IMO chief exec lump sum

Dr Nic wrote: »

How could the imo possibly negotiate a pension pot that would definitely wipe them out financially?
How is that even possible? And this was done in 2003 when presumably the imo coffers were still smallish on early celtic tiger growth.

I dont understand. I definitely would prefer to rot in 36 hour hell in letterkenny than fund such an incompetant orgsnisation. The imo must read this board. Will some1 not come on here and answer this? A good answer might help docs rejoin the organisation!

The IMO has not been run for the benefit of its members.

It is just not acceptable to fob us off with their "independent" audit.

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 think that quote should actually say you are not entitled to the information laoisdoc to be fair as with any organisation that has a membership when you resign you lose your entitlements.

Saying you are denied something implies you have a right or entitlement when as a resigned former member you do not

laoisdoc wrote: »

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.

Again I have a contrary view here, I dont think anyone is taking a congratulatory tone in this, I think they are relieved that they have a settlement and that he IMO has not been wound down. I have been to public meetings on this, expressed my discontent and listened to the arguments from all sides. There has been an EGM properly constituted with motions from the IMO council far stronger than the save motions originally drafted

Regarding the EGM, the strangely titled Save the IMO group had a proposal for an EGM with a number of motions, some of which called for the resignation of members of the IMO from the IMO itself not from the committees they served on but from the organisation. THe other motions called for a group to be elected from the floor of the EGM to oversee the governance review

From what I have seen at the original information meeting and read in the email releases fro the IMO President the IMO Council put forward other EGM motions which included what I believe to be the thrust of what the Save group wanted in terms of the Governance review (which is not from within the IMO but to be tendered externally and will also include very detailed review of whole process of CEO involvement in other subsidiary companies also and how they were set up) - I think this goes much further than what the SAVE group were looking for and also by getting this done externally should be more independent.

laoisdoc wrote: »

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?

yes that is true for president stipend, chairs of committees get stipend (4 people) ALL other committee members get travel expenses refunded and thats it

SleepDoc wrote: »

The IMO has not been run for the benefit of its members.

It is just not acceptable to fob us off with their "independent" audit.

What do you suggest a "non independent audit"

SleepDoc wrote: »

No audit is fully independent.

The terms of reference of the proposed audit will be set by the IMO.

These terms of reference need to be presented to the members and made public before an auditor is appointed.

I was at croke park meeting where they presented the broad terms of the audit and it looked fairly extensive

Terms of reference have to be set by someone/somebody/some group if IMO corporate wants to investigate dealings of its past who would you suggest set up the terms of reference

I think Matt Sadlier and Paul McKeown spoke to this topic in Croke park (think names correct )

The EGM last week was to propose such motions

Now terms of reference need to be set BUT I think the motion from last week authorises MAnagement committte to set the terms of reference for the tender (need to check that but i dont think they will be coming back to membership until report is due)

That is my limited understanding of it so far

Dr Nic wrote: »

How could the imo possibly negotiate a pension pot that would definitely wipe them out financially?
How is that even possible? And this was done in 2003 when presumably the imo coffers were still smallish on early celtic tiger growth.

I dont understand. I definitely would prefer to rot in 36 hour hell in letterkenny than fund such an incompetant orgsnisation. The imo must read this board. Will some1 not come on here and answer this? A good answer might help docs rejoin the organisation!

drzhivago wrote: »

What question are you asking here

I dont think the intention with his contract was to give him a pension that would wipe out the organisation, in fact there is a view that as the person financially responsible for the running of the IMO that it was his responsibility to outline to the MAnagement Committee of the IMO that there was a pension deficit specifically related to his own pension as a result of his very large salary

from the meetings I have attended it is clear he had some confidentiality clause negotiated with his deal which sought to limit information about his salary and bonuses being divulged

I understand ALL of that is forming part of the review which will be done by an outside agency ie tender being prepared which one would expect one of the large accountancy firms to win and then dig through all the records etc and produce a report

I ran the latest comments past the author of the summary above, this is what I got back:

Confidentiality? You bet He wanted confidentiality. He stitched up a pension worth 25M on an organisation with annual subscriptions of 3M!! He is obligated to disclose this very significant contingent liability by Company Law, confidentiality or not.

The IMO was not only guilty of producing totally misleading financial statements for the last 5 years at least, it was trading unlawfully with a contingent liability a multiple of its net assets, and McNiece knew it, who else who signed off these accounts knew?

Independent review? Absolutely there must be an independent review. We will know ex post whether it has been independent if it has at least found McNiece guilty of these gross breaches of Company Law.

Please stop calling it a Pensions Deficit. Stop pretending that this is a consequence of our times. Pensions deficits are to be sure a commonplace occurrence arising out of the financial crisis. But there is nothing commonplace about this 25M and it has nothing to do with the financial crisis. This an arrangement negotiated by the CEO of an organisation with that organisation which it couldn't possibly ever hope to honour and He knew it. In the event he stripped the organisation right down to the bare bone where it can just about state that it is financially viable going forward. Thank you Mr McNiece for waiving your entitlement to 15M. There is a 3.5M deferred liability to McNiece on the IMO's shattered balance sheet.

We must hope that the independent review will find that given McNiece gross and at least partially illegal misbehaviour toward the IMO in the past the IMO has no moral or legal obligation to honour this.

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

Ok, so more from the author of the above summary of the IMO accounts.

This is a personal view by a financial expert and is posted as such:-

Members of the IMO are asked to accept that, going forward, no subscriptions will be going toward McNiece’s retirement package.  That may be so.  The implication is that even the IMO would not expect its members to KNOWINGLY contribute to this travesty.
 
But for the last several years we now know that the bulk of the members subscriptions were indeed needed for this very purpose.  If the members had been aware that Mr McNiece had a package of 25M would they have paid their subscriptions? 
 
The terms of reference for the independent review should therefore include:
 
1. Did the financial statements for 2011 give a true and fair view of the finances of the IMO and were they free from material misstatements or omissions. Presuming the answer to this is no, the supplementary is:
2. For how many years have the financial statements failed to be true and fair or omitted material disclosure of the financial position?
 
With the presumably obvious answers to these questions it would appear that the IMO would have to concede that for a number of years they have extracted subscriptions from their members whilst failing to disclose key information as to what those subscriptions were for.  It is simply for the IMO to admit that they effectively got the subscriptions under false pretences, even if some of them didn't know this at the time.  If no one else is implicated then those alleged false pretences all devolve to Mr McNiece who knew about his package.

Fair questions and fair point
I really doubt looking at the people involved in the IMO in those positions over the years that they would have let themselves knowingly be placed in such a position or even that they had any knowledge of it

I have been to the AGM a fair few times, there is a rather old retired doctor who without fail questions annually details in the financial accounts and he is quite particular in some of his questions and has at times picked out some interesting errors

I never heard him ask a question regarding the pension fund of the Chief Executive which if he had concerns or was in a position to discern from the accounts he would have

 

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

The IMO could then undertake to return all the assets, including its property, to the affected members.  The members would then, hopefully, agree to onward transfer the assets to IMO 2 in return for a year’s free subscription,  at least the members would be in control for a change. This latter being neatly financed by the saving on the deferred pension to Mr McNiece which would be left in the wound up IMO 1. 

You obviously have some close confidant who is a financial whiz please ask them would the negotiated settlement with Mr McNeice not put a charge on the assets and prevent them from being given away and thus prevent winding up as you say above or else if he is a preferred creditor leave no assets to transfer to IMO 2
 

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

If there is one inkling of hope in this mess it is that the deferred payments to Mr NcNiece are not a liability of the pension fund, as they would then be beyond recapture.  But whilst they are a deferred liability of the IMO I think that they are within reach, as described above. 

In other words, members would get a years free subscription, staff would keep their jobs IMO 2 would concentrate on the members and the McNeice debacle would be well and truly in the past. Otherwise the McNeice problem will remain part of the IMO annoying members for years to come.

I really wish what you say could happen but I cant see it

Mod Note

ThatDrGuy (and others), I've edited part of your post which I'm slightly uncomfortable with.

Some posts on this thread have been reported (thanks to those who have alerted us) and while I'm happy to let the discussion develop, I'd remind you that the matter is being investigated, and may or may not lead to further legal proceedings. I'd ask you to bear this in mind when posting.

Thanks

Again I will state that the following is from a financial expert, it is their opinion and I am posting it as such:-

In answer to Dr Zhivago points posted yesterday.

Before addressing your points I would like to point out that McNiece is due the first part of his package, amounting to €1.5m, on 31st March.  That happens to be this Sunday.  It is therefore payable on the next business day.  Whilst someone with a macabre sense of humour might like to hand this over on April Fools day, that too is a bank holiday.  The payment is therefore due next Tuesday.  The IMO should on no account make this payment pending the outcome of the Independent Review.  McNiece may take legal steps to force payment, so be it, but the organisation desperately needs to demonstrate to its members that it is very serious about this matter and the upcoming Independent Review.  Heaven forbid that the IMO in its anxiety to appease McNiece has already made this payment in advance of its due date!
 
I note your explanation of where the €25M came from.  I got this from the media, for even now there is insufficient detail about what that original package was.  I take your point that about €10M of this is due to “actuarial drift” in recent years which it would not  have been expected that the Management Committee would have anticipated.  Nonetheless the full current actuarial value of this package was known at the time of finalising the 2011 financial statements, so the level of non disclosure in those was indeed of the order of €20M. By the way, the reason that astute perennial accounts watcher never queried this package is precisely because it wasn't disclosed. That is the purpose of accounts. Proper disclosure would have flushed out this madness before it became too late.
 
However, there is no need to exaggerate this travesty.  Based on traditional actuarial metrics, McNiece managed over a period of 10 years to wrangle out of the IMO a early retirement package of €15M or 60 times his initial salary as CEO.  The Independent Review will presumably enquire as to whether McNiece at all times acted in the best interests of the organisation whilst he was in its employ or whether he had more focus on securing his grotesque package.
 
I will address the course of action that I advocate later but I wish to further emphasise how the members appear to have been paying subscriptions under false pretences for several years.  The Treasurer in his report states that it was always the intention to be fully transparent on this matter.  That is both worrying and an insult. It is an insult as it is saying that the members were always going to told how their pockets had been picked AFTER they had been picked.  The time to tell them was as soon as it became known that it was going to happen so that they could empty their pockets in time!  But it is also a profoundly worrying statement for it implies that there was indeed full knowledge of what was due to take place for some time.  This of course will be flushed out by the Independent Review.
 
As to confidentiality.  The IMO belongs to its members.  They entrusted its oversight to the Trustees.  The Trustees had no right to negotiate such an outrageous package with a hired employee of the organisation, never mind keep it confidential from them.
 
Now what should happen?  Presuming that the Independent Review finds that for several years the members have been paying subscriptions under false pretences the IMO should declare that the collection of those subscriptions was invalid and they should be returned.  The members then become creditors of the IMO.  McNiece has no preferential claim on the assets of the organisation.  That is the only sign of hope here.  He must wait his turn and if there is nothing left for him after paying out other creditors whose due dates came earlier then that is hard cheese. If the IMO deems that members should have their subscriptions returned because they were extracted under false pretences then these repayments will come ahead of McNiece’s deferred pension in time albeit pari passu in priority.  McNiece may seek an injunction but the best he could hope to get from that would be the winding up of the IMO and a divvying out of the assets between him and the members.  That process would reduce his €3.5M pot to a mere fraction.
 
Of course, what would happen in practice is that a much more realistic renegotiation would take place with McNiece.  Returning to the first paragraph, if the €1.5M has been withheld the outcome of that negotiation might be to release that payment and quash the deferred pension altogether (the 4.7m in the pension fund, that is out of reach).  If the €1.5M has not been withheld the negotiating position is that much weaker.
 
Nothing less than a radical plan along these lines will restore morale to the members and staff alike of the IMO in my opinion.


 

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Mc Niece did and the auditors who audited the IMO accounts every year did as well as those involved in negotiation as well as those they discussed it with. At a time of dwindling membership the IMO body consciously chose again and again to keep membership costs high despite it being the second biggest bone of contention the members had with the IMO. Can you please tell me why the membership costs were about a third higher than needed to be all these years?






I was reffering to the case regarding working hours. The first limitations of working hours in this country came into force with the 1997 Organisation and Working time act. The IMO ignored it. It was 13 years before it finally took a case to the high court regarding working hours. In 2010 it secured a ruling that the HSE was in breech of the EWTD. The IMO then made a "deal" with the HSE to ignore it's own victory - effectively allowing them to carry on the status quo to the present day. It was in this internecine period that I lost two of my clasmates. When the 2 year legal moratorium ran out: did the IMO bring the HSE back to court ? Did it hell. Why spend 5 million euro of reserves on legal action to try and safe guard the working conditions of its members when you can give all that money to the muppet at the top ? Even without the McNiece scandal those actions are unforgivable. Irish doctors are the only group of workers in the country for whom health and safety legislation is sidelined and undermined by their own union.










What piece of work was he working on that was worth 100,000+ euro of our money just to keep him hanging around not working on it ? Was there an open tender for the job or was it old boys club rules ? Who hired him? Who agreed his obscene retainer ? Why is an IMO insider the new interim CEO instead of some-one impartial outside of the organisation ?




Elections should have been held for an oversight committee of IMO members themselves who would have set the terms of the investigation ie they would have acted in the interests of the membership. I am not saying that the current body of the IMO is corrupt, I am saying they are too close to the former body members for any impartial evaluation : They will not do anything that will compromise their associates. The IMO has been run as an old boys club for years: that is what allowed this lunatic settlement, that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:

1: IMO body releases statement praising McNiece
2: Does not inform members of settlement - settlement info has to be leaked by people outraged at their actions
3: Belatedly offers token details of settlement - which is still completely opaque, bits are leaked in dribs and drabs and full disclose still not happened
4: Convenes a meeting to explain themselves when they realise the peons are upset now that they know when where their money is going
5: Refuse to let members vote at the meeting
6: Force members to call EGM on the subject
7: Blame everything on a single decreased former president

All these actions are opposition to the interests of the members of the IMO. They are willing to pay off McNiece (with our money) and get rid of him, then continue on business as usual. Note:

They havent fired him !!?? He is still at "work" in the IMO. The very first action when he demanded a 40 times his salary pension settlement (twice the entire worth of the IMO) told them to sell the buildings, sacrifice the entire organisation for his own personal gain would have been to dismiss him. This would also keep him from being able to cover things up from the inside. Let him sue for dismissal, thats when they could have dug up dirt on him and his actions etc, set a legal basis for potential malfeasance
As jmcdrmd excellent post pointed out: All payments should have been frozen pending an investigation. Long story short: The actions of the IMO to date on this subject have had one theme - payoff McNiece, obfuscate delay and water down the investigation, prevent any inquiry that might dig up other potential scandals. Their actions show clearly that they do not act in members best interests and as such show they cannot be trusted to run the inquiry.

have to agree with this.....the facts of the confidential pension and settlement speak for themselves. I also think it is almost impossible to prove that subscriptions were raised for this purpose, irrespective of the optics.

As a recent member, I would have been happy to pay an extra fund to fight this out in court. The current blind acceptance, on the basis of 'legal advice' really grates

drzhivago wrote: »

Will try and reply with what I know from the meetings and documents seen but am not fully conversant with all details obviously

Former CEO obviously knew his salary, auditors should have THOUGH that section in the accounts doesnt break down who got paid what, I would have expected them to ask questions about pension funds and that would relate to his salary

I cant tell you why membership fees are higher than they need to be, as i dont know what figure they need to be at all, that depends on numbers of members in various grades and work plan for the year, plus salaries of employees

If you are building up funds in the millions while members are leaving due to high fee's then they are too high. End of story. This craziness carried on all the way to this scandal and beyond until mass resignations forced them to lower the fees. They are still too high.

I dont have that case document I have the 2009 one, if you have could you post please

http://www.imt.ie/news/industrial-relations/2010/01/nchd-case-is-settled.html

This is the case. Not a great report on it, long story short the IMO took the HSE to the high court for breech of the EWTD. The judge ruled in the IMOs favour, the IMO then made a deal whereby the IMO could not take the HSE back to the high court for two years in exchange for ? something ?. Possibly magic beans, im not sure. Our new president said at the last meeting that the agreement was the HSE wouldnt unilaterally renegotiate the contract in exchange for the IMO allowing them to ignore the EWTD for two more years. The details are opaque as our wonderful union does not like to talk about such things, despite the fact they massively effect the working conditions of every NCHD in the country.

Incorrect, when introduced it exempted NCHDs from its effects, IMO committee at time looked at what parts did relate to NCHDs and then used them, hence the introduction of premium pay for Sunday hours for 1st time in 1998

In addition IMO forced DOHC at time to fund study of working hours to find NCHDs worked 77 hours on average in 1999 when studied over 13 hospitals for a two week period



The law only became applicable in 2004 and then on graduated basis so factually your statement is incorrect

You're correct there, my original info on that was incorrect. The 1997 act excludes trainee doctors. The 2004 EWTD does not. The Irish government did not negotiate an exemption. It was 6 years they did diddly for, not 13

I suppose retainer was a bad choice of word if I used it I apologise, from the Croke park meeting I understand his symbio company had been contracted to do a review of internal workings of committees and structures and membership to come up with ways of getting people more engaged, members with imo and committees with members etc

I didnt hear if there was a tender for that or not. As far as I am aware he is not an insider it was mentioned at one of the meetings that when he worked for Irish life he gave advice on pension sets ups for a CEO and apparently the advice he gave was not acted upon.

Was the work he did worth his retainer ? Was it that essential he had to be paid such a huge amount ? Was reorganising a committee (something that could have been done by an unpaid intern ) so vital to the organisation that he was paid a salary 3x the average industrial wage just in case they needed him again ? Note: he was paid for the work - the 100,000+ was just a sweetener. Did he by any chance point out that having incredibly high fee's while ignoring the horrific working conditions of the rank and file members might have had something to do with the dis-engagement of the members? That throwing crazy money at outside contracters and the ceo was helping alienate people ? I doubt it somehow.

I dont agree I think the Council does act in interest and so do the trustees. If you were at the meetings you would have seen the terms of the investigation which go way further than what the SAVE group initially put forward. One of the big Accountancy firms will get this tender in all likelihood and they will have a field day with what they find I have no doubt. From what i heard at the meetings this will be unpalatable but it is not being prevented or sugar coated.

Some did ask in Croke park why bother if this investigation is expected to cost another few hundred thousands and will possibly not result in any recoveries of money-- thus is it worth it. I feel it is then up to membership to decide what to do afterward


Agree with 1st part of sentence but not the second, the time frames were explained at the meetings
Someone mentioned earlier reckless trading, I dont know the ins and outs of what constitutes that BUT the thrust of the point seemed to be he had to go before January 2013

Wide and shallow is classic obfuscation method. Narrow and deep is the way to get to the rot. I agree, the whole basic of the investigation should be to prevent any of the members money going to that muppet and rooting out those that allowed it to happen.

that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:
didnt see that can you reference
I got an email of settlement, I am a member did you not get this in December
See above I got email, also mor detail in the accounts for this year which i have just read

The time scale goes like this:
IMO puts statement that Mc Niece is retiring on its website, praising his work. That statement is reported to the IMT:
http://www.imt.ie/news/latest-news/2012/12/breaking-news-imo-announces-retirement-plans-for-ceo-george-mcneice.html

The next day the story and details of the settlement are leaked to the Irish Times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-medical-organisation-chief-to-retire-with-1-5m-pension-lump-sum-1.4193

IMO rush into damage control hiring expensive PR firm to spin the settlement (with more of members cash - not reported widely but we even paid to be lead around like fools ). Many people resign from IMO : IMO finally realises the plebs are annoyed. Statement is belatedly released on the subject. Instead of calling an EGM a general purpose meeting is called. It is convened in Mullingar ( because thats apparently where all Irish roads lead and most doctors work ). It goes on for 6 hours, IMO waffle no one is happy, vote is denied as not EGM. Pisssed off GP ( well done sir) forces EGM IMO would never have agreed to otherwise. IMO convenes its own review : Old boys club reviewing the actions of the older boys club.
Full financial disclosure still awaited. It took another leak to the media to find out the IMO financial services wing was also throwing money into McNiece pocket : its accounts desperately need a magnifying glass or two.


It wont happen again. Of course ! You can only take ALL THE MONEY once. This guy took more money this year from the IMO than the presidents of most of western europe combined! The body of the IMO let it happen, they hired spin doctors to cover it up, they fobbed off the membership, now they control the review. Vorsprung was worried that there might be legal action as a result of this. I will offer odds 50/1 no one will ever be legally indited and McNiece will walk away with every cent.

Also I believe yesterday was Mc Nieces last day on the job. On his way out he has demanded a painting from the IMO and that the IMO pay his families private health insurance. I assume he will take the light bulbs too.

Sunday Business Post today

George McNeice chartered private jets on IMO business!!!

He went on courses to Harvard University & trips to Australia, South America and South Africa all on IMO business! Accompanied by senior IMO figures!

This just gets better.......

DubDocX wrote: »

Sunday Business Post today

George McNeice chartered private jets on IMO business!!!

He went on courses to Harvard University & trips to Australia, South America and South Africa all on IMO business! Accompanied by senior IMO figures!

This just gets better.......

"Occasional" rather than routine.

That's alright then.

Join the IMO. Engage for change.