General secretary of the IFA on a possible €400,000 salary-Read mod note in post 2734

_Brian · 01-12-2015 10:40am

Its all semantics..
He says he got verbal approval afterwards
The deal was done and the money was signed away by him, it doesn't matter if noddy and big ears verbally agreed afterwards.. he'd gone on a solo run and signed the deal..

I'd say they are on a fairly sticky wicked legally on this issue, as president he most likely has the authority to sign a legally binding deal on his own. Unless there is some system where deals need to be co-signed but I think this isn't the case..

So the IFA are left with few choices, they have little grounds to deny the payment, because it was obscene or immoral isn't a legal reason not to pay out the cash as agreed by the IFA president. Most likely any legal challenge on these grounds would be thrown out.

I said before, they may have a chance to insist Smith was sacked and hope for an unfair-dismissal case to reduce costs..
But, the chances are the document signed was a "mutual consent" type letter where Pat Smiths resignation was accepted in return for a severance payment..

I think legally they may well be stuck with this bill...

I was listening to Downey on the radio earlier and he seemed to be playing the "plausable deniability" thing round Smiths salary, it makes him sound a very very poor leader that he had no idea of the salary level - or a total idiot !

A friend said to me over the weekend that if these idiots were the best leaders for the farmers union then it was no wonder farming was on its knees.. I couldn't but agree.

Farmer Ed · 01-12-2015 10:47am

_Brian wrote: »

Its all semantics..
He says he got verbal approval afterwards
The deal was done and the money was signed away by him, it doesn't matter if noddy and big ears verbally agreed afterwards.. he'd gone on a solo run and signed the deal..

I'd say they are on a fairly sticky wicked legally on this issue, as president he most likely has the authority to sign a legally binding deal on his own. Unless there is some system where deals need to be co-signed but I think this isn't the case..

So the IFA are left with few choices, they have little grounds to deny the payment, because it was obscene or immoral isn't a legal reason not to pay out the cash as agreed by the IFA president. Most likely any legal challenge on these grounds would be thrown out.

I said before, they may have a chance to insist Smith was sacked and hope for an unfair-dismissal case to reduce costs..
But, the chances are the document signed was a "mutual consent" type letter where Pat Smiths resignation was accepted in return for a severance payment..

I think legally they may well be stuck with this bill...

I was listening to Downey on the radio earlier and he seemed to be playing the "plausable deniability" thing round Smiths salary, it makes him sound a very very poor leader that he had no idea of the salary level - or a total idiot !

A friend said to me over the weekend that if these idiots were the best leaders for the farmers union then it was no wonder farming was on its knees.. I couldn't but agree.

You know the sad thing about this country is very often things that are totally immoral are not illegal. How many examples have we of people who totally screwed up this country walking off with golden hand shakes and fat pensions. Ultimately the law is an ass.

rangler1 · 01-12-2015 11:35am

WheatenBriar wrote: »

He did not say that on morning Ireland at all
He did not say any names,he just said others knew and he wouldn't name them
He said they threw him under a bus(his words) but refused to name them so as to cause no more hurt
Fair assumption that the people you mentioned are the ones he was referring to though

Obviously also,we now know the IFA is some kind of religious cult

This is from the Indo. where he said he heeded the advice

''An hour later he met with the legal adviser, treasurer and the financial controller and he spoke by phone with the deputy president, Tim O'Leary.
Mr Downey said it was made "absolutely clear to me you cannot remove somebody from a salaried job just because of the size of that salary".

He said he then went to Pat Smith's office and "man to man, we had a very difficult conversation. I was angry but I had to take heed of all the advice I had just been given. I advised Pat Smith of his position and he decided to exit the IFA".''

WheatenBriar · 01-12-2015 11:35am

_Brian wrote: »

Its all semantics..
He says he got verbal approval afterwards
The deal was done and the money was signed away by him, it doesn't matter if noddy and big ears verbally agreed afterwards.. he'd gone on a solo run and signed the deal..

Actually on radio this morning, the damning thing for O'Leary and the treasurer is he said he had approval from people (he refused to name) before his smith meeting

Thats going to come out in court no doubt (if it goes to court at all) or someone is going to have tosay a name under oath and a named person will either be shown up or deny under oath

Regardless the case for a total clean out at the top of the IFA was made stronger this morning, not weaker
Voters should remember that at the vote

CallofGuti · 01-12-2015 11:35am

Downey's thin veiled attack on Bergin and Tim on Morning Ireland was really something else. IF he cared so much about the ifa he would've kept his counsel for six month, allow everything to die down and then throw dirt. I think it's shocking.

WheatenBriar · 01-12-2015 11:42am

CallofGuti wrote: »

I think it's shocking.

But not surprising
Its human nature,when scorned (as Downey definitely was) that he'd want to throw a few grenades (cleverly to give him credit) to stop the others left supping from whats left of the trough

Bass Reeves · 01-12-2015 12:30pm

He is saying a lot of things that are shaded by fog. I agree with Rangler from his statement it appears others knew and accepted/advised him to negotiate PS exit. He then gives the impression that himself and Bergin were trying to deal with PS salary with the last 12 months. This is the salary he did not know that it was as high as it was. You would have to ask why he was dealing with it if he did not know it was so high.

It is smoke and mirrors well with his own salary. He did not know that it was as high as it was until he won the election??. He then states it was 70K after tax when in reality it is worth 82K. He gives the impression that the farm managers ( he said he employed two when in reality one would be a manager and the other an ordinary employee) have to be paid out of the 70K when in reality they are a pre tax expense. If the farm incurred a loss because of paying the salary's he can write off farm losses against him PAYE income.

Just came across this in the Indo

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ivan-yates/ivan-yates-why-outoftouch-ifa-can-never-go-back-to-business-as-usual-34241709.html

_Brian · 01-12-2015 12:30pm

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Actually on radio this morning, the damning thing for O'Leary and the treasurer is he said he had approval from people (he refused to name) before his smith meeting

Thats going to come out in court no doubt (if it goes to court at all) or someone is going to have tosay a name under oath and a named person will either be shown up or deny under oath

Regardless the case for a total clean out at the top of the IFA was made stronger this morning, not weaker
Voters should remember that at the vote

He is mis saying so Much it's muddying the water. My understanding was that before the pat smith agreement he was advised that He couldn't remove smith based on the size of his salary alone, I'd agree with that advice.
But that is a far cry from throw him €2million to go, which was his solution.

I don't care what way he dances round this it still comes back to him going solo and making this sizeable agreement with smith.

CallofGuti · 01-12-2015 12:34pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is smoke and mirrors well with his own salary. He did not know that it was as high as it was until he won the election??. He then states it was 70K after tax when in reality it is worth 82K. He gives the impression that the farm managers ( he said he employed two when in reality one would be a manager and the other an ordinary employee) have to be paid out of the 70K when in reality they are a pre tax expense. If the farm incurred a loss because of paying the salary's he can write off farm losses against him PAYE income.

Great point. Somebody made a smilar point on RTE radio this morning. Money in is tax deductable and then you can get tax back the other side so that's a totally moot point. Nonsense talk.

WheatenBriar · 01-12-2015 1:34pm

_Brian wrote: »

He is mis saying so Much it's muddying the water. My understanding was that before the pat smith agreement he was advised that He couldn't remove smith based on the size of his salary alone, I'd agree with that advice.
But that is a far cry from throw him €2million to go, which was his solution.

I don't care what way he dances round this it still comes back to him going solo and making this sizeable agreement with smith.

Agreed
O'Leary in his interviews was doing the same, basically trying to waffle themselves out of a corner when most of us see a big neon sign over their heads with an arrow saying corner this way

whelan2 · 01-12-2015 1:38pm

Downey was on lmfm. Thought he spoke well considering everything. He couldn't talk about anything pat Smith except that the wages he was on were crazy.

WheatenBriar · 01-12-2015 1:52pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Downey was on lmfm. Thought he spoke well considering everything. He couldn't talk about anything pat Smith except that the wages he was on were crazy.

Aye but up until Derek Deane went public,Downey as president was doing F all about it,in fact he didn't want it known it seems and once the sheets hit the fan,it was a resigning matter all of a sudden what does that tell us about his credibility on this?

whelan2 · 01-12-2015 1:59pm

Seems to be so much secrecy over everything. Downey didn't know he would be getting a salary until a few weeks after he was elected. What did he think Smith was on? Can't believe that he didn't know until the 19 the of November what Smith was on especially in the light of con luceys letters

_Brian · 01-12-2015 2:09pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Seems to be so much secrecy over everything. Downey didn't know he would be getting a salary until a few weeks after he was elected. What did he think Smith was on? Can't believe that he didn't know until the 19 the of November what Smith was on especially in the light of con luceys letters

I'd say the secrecy is evident because there's still more dirty laundry to be made public throughout the organisation.

I also feel they are throwing up a smokescreen to cover who knew what and when they knew it. I absolutely do not beleive that nobody knew what smith was getting paid, even if it wasn't officially known, this is Iteland everybody knows what is going on within such small organisations.

rangler1 · 01-12-2015 2:26pm

_Brian wrote: »

I'd say the secrecy is evident because there's still more dirty laundry to be made public throughout the organisation.

I also feel they are throwing up a smokescreen to cover who knew what and when they knew it. I absolutely do not beleive that nobody knew what smith was getting paid, even if it wasn't officially known, this is Iteland everybody knows what is going on within such small organisations.

I wonder is there any of the organisations in paris where they're discussing emission. Alan Matthews or An taisce were saying this morning that we should get rid of the beef industry as its causing too much damage to the environment and wouldn't survive but for subsidies any way.
Me thinks it needs to be marked

_Brian · 01-12-2015 2:41pm

rangler1 wrote: »

I wonder is there any of the organisations in paris where they're discussing emission. Alan Matthews or An taisce were saying this morning that we should get rid of the beef industry as its causing too much damage to the environment and wouldn't survive but for subsidies any way.
Me thinks it needs to be marked

It's true.
The beef industry is dead. Larry and co are the only ones making money on beef an I for one have no interest in working so he can make the only profit in the system. Beef farmers are left that the only option for an income from beef is the direct payments which everyone outside farming resents them having. It's a sham and the IFA have no small part to play for allowing the current sham emerge.

whelan2 · 01-12-2015 2:42pm

_Brian wrote: »

I'd say the secrecy is evident because there's still more dirty laundry to be made public throughout the organisation.

I also feel they are throwing up a smokescreen to cover who knew what and when they knew it. I absolutely do not beleive that nobody knew what smith was getting paid, even if it wasn't officially known, this is Iteland everybody knows what is going on within such small organisations.

Con lucey must have known what he was on or he wouldnt have written the letters

Bass Reeves · 01-12-2015 3:07pm

_Brian wrote: »

I'd say the secrecy is evident because there's still more dirty laundry to be made public throughout the organisation.

I also feel they are throwing up a smokescreen to cover who knew what and when they knew it. I absolutely do not beleive that nobody knew what smith was getting paid, even if it wasn't officially known, this is Iteland everybody knows what is going on within such small organisations.

Todays farming Independent has a few articles on this. It show on how over the last decade the IFA fulltime staff were more wrapped up in the business part of the IFA than the represntive part.

whelan2 wrote: »

Con lucey must have known what he was on or he wouldnt have written the letters

He may not have known exactly. However on the audit committee he smelled a rat when Smith trued to sanitize what they could audit. He had enough gumption to question this unlike others.

This could go back as far as 1990 or beyond that. Back then Tom Clinton resigned or was forced out over Dairy Quota issues. However I remember a few years after hearing that he was forced out over clashes he had with the permnament staff and some long serving officers. Do not know how true this is.

WheatenBriar · 01-12-2015 3:09pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Seems to be so much secrecy over everything. Downey didn't know he would be getting a salary until a few weeks after he was elected. What did he think Smith was on? Can't believe that he didn't know until the 19 the of November what Smith was on especially in the light of con luceys letters

Aye, and therein lies the future of the IFA leadership, does anyone believe the codology they're coming out with?
I mean I can understand not jeopardising a legal fight,but to be saying,that they didnt know they themselves didn't know that they'd have a substantial salary or what it was?
Laughable if they think anyone without gravy train ambitions could believe that,I don't

Its another example of what happens to you when you enter a bubble, you lose touch with reality
If O'Leary does run, and when branch campaigning isn't ran out the door of local meetings for his audacity, then IFA members only have themselves to blame

rangler1 · 01-12-2015 3:26pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Con lucey must have known what he was on or he wouldnt have written the letters

I said that at the beginning of this discussion, he should've circulated his letter to the whole national executive when it was ignored where it went

Farmer Ed · 01-12-2015 3:30pm

rangler1 wrote: »

I wonder is there any of the organisations in paris where they're discussing emission. Alan Matthews or An taisce were saying this morning that we should get rid of the beef industry as its causing too much damage to the environment and wouldn't survive but for subsidies any way.
Me thinks it needs to be marked

You see that is another issue where we have not been fighting our corner. There is a growing body of evidence that would suggest grassland has the potential to act as a better carbon sink than forestry. The theory seems to be that if agricultural practices are adopted that promote the buildup of humus in the soil, it would also vastly improve the fertility, water retention and drainage of the soil.I can't confirm if these claims are correct but I have used one of the products involved and results are promising.

But here is the rub. Why are Teagasc not carrying out research?
If this technology is proven effective then this could be huge. if not at least ordinary farmers should not be the people gambling their money finding out. If this technology was to be proven successful it could have the potential to slash farmers fertiliser bills and greatly reduce our dependence on imported fertilizer.
I'm not saying this theory is correct but surely it needs to be researched. Unlikely to happen as long as we keep appointing people with vested interests,such as people from the fertilizer industry on to the board of teagasc.

rangler1 · 01-12-2015 3:31pm

_Brian wrote: »

It's true.
The beef industry is dead. Larry and co are the only ones making money on beef an I for one have no interest in working so he can make the only profit in the system. Beef farmers are left that the only option for an income from beef is the direct payments which everyone outside farming resents them having. It's a sham and the IFA have no small part to play for allowing the current sham emerge.

Beef price is the same or lower across Europe, where are you going to pull a better price out of.
Dairy cows will be the next target on emissions.

EarlyHead · 01-12-2015 3:58pm

rangler1 wrote: »

Beef price is the same or lower across Europe, where are you going to pull a better price out of.
Dairy cows will be the next target on emissions.

Majority of IFA founders were tillage men but from Paddy O'Keefe's time on the grass agenda was pushed to the forefront to the marginalisation of the arable sector including within the IFA. IFA appeared happy for the grain men to be sub-primary producers and nothing was done for them in 2009. Then there was the miscanthus and willow debacle, now we have others looking to push more land into forestry. Maybe now with all the turmoil a bit of parity can be restored to previously marginalised secors.I think Richie Hackett's piece in the Indo months back takes a different view that many (choose to) ignore.

"The fact that 91pc of this rich soil is covered with a crop that is of no use to anything except ruminants and hindgut fermenters is a policy decision, not a national asset."

"We have the highest yields of cereals in the Northern Hemisphere, enormous growth capacity from our trees, consistently high growth rates for our vegetable and potato crops - we can grow any temperate crop in this country that we want and grow it very well."

"Every extra litre of milk will have to be dried to a powder, using imported energy."

(w)ww.independent.ie/business/farming/milk-and-beef-is-best-bet-for-irish-farming-fact-or-fiction-30884117.html

BG2.0 · 01-12-2015 4:34pm

Farmer Ed wrote: »

You see that is another issue where we have not been fighting our corner. There is a growing body of evidence that would suggest grassland has the potential to act as a better carbon sink than forestry. The theory seems to be that if agricultural practices are adopted that promote the buildup of humus in the soil, it would also vastly improve the fertility, water retention and drainage of the soil.I can't confirm if these claims are correct but I have used one of the products involved and results are promising.

But here is the rub. Why are Teagasc not carrying out research?
If this technology is proven effective then this could be huge. if not at least ordinary farmers should not be the people gambling their money finding out. If this technology was to be proven successful it could have the potential to slash farmers fertiliser bills and greatly reduce our dependence on imported fertilizer.
I'm not saying this theory is correct but surely it needs to be researched. Unlikely to happen as long as we keep appointing people with vested interests,such as people from the fertilizer industry on to the board of teagasc.

The research has been done people just want to be spoon fed, google carbon farming once you get past the holier than thou complex some practitioners have its not too bad.
Saving fert depends on scale and affording the from a blank page 35+grand and climbing to get any use from soil mapping/yield measuring and fert spinner never mind software controls.

Farmer Ed · 01-12-2015 5:36pm

EarlyHead wrote: »

Majority of IFA founders were tillage men but from Paddy O'Keefe's time on the grass agenda was pushed to the forefront to the marginalisation of the arable sector including within the IFA. IFA appeared happy for the grain men to be sub-primary producers and nothing was done for them in 2009. Then there was the miscanthus and willow debacle, now we have others looking to push more land into forestry. Maybe now with all the turmoil a bit of parity can be restored to previously marginalised secors.I think Richie Hackett's piece in the Indo months back takes a different view that many (choose to) ignore.

"The fact that 91pc of this rich soil is covered with a crop that is of no use to anything except ruminants and hindgut fermenters is a policy decision, not a national asset."

"We have the highest yields of cereals in the Northern Hemisphere, enormous growth capacity from our trees, consistently high growth rates for our vegetable and potato crops - we can grow any temperate crop in this country that we want and grow it very well."

"Every extra litre of milk will have to be dried to a powder, using imported energy."

(w)ww.independent.ie/business/farming/milk-and-beef-is-best-bet-for-irish-farming-fact-or-fiction-30884117.html

Earlyhead I'm sure your views would not be contested by a lot of people in the world of science. However there is another school of thought. I'm not a scientist but I do know there is a growing school of thought that would suggest that for example, every time ground is tilled, carbon is released.The theory behind it is that soil humus is infact stored carbon from the atmosphere. Apparently in nature the greatest bank of humus to be found anywhere, is in the virgin north American prairies. Grazed by buffalo for thousands of years, but yet still acting as a carbon sink. What is now being claimed is that when this land is converted over to tillage then the amount of humus in the soil depletes on an ongoing basis. Hence maybe grazing cattle are not as bad for the environment as was originally thought. Indeed they possibly support grassland that is acting as a very valuable carbon sink.There are companies now selling products to farmers that claim to boost soil humus production. However to the best of my knowledge Teagas are not doing any research in to this area. There only focus on soil seems to be the things fertilizer companies sell, ie N,P,K and lime.

I totally agree with you about Paddy O Keefe. Paddy was a great man to look after himself The trouble is today I find it had to believe much has changed if we continue to have people with vested interests on the board of Teagasc.
I think both of us are in agreement. The very big elephant in this room as seen by today's news, could yet well be the whole carbon emissions debate.
I think we need independent science and not vested interests on gombeen boards, to formulate the best policy for this country.

BG2.0 · 01-12-2015 5:57pm

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Earlyhead I'm sure your views would not be contested by a lot of people in the world of science. However there is another school of thought. I'm not a scientist but I do know there is a growing school of thought that would suggest that for example, every time ground is tilled, carbon is released.The theory behind it is that soil humus is infact stored carbon from the atmosphere. Apparently in nature the greatest bank of humus to be found anywhere, is in the virgin north American prairies. Grazed by buffalo for thousands of years, but yet still acting as a carbon sink. What is now being claimed is that when this land is converted over to tillage then the amount of humus in the soil depletes on an ongoing basis. Hence maybe grazing cattle are not as bad for the environment as was originally thought. Indeed they possibly support grassland that is acting as a very valuable carbon sink.There are companies now selling products to farmers that claim to boost soil humus production. However to the best of my knowledge Teagas are not doing any research in to this area. There only focus on soil seems to be the things fertilizer companies sell, ie N,P,K and lime.

Such as?
Soil innoculants like mycorhizza eg.
Organic acids building blocks like humic acid
Watered down molasses with 'a compost tea' with all or any above added.?
Only doable in cropping conditions or mixed let's no? Those prairy farmers are at the front of carbon farming, soil armour no-til and the rest just so you know. Would it not be sensible to focus on the P's and k's for being the main limiting inputs, the guys who want to go further will regardless or does that not suit the agenda?

Brown Podzol · 01-12-2015 6:09pm

Cattle are the cure not the problem.

“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And it's happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.

http://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI

Farmer Ed · 01-12-2015 6:21pm

BG2.0 wrote: »

Such as?
Soil innoculants like mycorhizza eg.
Organic acids building blocks like humic acid
Watered down molasses with 'a compost tea' with all or any above added.?
Only doable in cropping conditions or mixed let's no?

You see the thing is BG2. Is nither you or I have independent research to back up any argument either way. Are you happy that the board of Teagase is made up of people from the fertilizer industry and discredited farmer politicians?

At the very least there are very serious claims being made by certain companies regarding the ability of products to increase soil fertility and reduce carbon emissions. I was at a farm walk myself this spring and saw two holes that had been excavated to examine the effects of a products sold by a company called Sobac. I must say I was really impressed with what I saw. Claims were being made that P,K and lime application could be eliminated and N application reduced by half. Would you not think that the fertilizer company controlled Teagasc would be in a rush to produce research to disprove these claims, if as you suggest the stuff does not work? If the companies claims are correct it could have a huge positive impact on Irish agriculture.

Either way given the times we live in, you'd imagine Teagasc would have far more pressing issues to deal with than trying to think of excuses to do things like rent the likes of Paddy O Keefes farm. Its about time the old boys club mentality came to an end.

Cran · 01-12-2015 6:30pm

rangler1 wrote: »

It was under Pat Smiths management as Director of Organisation that IFA has got the financial security it has, so in a sense he is worth it.
I always thought that his salary was based on the salary of the head of the department of agriculture. It never really bothered me to ask as like the banks if the package isn't attractive enough you'll only get amateurs.
You have to be aware of who's driving this, a failed Presidential candidate who went on to fail to get the position of National Treasurer the same year

Rangler was that financial security not achieved at the detriment of policy?

What I mean by example is finance main source is the subs, which factories are probably main collector. If a leader is mainly focused on financial issues would there be a reluctance to fully support blockades etc that might be meaningful in terms of approach? i.e. concern over finance always be put above policy?

rangler1 · 01-12-2015 6:44pm

Cran wrote: »

Rangler was that financial security not achieved at the detriment of policy?

What I mean by example is finance main source is the subs, which factories are probably main collector. If a leader is mainly focused on financial issues would there be a reluctance to fully support blockades etc that might be meaningful in terms of approach? i.e. concern over finance always be put above policy?

As director of Organisation up till 2009, Pat Smith would have had nothing to do with policy, his qualifications would be business orientated,
It was the Co. Chairmen stopped the last protest, it was going nowhere and probably stopping a price rise.
Farmers will have to have a strategy to handle the Competition Authority before they try that again
The CA traced the no's of cars parked at a previous protest (not beef) and arrested farmers in their own yard.
That's the sort of power they have

General secretary of the IFA on a possible €400,000 salary-Read mod note in post 2734

Comments