FW: Response to ICU statement

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators: Seanie, EoinH

Adrians
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Adrians » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:36 pm

Herby wrote:Wouldn't a better course of action have been to acknowledge fault on all sides, impose pay cuts if deemed appropriate, and allow everyone to focus on developing the sport of canoeing in Ireland?
In short that would be by far that is the worse course of action, it reeks of sweeping things under the carpet. The best course of action is to follow due process of invesgiation. Following on from a fair invesgiation a correct course of action can be taken from there.


As a side note in a situation where there are secret support being sought for EGM's and interestesand personal realationships not being made known. I think alot of people know who I am aka Adrian Shanahan. I would love to know who are the real faces behind the user names above?


Adrian
Last edited by Adrians on Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:37 pm

Herby,

i know its only hearsay and conjecture, but having spoken to several people that know more about this than most, best estimates are that Mick's salary was in the region of 110,00 euro per year. If you think that as members of the ICU, we were getting good value for money, then you should continue to fight your fight and try to get him reinstated as CEO.

If on the other hand, like me you feel Mick's administrative work does not equate to the sum of 110,000 euro, then we have a great opportunity to rid ourselves of some financial excess and waste and get decent value for money from our CEO.

I will repeat an earlier statement i made:

"Mick has admitted to falsifying his employment contracts in order to better his financial position." If that is the kind of CEO you want running the company, then best of luck to you! We can vote off the board any time we like, but we have an opportunity here to rid the company of an immoral and incompetent employee.

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:46 pm

leftism wrote:Mick has up until recently been voting on behalf of absent technical committees. Therefore he has had a defacto position on the board of directors for many years. There are many examples of this where Mick has twisted the rules in order to increase his level of control over the ICU...
Being chairperson of a technical committee doesn't make you a director of the ICU.
leftism wrote:Can I ask you Herby, what you hope to achieve at an EGM. Do you want to:
a)Disband the current executive
b)Forgive and forget Mick’s transgressions and reinstate him as our CEO
c) A + B
If you do want to disband the current executive, I’d like you to ask yourself how long you think Mick has been acting independently of any board control? 4 years? 8 years? And who was in charge back when he started this behavior? If you choose the unruly child analogy, then we should punish the parents. But who were the parents during the formative years of Mick’s career? My point is that we shouldn’t punish those who have tried to change Mick’s behavior, we should punish those who nurtured and formed this behavior back when Mick didn’t know any better.
If what you say is true about the steps taken by the directors / executive to reign in Mick, then I ask the following questions:
a) If Mick refused to comply with reasonable requests, why isn't one of the charges brought against Mick, one of insubordination?
b) how many formal verbal and written warnings has Mick been given in the past two years? Was it explained to Mick what the consequences would be of disobeying reasonable requests from the directors / executive?
c) How much time was Mick given to change his behaviour (of 20 or so years) to the behaviour that the current executive would like to see from him?

It's worth pointing out that there are quite a number of new faces on the executive appointed a relatively short period before Mick's suspension.

My support or lack of support for the current executive depends on the answers to the above questions.

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:53 pm

I'm Dermot Hudson, SLCC (and I'm speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of SLCC).

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:10 pm

Herby wrote: Being chairperson of a technical committee doesn't make you a director of the ICU.
We may have our lines crossed here Herby. You said Mick is not on the board of directors. I am saying that he has been voting as a member of the board for some years. Are you defining the Executive as the board of directors? Or the board (which is made up of chairs from each technical committee)? Either way, Mick never should have been voting on behalf of slalom!

Herby wrote:
It's worth pointing out that there are quite a number of new faces on the executive appointed a relatively short period before Mick's suspension.
Good point! So the previous members of the executive may have turned a total blind eye to Mick's administration while the new members questioned it? I fail to see how that makes the current executive worthy of dismissal....

It seems to me from several of your replies, that you would prefer our executive to either ignore illegalities being made by the CEO, or in the case of blatant illegalities, simply sweep them under the carpet and move on. Neither of those policies appeal to me!

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:16 pm

For those who don't know Dermot, he is an accountant who paddles for Salmon Leap that can be heard defending the audit of ICU accounts back at the AGM in 2008. Seanie posted an mp3 of it here:

http://forum.iww.ie/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=823

So Herby,
in your professional opinion, do you still think the ICU accounts are as transparent as you did back in 2008??? :lol:

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:46 pm

leftism wrote:For those who don't know Dermot, he is an accountant who paddles for Salmon Leap that can be heard defending the audit of ICU accounts back at the AGM in 2008. Seanie posted an mp3 of it here:

http://forum.iww.ie/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=823

So Herby,
in your professional opinion, do you still think the ICU accounts are as transparent as you did back in 2008??? :lol:
Not the same Dermot.

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:50 pm

leftism wrote:We may have our lines crossed here Herby. You said Mick is not on the board of directors. I am saying that he has been voting as a member of the board for some years. Are you defining the Executive as the board of directors? Or the board (which is made up of chairs from each technical committee)? Either way, Mick never should have been voting on behalf of slalom!
Legal responsiblity for the ICU, which was what we were talking about, rests with the board of directors. So I was referring to the fact that Mick was not a member of the board of directors.
leftism wrote:Good point! So the previous members of the executive may have turned a total blind eye to Mick's administration while the new members questioned it? I fail to see how that makes the current executive worthy of dismissal....


Thanks but you missed my point. I made that statement in the context of my last question. For the avoidance of doubt, how much time could Mick have been given to change his behaviour given that he was suspended so soon after the new members of the executive were elected.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:54 pm

Are you the Dermot Hudson (nicknamed "Herby") who finished 6th in K2 with Simon Van Lonkhuyzen at the Liffey Descent last year?

http://www.liffeydescent.com/Results.aspx

If so then I'm fairly sure you can be heard defending the accounts at 1140/1470 of the mp3 clip...

How many Dermot Hudsons from Salmon Leap (nicknamed "Herby") are there?


Anyway, back to the topic:

Regarding the board of directors, i stand corrected. If you were talking about the Executive then you are correct, Mick is not on that. I was mistakenly talking about the board. (All these different boards can get complicated so i hope you understand the mistake).

With regards to Micks suspension, i do not see how the length of time serving board members have could bear any weight to your arguement. Go back to best practice in a company for a second. If allegations are made against an employee is it not the board's role to decide if these allegations warrant an investigation? And if the board does decide that an investigation is warranted, based on the severity of the allegations, should the employee not be suspended with pay and without prejudice in order to facilitate a full and complete independent investigation of all matters pertaining to the allegations?

If that is not the case, then what should the board have done differently. They unanimously agreed to suspend Mick with full pay and without prejudice, pending an independent investigation of all matters! Is that not best practice?

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:17 pm

leftism wrote:Are you the Dermot Hudson (nicknamed "Herby") who finished 6th in K2 with Simon Van Lonkhuyzen at the Liffey Descent last year?

http://www.liffeydescent.com/Results.aspx
Yes - I wasn't training last year.
leftism wrote:If so then I'm fairly sure you can be heard defending the accounts at 1140/1470 of the mp3 clip...
I presume it was the auditor, also named Dermot.
leftism wrote:How many Dermot Hudsons from Salmon Leap (nicknamed "Herby") are there?
One.

Nice try though.
Herby wrote:If allegations are made against an employee is it not the board's role to decide if these allegations warrant an investigation? And if the board does decide that an investigation is warranted, based on the severity of the allegations, should the employee not be suspended with pay and without prejudice in order to facilitate a full and complete independent investigation of all matters pertaining to the allegations?

If that is not the case, then what should the board have done differently. They unanimously agreed to suspend Mick with full pay and without prejudice, pending an independent investigation of all matters! Is that not best practice?
Not in my view based on the practice that existed at the ICU - Mick has been allowed work in a certain way, just because some new people don't like it, doesn't give them the right to summarily suspend him without giving him sufficient time to change. That's my view but I'll be interested to hear the high courts view.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:26 pm

Two independent sources have identified the voice at 1140 on that mp3 as being Dermot Hudson from Salmon Leap!

Have you had a listen to it? I know your own voice can sound all funny when its played back on a recording but is that not you that starts talking at 1140?

The chairman refers to a person as "Dermot" before a voice begins defending the detail of the audited accounts. That voice sounds remarkably like your voice! Several people agree with me! :)

Herby
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:42 pm

leftism wrote:Two independent sources have identified the voice at 1140 on that mp3 as being Dermot Hudson from Salmon Leap!

Have you had a listen to it? I know your own voice can sound all funny when its played back on a recording but is that not you that starts talking at 1140?

The chairman refers to a person as "Dermot" before a voice begins defending the detail of the audited accounts. That voice sounds remarkably like your voice! Several people agree with me! :)
Yeah actually that was me. Did you actually listen to what I said? I'll repeat it again. I said there are company law requirements that require directors remuneration to be disclosed in the financial statements and that they should comply with this. I also said that there are accounting standards that require related party transactions to be disclosed.

So from that, you concluded I was defending the audited financial statements..... :?:

Adrians
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Adrians » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:40 pm

Herby wrote:I'm Dermot Hudson, SLCC (and I'm speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of SLCC).
Cheers for that Dermot.

Can I ask do you know if it was PwC who audited the accounts that were referenced in the 2008 / mps posted.

I'm curious as to what end people want to happen right now. I'm etting some folks want to brush all this under the carpet and pretend it never happened, There are others who are standing in the wings lynch mod ready to rock.

There seems to be little in the way of support for due process, this is both from what I see online and what I have heard from people first hand. I am of the firm believe that the investigation needs to be carried out unhindered and followin on from that the appropriate action taken, legal or otherwise.

This should not be about point scoring versus eachother / the ICU / Mick Scannlon, we are in an utter mess for want of a better description and we need to all work together as best as possible to try resolve this situation as soon as possible and carry on improving things at a grass roots level as has really started to happen sue to Bennys & others fantastic work on behalf of the ICU.

Adrian

Post Reply