FW: Response to ICU statement

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators: Seanie, EoinH

User avatar
Seanie
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:43 pm

I was forwarded this email today.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rachel Linney <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM
Subject: Response to ICU statement
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Barnwell, Mairead" <[email protected]>, alan mulligan <[email protected]>


Folks
16 clubs have formally requested an EGM of the ICU.

,
Barrowline
Kilcock
Pheonix
Gweebarra
Anchor
Newbridge Kayak Club
Naas Kayak Club
Kilcullen Canoe Club
Rockhoppers Kayak Club
Lir
Letterkenny IT
Carrick On Shannon
City wise
Trim
Voyagers Canoe Club
Salmon Leap

To date, no arrangements or dates have been circulated to clubs about an EGM, even though the due date has been exceeded.

Subsequently every club have now received a statement on behalf of the directors of the ICU but not from the Board of the Union.

A separate group of paddlers, members of the ICU, of substantial experience, knowledge and commitment to canoeing and to the ICU as a National governing body have written a response to the statement of the directors.

We enclose a copy of our statement and kindly request that you consider it with the due seriousness it represents and for the implications, financial and otherwise, that the present actions of the directors have for the ICU as a body.

We ask that you give an EGM your full support to maintain a viable and proper professional future for the ICU. Should you agree with the sentiments of our response can you please endorse same and forward it to the ICU.


Yours Faithfully

Declan Mac Daid
Jock Kelly
Peter Linney
Kevin Murphy
Rachel Linney
Gavin Griffin
Declan Golding
Alan Mulligan
Lauren Martin
Kevin Horan
Aidan Mc Hugh
Noel O’Connell
Tom Ronayne
Maureen Barker
Michael O’Neill
Mary Donegan
Maria Wilmot
Response_to_ICU_Statment_[1].pdf
(182.06 KiB) Downloaded 342 times
Attached PDF to the email - Response_to_ICU_Statment_[1].pdf wrote:Thank you for your statement of March 31st on behalf of the Directors of the Irish Canoe Union. It is good to finally see a direct statement as due to your six month total vacuum, innuendo and rumour have prevailed to the detriment of all involved.

The issues of corporate governance raised by your Honorary Treasurer would appear in fact to have unearthed a financial net gain to the ICU in excess of a six figure sum .The full picture begs clarification.

Your subsequent plan of action may not only negate that benefit but has actually now exposed the Irish Canoe Union to an extremely precarious financial situation when one considers the Legal, Investigative and High Court costs. Our audited accounts for 2008 show legal expenses of €26,000. What do they now stand at for 2011?

In addition, and in the period of the absence of a CEO, the ICU has suffered the following cuts and losses of income;
  • -High Performance Grant cut from €190,000 in 2010 to €103,000 in 2011. A cut of 46%. This is unprecedented.
    -A Capital Equipment grant of €60,000 that had already been granted has been lost due to incomplete application.
    -Can you confirm the current status of the European Regional Development Grant which is in excess of €100,000 over 3 years.
In the interest of corporate governance the question has to be asked as to why at this point in time, could such a purported salary increase in 2006 together with the two pensions, of which you don’t state the contribution, is only now being raised, four years after the event, when the accounts were both audited and signed off by the directors annually.

The implications of your actions are serious. The reputation of our organisation is compromised and damaged in wider sporting circles. The reputation of a long standing loyal employee who was an avid worker on behalf of the ICU since 1990 is severely tarnished.

Everybody is entitled to fair procedures and natural justice. You have outlined your complaints against Mr Michael Scanlan clearly and emphatically in your statement but you have omitted to include Mr Scanlan’s response to these allegations. This is not a balanced statement.

We are appalled that you took this course of action. In this day of modern industrial relations support structures, for such dispute resolution, it must certainly have been possible to have found a mechanism to resolve this matter so much faster than six months, at much lower cost and an awful lot less risk to the Canoe Union.

Concerned clubs have called for an EGM since March 2nd and, despite having acknowledged receipt of same, you have yet failed to set the date. An EGM is the place to discuss and resolve ICU issues within the organisation where ALL facts and findings can be presented to the members, who are the Canoe Union, so that they can make informed decisions on the best course of action for the Irish Canoe Union.

Your statement raises more questions than it answers. The urgency of an EGM is increasing daily. Can you please set the date immediately?

User avatar
Seanie
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:50 pm

Can I just say that this email is hilarious. At one point I swear they are trying to blame the current economic crisis on the ICU board. :D It has to be that because everyone else knows that the massive funding drops are due to the ISC getting a massive reduction in its funding due to the current economic crisis. And that the current funding secured by the ICU is actually pretty good given the circumstances.

If you ignore the red herrings they raise the most salient thing I can come up with about this post is what is missing from the email and the statement.What are they proposing instead? Do they just want the ICU to stop there current action? Thats what it seems like.

I could go through the rest of the email and rip it apart bit by bit, but I fear no one would read my entire post. Feel free to post your thoughts. This was posted in another thread and it accurately sums up the email.
leftism wrote:My biggest concern at the moment is that clubs are calling for an EGM to vote off the executive, without the full comprehension of what the consequences of that could be... Letters are being circulated calling for an EGM, but the motives of those behind the letters are questionable at best. In most cases, the people calling for an EGM are avid supporters of those under investigation! Why would such people wish to call an EGM if not to scupper the disciplinary process which the ICU executive have undertaken...

If clubs and ICU members are as appalled as i am about the revelations of serious misconduct by ICU employees, let the executive conclude the process which they have begun and then call for a complete overhaul of how our sport is run. Otherwise we could see the same old faces reinstated to their jobs, due to a knee-jerk reaction by the ICU masses...

bowsie
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:24 am

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by bowsie » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:23 pm

A few points
The issues of corporate governance raised by your Honorary Treasurer would appear in fact to have unearthed a financial net gain to the ICU in excess of a six figure sum
What six figure net gain has the ICU received?

The CEO's salary is still being paid.

In the interest of corporate governance the question has to be asked as to why at this point in time, could such a purported salary increase in 2006 together with the two pensions, of which you don’t state the contribution, is only now being raised, four years after the event, when the accounts were both audited and signed off by the directors annually.

Would it be better to not investigate it at all?
just brush it under the carpet?

Your subsequent plan of action may not only negate that benefit but has actually now exposed the Irish Canoe Union to an extremely precarious financial situation when one considers the Legal, Investigative and High Court costs. Our audited accounts for 2008 show legal expenses of €26,000. What do they now stand at for 2011?

Who initiated court procedings?

User avatar
Seanie
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:32 pm

bowsie wrote:
Your subsequent plan of action may not only negate that benefit but has actually now exposed the Irish Canoe Union to an extremely precarious financial situation when one considers the Legal, Investigative and High Court costs. Our audited accounts for 2008 show legal expenses of €26,000. What do they now stand at for 2011?
Who initiated court procedings?
I can answer that one, Michael Scanlon brought the High Court proceedings.
(http://highcourtsearch.courts.ie/hcsliv ... tions.show)

Also it should be known that everything that has been said in the ICU statement was said in open court as direct result of that High Court action. The Statement is made up of nothing that isn't already in the public domain as a result of that action. The ICU were trying to follow standard internal employee relations up until the point that Mr. Scanlon took the action. The labour court couldn't have gotten involved at this early stage as Mr. Scanlon was suspended with pay and without prestigious.

leftism
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:58 pm

I just read the list of signatories and clubs! :lol:

This is a total joke lads. You have Kilcullen Canoe Club calling an EGM when arguably their most prominent member, Brendan O'Connell is accused of basically aiding in the falsification of employment contracts, pensions and god knows what else!!!!

It is indeed the purest of motives that these stalwarts of our Union set forth to undo the evils which have befallen the poor unfortunate Michael Scanlon....

People can get bogged down in all this legal wrangling and words can be twisted so much so that ordinary clubs and paddlers could be misled. I would implore every paddler on this forum to ignore all statements from both sides and remember one fact;

MICK SCANLON HAS ALREADY ADMITTED TO THE ACCUSATIONS!

That is no longer up for debate! It is on public record in the High Court. Everything after that fact is irrelevant.....

tiernan
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:37 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by tiernan » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:13 am

Yours Faithfully

Declan Mac Daid
Jock Kelly
Peter Linney
Kevin Murphy
Rachel Linney
Gavin Griffin
Declan Golding
Alan Mulligan
Lauren Martin
Kevin Horan
Aidan Mc Hugh
Noel O’Connell
Tom Ronayne
Maureen Barker
Michael O’Neill
Mary Donegan
Maria Wilmot
16 clubs have formally requested an EGM of the ICU.

,
Barrowline
Kilcock
Pheonix
Gweebarra
Anchor
Newbridge Kayak Club
Naas Kayak Club
Kilcullen Canoe Club
Rockhoppers Kayak Club
Lir
Letterkenny IT
Carrick On Shannon
City wise
Trim
Voyagers Canoe Club
Salmon Leap
Do the above signatories correspond to the clubs mentioned? E.g is Declan Mac Daid the official representative of Barrowline, etc? There is 17 signatures and 16 clubs mentioned!

Is 16 clubs some sort of quorum needed to call an EGM?

User avatar
Grassey
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:20 am
Location: Dublin...ugh
Contact:

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Grassey » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:28 am

I doubt the signatures match, Gerry Laheen is head & secretary of Naas kayak club, according to ICU website and from what I know myself, and his name is missing as a signatory. AFAIK the club doesn't exist off paper.

leftism
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:43 am

I'm currently going through those names but Kevin Murphy and Declan Golding are both from Salmon Leap. Jock Kelly and Noel O'Connell are both from Kilcullen. The Linneys are both from Barrowline.

leftism
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:06 am

Through the magic of google i've established that 6 of the signatures are from Kilcullen, 4 are from Barrowline, and 2 are from Salmon Leap.

So 12 of the signatures are coming from 3 clubs.... :roll:

muirs
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by muirs » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:11 pm

Assuming the Phoenix club mentioned is Phoenix kayak club in Cork, none of those signatories are on the committee...

Muireann

Pete
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Pete » Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:58 pm

I dont think who sent this email or what clubs they come from is really that relevant. I think it would make sense that if someone from Kilcullen is implicated in any way that people who know them would support them. It seems there are so many rumours and hearsay circulating that it would be very hard for independent observers to make an informed decision. It might well be that people supporting Michael Scanlon have there own motives but might it not be that the people trying to get rid of him have their own motives also? Is it crazy to suggest that people who are supporting Michael are doing so because they believe he has done nothing wrong? The point I'm trying to make is that rumours, opinion and half-truths can be dangerous. I for one would hate to contribute to the ruin of a man's reputation and livelyhood without having all the facts. Maybe I'm being naïve but surely an EGM would be the proper forum for disscussing these important matters.

kev
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:41 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by kev » Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Pete wrote: I for one would hate to contribute to the ruin of a man's reputation and livelyhood without having all the facts. Maybe I'm being naïve but surely an EGM would be the proper forum for disscussing these important matters.
A proper investigation is obviously needed to establish all the facts, this seems to have been set in motion already.

An EGM is a forum for discussing things, discussion isn't whats needed at the moment, an investigation is. I see the attempt to call an EGM as an attempt to scupper the investigation process and I have to question why people might want to do so?

User avatar
Seanie
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:25 pm

Pete wrote:I dont think who sent this email or what clubs they come from is really that relevant. I think it would make sense that if someone from Kilcullen is implicated in any way that people who know them would support them. It seems there are so many rumours and hearsay circulating that it would be very hard for independent observers to make an informed decision. It might well be that people supporting Michael Scanlon have there own motives but might it not be that the people trying to get rid of him have their own motives also? Is it crazy to suggest that people who are supporting Michael are doing so because they believe he has done nothing wrong? The point I'm trying to make is that rumours, opinion and half-truths can be dangerous. I for one would hate to contribute to the ruin of a man's reputation and livelyhood without having all the facts. Maybe I'm being naïve but surely an EGM would be the proper forum for disscussing these important matters.
Pete what you say would make some sense.... if you discount reality and fact. Rumours, opinion and half-truths can be dangerous, the statement you signed has rumours, opinion and half-truths crammed into it. Its FUD.

Pete try reading the accounts. What bracket is health insurance under? How much was it? Two pensions worth up to €30,000 euros. These are things I know and they are backed up by the ICU boards statement.

Also what do you want to happen at an EGM? An EGM will still be public, like the statement the ICU release it will be on the public record. I think the ICU have been a clear as they legally can be and have given as much information as they legally can in their statement, so much so that your statement attacks them for it. It seems like you want it both ways.
What is the Goal of the EGM?
What motions do people intend on making?

Post Reply