Media silence over Niall Collins story

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663742#Comment_120663742

eh? lol

You've been banging your drum about 'why isn't anything being done about this' etc. for weeks, based of rag reporting.

Don't act like it's not what you wanted, nor act like the legal system in general does not respond when the media exposes actual corruption to be looked into.

JP Liz V1

Collins must be happy that vapping, animal culling and immigrants etc., have got his story buried

No more update on AGS or Sipa investigation

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663859#Comment_120663859

Would you prefer everything everything else got put on hold to deal with a non story from the ditch?

Maybe a few hours could be put aside to discuss the tax disc non issue story as well instead of running the country.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663783#Comment_120663783

I haven't been banging a 'why isn't anything being done about this' drum.

As far as I understand it the legal system is in the process of responding. Sure, I'll get cross about it if they brush it under the carpet, but as far as I can see they have not yet done that.

And yes I'm already cross about the fact that in order to shield a minister from answering questions in the Dail, the Tanaiste pulled out the Russian fake news playbook. Hence my remark about Martin's paranoia. If I have been banging a drum on here it's that one.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663650#Comment_120663650

Hasn't FOI of Limerick CoCo meeting minutes confirmed that it is in fact false? There was no vote.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663924#Comment_120663924

No, we've covered this. We can agree to disagree, safe in the knowledge that the the guards and SIPO will be covering that too.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663924#Comment_120663924

'The members were in favour of the proposal' - you can claim there was no vote all you want but anyone with an ounce of cop-on would recognise this for what it is.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664235#Comment_120664235

That's what the minutes say so unless you have evidence suggesting otherwise what you are inferring is wild speculation based on conspiracy theories

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664326#Comment_120664326

But but conspiracy theory something something

You've lost me again

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664326#Comment_120664326

It's based on the Local Government Act, Schedule 10, Section 44 - Meetings and Proceedings of Local Authorities -

(12) (2) All acts of a local authority which are reserved functions or questions duly coming or arising before a meeting of a local authority shall be determined—

(a) by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting, or

(b) where there is an equality of votes, by a second or casting vote of the person chairing the meeting (which person shall have and may choose to exercise such a vote).

There's no argument that the question shall we dispose of this land arose before the meeting.

According to the law there is no other mechanism to get from the question of shall we dispose of this land to the position of the members were in favour of the proposal, other than a vote.

It doesn't matter how the members indicated they were in favour, whether they nodded their assent or whatever, the fact that it was recorded they were in favour of the proposal - i.e the question was determined - means there was a vote.

If Collins' defence is reliant on "There was no vote", he's on pretty thin ice. If the Gardai are indeed investigating, they will ask the other councillors present "was there a vote?"

I'd be surprised if Collins made so many friends in the local council on they way up that they'll cover for him now.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664925#Comment_120664925

But it was a committee meeting not a full council meeting ie a meeting of the local authority, can you say with 100% certainty under the law they the same?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664948#Comment_120664948

No, fair point, I can't be 100% sure.

But irrespective of whether the proceedings law covers committee meetings as well as local authority meetings, the other councillors would still be asked if there was a vote to approve the disposal of the land, and if not how did the chair determine the members were in favour of the proposal, and how did individual councillors convey their approval.

Either way we've gone in short order from "nothing to see here, this is wild speculation based on conspiracy theories" to "nothing to see here, we can't be 100% certain that the law governing decisions taken at local authority meetings applies to decisions taken at committee meetings of the local authority."

My point was the conspiracy theory playbook doesn't really hold water here. Which you've neatly demonstrated.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665044#Comment_120665044

We havent gone anywhere, the inferrance made by Kaymin was there was really a vote taken and reading between the lines would tell you that, that's a conspiracy theory. Like I pointed out there may be no law to have a vote at a comittee meeting and in that case if the minutes dont show a vote was taken then to the best of our knowledge no vote was taken, so once again any speculation to the contrary is a conspiracy theory.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665127#Comment_120665127

Kaymin is saying that the minutes record the members were in favour of the proposal, and it is thus logical to infer that the members voted for the proposal.

Dismissing the vote explanation as a conspiracy theory is only possible by indicating why it is wild speculation, and indicating what is more probable.

If they didn't vote in favour of the proposal, how did they indicate they were in favour of the proposal?

What is the more probable explanation than a vote?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665176#Comment_120665176

Kaymin is saying that the minutes record the members were in favour of the proposal, and it is thus logical to infer that the members voted for the proposal.

nope, very incorrect again.

the very same minutes state "it (the proposal to sell the site) was proposed by Councillor Enright and seconded by Councillor Butler, to proceed as outlined"

so two things are clear here:

1. the proposal to sell the site did not come from this meeting, it was sent to this meeting by the LA as a proposal for their approval, and
2. there was no vote on the proposal, but a discussion as to whether to accept the proposal or not, which was then rubber stamped by a proposer and seconder.

there was no vote recorded, as there was no vote required, as it was not in the gift of the Bruff electoral area committee to decide the matter.

its quite simple and straightforward really, but certain peoples assumptions, biases and lay understandings of process and protocols, is colouring their view here.

hometruths

You say "there was no vote recorded, as there was no vote required, as it was not in the gift of the Bruff electoral area committee to decide the matter."

We've discussed this. It was not the in the gift of the Bruff LEA to sign off on the sale - i.e the conveyancing and transfer of the land - but inn order for the disposal of the land to proceed to the next stage of a sale process, the Bruff LEA needed to approve the disposal. The point being that the LEA committee might have pertinent local knowledge in the best interests of the local authority to block the sale.

Their approval was a requirement to start the sale process. And this was duly proposed.

"it (the proposal to sell the site) was proposed by Councillor Enright and seconded by Councillor Butler, to proceed as outlined"

So that is a motion arising in the meeting.

The members were in favour of the proposal, ie in favour of the motion.

If the rest of the members did not vote in favour of the motion how did they indicate they were in favour?

its quite simple and straightforward really, but certain peoples assumptions, biases and lay understandings of process and protocols, is colouring their view here.

We agree 100% on this.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665354#Comment_120665354

If the rest of the members did not vote in favour of the motion how did they indicate they were in favour?

have you ever been at a committee meeting?

this i show its goes:

chairperson: "item 2, proposal by the council to disposes of council lands at XYZ in the village. are there any objections to the proposal?"

board: silence

chairperson: "grand, item 2 approved. can i have a proposed and seconder please"

Councillor Enright: "ill propose"

Councillor Butler: "ill second"

Chairperson: "noted"

thats how most meetings work in my experience, having sat on various committees and attended various council committees in a professional capacity.

Hoboo

If what the Ditch discovered was true, Niall/Neil/Norman Collins legal team are staying very quiet.

A TD rightly got called an organic farmer last night and the Dail was suspended twice. Niall Collins gets called a criminal and he turns the other cheek.

Nothing to see here.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665375#Comment_120665375

I've never been at an LEA Committee meeting, but I've sat in countless board meetings taking decisions subject to significant governance.

And in my experience the scenario you describe would be considered for governance purposes a motion proposed, vote taken, carried unanimously.

Silence when asked if anybody has any objections is considered a vote in favour, by dint of the fact there are no votes against. It's simply an efficient way of running a meeting, deciding non-contentious issues. Nodding through as it were.

You've made it clear that you do not believe the scenario you have described to be a vote, but do you believe it is a conspiracy theory to describe it as a vote?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665436#Comment_120665436

no i just believe it wrong to call it a vote, especially when no vote was required.

sydthebeat

@hometruths

heres a question for you.

do you think the Bruff LEA committee had a veto over the lands being sold?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665476#Comment_120665476

There were no objections to the proposal to dispose of the land, hence was approved. If sufficient members of Bruff LEA objected at that meeting the proposal to dispose of the land would not have been approved.

So I think they had the power to prevent the sale of the land so effectively yes they had a veto.

But no doubt just like you have explained when a vote is not a vote, you'll explain why a veto is not a veto.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665471#Comment_120665471

OK, well we agree on the conspiracy theory thing then.

That's the point I was making in the post you quoted. We can argue the semantics of what is a vote all day long, but to say alleging a vote took place is a conspiracy theory based on wild speculation is ridiculous.

Larbre34

They did not have a veto. Nor could they approve it.

Only a vote of a full County or City Council at one of its statutory meetings can approve the disposal of land.

The reason the disposal of the land was brought to the Bruff Area meeting, was to a) inform locally based members this was being considered and b) test the waters to see if there was any disquiet about it in principle that may cause the Council Executive to reconsider.

Such an agenda item is common at hundreds of local area committee meetings every week of the year all across Ireland.

No local area committee can green light or red light a land disposal because they are not empowered to do so, they can only contribute to the conversation.

By nodding through the motion on the night, what they were effectively doing was to say 'we, this local committee, don't see any issues arising in principle if this goes ahead, start the formal process and send it to the full Council later for consideration and any matters arising may be debated there.'

And so, the reason a veto is not a veto, is that local electoral area committees have no such power and so it could never arise.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665838#Comment_120665838

Ok, but at that stage of the process they could have prevented the land being offered for sale if sufficient members saw issues arising in principle?

i.e their approval was required to start the formal process?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120663650#Comment_120663650

Apart from the whole not having an interest in the land thing 🙄

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665897#Comment_120665897

No.

The bottom line of bringing such items to local area committees is two-fold; information and communication.

'Local' is the operative word. Councillors are generally well informed about local feeling on any given matter and also they are expected to feed back to constituents matters under consideration by the Council Executive that may affect them.

In turn, they can flag back to the Council that there may or may not be local concern / anger / enthusiasm etc about something.

It's not a matter of approving the formal process, it's simply an expression of either 'you're probably fine to kick off' or 'you should probably consider matter X or issue Y before proceeding'.

I'm sorry Hometruths, but you are looking for a smoking gun regarding a matter where not only is there no sign of any smoke, but no gun to be seen either.

And that's the reason this matter is already dead and buried, if it ever existed beyond conjecture in the first place.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120665897#Comment_120665897

jesus christ, how is this so hard to get???

NO!!

the process had already started, which is why it was an item on the agenda. The process was started by Limerick County council, and put forward to bruff LEA for their input.

Bruff LEA could have screamed blue murder against the motion, but all that would happen then is that the council would take their views under advisement in the next steps of the process. Bruff LEA absolutely DID NOT have a veto against the sale if the land (assuming you know what 'veto' actually means; seeing as youve had so much trouble with 'vote').

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666151#Comment_120666151

Ok, so the process had started, clearly there must be somebody who has the authority and thus the responsibility and accountability for the decision to offer publicly owned land for sale. Who is that somebody?

You're implying it is Limerick County Council who have taken the decision to start the process of disposing of this land There is no record anywhere of the councillors themselves taking this decision at the local authority level.

The only information we have is that an employee of LCC, Mr Naughten, Senior Engineer, informs the LEA they have had interest in this piece of publicly owned land. 

Surely you're not claiming that Mr Naughten takes responsibility for appointing estate agents to offer publicly owned land on the open market?

What you're saying now is somewhat at odds with your earlier comments:

The LEA had the power to prevent the sale of the land.

They did not have the power to sell the land.

Only the county council had that power, and that meeting you are referring to is not a county council meeting.

The county council recommended the sale of the land. They needed to inform the local area committee, and get their approval, to continue the process.

Who do you think G Naughton is in these minutes, that is putting forward the proposal?

sydthebeat

The LEA had the power to prevent the sale of the land.

when i said the above i was speaking in the context of whether they had to power to sell the land or not, which of course they hadn't.

i have no problem now saying that i meant they could object against the sale, rather than flat out stop the sale, so you can take that as an edit of the above post.

regardless, its been all laid out for you clearly now. its up to you to accept the process or not. if you choose not to, so be it.

at the end of the day, i, for one, certainly am not defending Niall Collins here. i think he has many questions to answer about more serious matters, but in this case there has been no illegality.