IMO chief exec lump sum

Anyone know what happened at the meeting?

RobFowl wrote: »

The doctor only forum (not a boards one) has a summary of what was said on it.

Can I ask what that forum is? Interested to hear a summary of what was said at the meeting. I couldn't attend because of location (and the fact that I cancelled my IMO membership!).

2Scoops wrote: »

Cancelling a membership requires that you contact them and explain. Perhaps the major losses will occur when the IMO come looking for renewals?

I also wonder if the fees will increase this year to mitigate the membership loss. May have to pare back the vanity projects to stay in the black, if that's even possible after forking out 1.5m.

If the IMO does implode and a new union is formed, I hope they concentrate on being a union and nothing more. There's no point in getting a new union if they continue with all the nonsense and charge €1000 a year.

it's as easy as cancelling a direct debit - you can do it right now on your online banking

if the union goes bust where does the rest of GMcN's pension come from...?

As a GP who has resigned membership of IMO on Xmas eve, let me point out that the annual sub for a GP is 1248 euro. There is reference above to a doctors only forum .. would somebody enlighten me as to where I can find it please.
Would anybody who has been to the meeting enlighten us on what happened please

DubDocX wrote: »

The meeting, as expected, was a whitewash. They basically didn't have any answers and hid behind this up and coming forensic audit and implied legal action if anyone said anything they didn't like! I don't know what the story is with this remuneration committee but it's all a bit suspect. What's the point of a remuneration committee who don't know the remuneration of the person they're supposed to be assessing? It's all a bit odd. Most people left feeling disheartened and felt although we were there for nearly 6 hours, no satisfactory answers were given. As one of the attendees was quoted as saying 'it's as clear as mud'. I think they're hoping this will all just fizzle out.....

Thanks for that DubDocx. Did they give any indication as to when this audit might be finalised, and whether members would have access to the report? Who is doing the audit?

DubDocX wrote: »

So it turns out the acting CEO Niall Saul knew about McNiece's contract back in 2003 and has also been on a retainer of €60,000?! But he "has the trust and respect of the executive committee" !

He is a former board member of FAS, a sure fire way to gain trust and respect.

Judging by the responses here, would the advice from seasoned IMOers to next years interns be to save ourselves the subscription fee?

Reading about the details of McNeice's €10m settlement yesterday and the thought of handing over a substantial subscription each year makes me feel funny inside...

SleepDoc wrote: »

Oh no, engage for change. Make a difference. You'll be fired if you strike and you're not a member. There is no alternative. Etc etc.

Save your money for a ticket to Australia.

Should we at least attend the 'sponsored event' and consume as big a portion of the current members contribution as possible... just to be polite?

IMO accounts for 2012 are out now, haven't had a chance to get them looked at ( I blame Cheltenham) but will try over the weekend.

http://www.imo.ie/news-media/publications/IMO-Financial-Statements-31-December-2012.pdf

I got the IMO financial statement for 2013 looked at. I asked for a rundown of the statement for busy doctors, here is the report I got back:-

---

IMO Financial Statements Commentary

The IMO have taken two major hits in 2012. In round sums, the settlement to the former CEO cost an additional €5M which was not provided for in 2011. In addition, there has been a €4M write down of properties.
Nonetheless, the organisation still has net resources of €3M down from €11M.

The IMO itself has fallen from €6M in the black to €0.6M in the red, mainly as a result of the Settlement but also from its share of the property write downs. The rest of the property write downs were absorbed by the property holding company, IMA.

What keeps the organisation above water is the broker company, Fitzserv whose net assets have increased slightly over the year from €3.5M to €3.9M.

So the Treasurer’s statement that no income from future membership subscriptions will be required to fund the Settlement would appear on the face of it to be correct.

However, the statement that “It was always our intention to reflect the full cost of the settlement…so that the agreement was transparent to members” rings very hollow.

Presumably some on the Management Committee and certainly Mr McNiece were fully aware of this contract when they compiled the 2011 Financial Statements. Recall that the original amount of the obligation, certainly as Mr McNiece saw it, was €20M i.e. €15M greater than was accrued for in the pensions fund. In the context of the finances of the organisation this was an enormous sum.

The Management Committee state, and the Auditors opine that they were correct to do so, that the Financial Statements give a “true and fair” view and are “free from material misstatement”. This is simply not credible in the context of the 2011 Financial Statements. The Auditors state that they “performed their audit to obtain all the information that was necessary…”. Presumably they were not made aware of these arrangements. Do the Auditors consider that Mr McNiece adequately co-operated with them in preparing the 2011 Financial Statements. If he did not why does the organisation feel obliged to honour this undisclosed obligation?

The IMO have represented that the final Settlement of €9.7M was the result of strong negotiations around the €20M face value of the secret arrangement or indeed that Mr McNiece has made a significant concession. In reality the IMO’s coffers have been cleaned out. The IMO was not in a position to give any more so let us not put this down to either negotiation skills on the part of the IMO or to concessions on the part of Mr McNiece. If it were not for the broker company the organisation would now be financially wiped out.

The IMO itself had accrued apparent reserves of €6M, €5M of which have been swallowed up by the Settlement. It begs the following questions:
Why were the subscriptions set at a level that such an apparent surplus would accrue?

Was it that the subscriptions were being set at a level to accrue for this off balance sheet liability?

Presuming no similar off balance sheet liability still exists does that mean there is ample scope to reduce subscriptions going forward?

---

Why does this basted thing tell me I'm not signed in when I hit Submit Reply? Luckily I have learned to edit/copy just before I post. Anyway I hope the commentary above is of help.

laoisdoc wrote: »

Thank you very much for your summary. Very helpful for those of us who have resigned from the IMO and are denied information as a result. I am very glad I resigned (as a long term GP member). There would have to be extraordinary changes in the IMO for me to return. These changes seem increasingly unlikely as it appears the IMO leadership are congratulating themselves that there hasnt been that much fall out from the McNeice affair, and they have successfully blocked the Save our IMO petition for an EGM.

Is it really true that the president of the IMO is paid 100,000 euro plus expenses or is it an urban myth? If he is being paid, then are all the members of the various committees also being paid plus expenses?

The numbers are available to all, see the link I posted above.

Individual pay is not detailed in the accounts.