies . I do know a rude poster when i converse with one . If you have more information than I then maybe you could kindly share it in a mannerly way ?

James Bond Junior

Im sorry now lads, I am a teacher in a small country school and I think this was a right scummy thing to do. There are a lot of schools who might leave one maybe two kids on a roll if they have left in order to try and save a teacher. Ethically and morally it is a bit suspect but in the grand scheme of things it isn't the worst in the world. However fabricating 96 extra kids is just plain wrong. That could have turned her job into a walking principal and would have bumped her up a few increments in pay as principals pay is based on staffing levels, not children. That woman most definitely got a financial benefit and should be made that back with interest and penalties.

I would love to know how she treated her staff if that is the regard she had for the Department.

Brendan Bendar

eeguy wrote: »

Because you haven't a notion what you're talking about, and now that you were called out on it you've gone back to the ol "well everyone else was saying it" excuse :D The law has said nothing yet, since there hasn't gone to court.

The more you know about something the less simple they become. It's not just a case of "shur she stole the money". There may be mitigating factors and other reasons that forced her hand.

The lady was charged at Longford District Court this morning.

Moved on to next sitting of the Longford circuit Court.

Ken.

Mod-This is still before the courts so we can't let this continue. If and when it ends PM myself or one of the other mods and we'll reopen it.