FW: Response to ICU statement

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators: Seanie, EoinH

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:23 pm

Herby wrote:
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..... :?:
More that you were trying to back up Mick's denial that related party transactions took place (a denial that i still do not believe) and to a lesser extent trying to validate the accounts by quoting "company law requirements". I know the 2008 issue is for another thread, but Seanie argued for 2 days that there were serious errors in those audited accounts. You're a chartered accountant and i don't recall you backing HIM up? In fact your club mate dismissed Seanie's questions as "a waste of time". I know hindsight is 20-20, but maybe more time should have been spent addressing Seanie's concerns instead of just dismissing him as "that crazy guy from Galway"!
Adrians wrote:
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.
I am 100% in favour of an independent, impartial and complete investigation into all allegations against Mick. I am also in favour of the entire ICU membership being informed down the line of all facts (not some) uncovered in the investigation. Furthermore, i am in favour of a fair and honest disciplinary and appeals process, and if the severity of the facts uncovered warrants a sacking, then so be it. But it is not up to the common ICU membership to stick up their hands and decide (in the absence of the full facts) whether Mick should keep or lose his job. That is not fair on Mick, the ICU or anyone. He doesn't deserve a lynching, nor does he deserve to be defended by powerful clubs with an army of proxy votes. He deserves a fair and independent investigation and disciplinary process!

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:30 pm

Adrain the details of the accountants can be found on the audited accounts I've attached all over this site . As far as I know PWC were never an accountant/auditor for the ICU accounts, PWC did carry out an audit of companys internal policies etc. at one stage.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Adrians » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:00 pm

Cheers Seanie,

I knew they were there just didnt have time to look proper when posted, will do so later on


And here here to whats said below!
leftism wrote: I am 100% in favour of an independent, impartial and complete investigation into all allegations against Mick. I am also in favour of the entire ICU membership being informed down the line of all facts (not some) uncovered in the investigation. Furthermore, i am in favour of a fair and honest disciplinary and appeals process, and if the severity of the facts uncovered warrants a sacking, then so be it. But it is not up to the common ICU membership to stick up their hands and decide (in the absence of the full facts) whether Mick should keep or lose his job. That is not fair on Mick, the ICU or anyone. He doesn't deserve a lynching, nor does he deserve to be defended by powerful clubs with an army of proxy votes. He deserves a fair and independent investigation and disciplinary process!

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:27 pm

Herby wrote:
Seanie wrote:If a company secretary doesn't abide by the directions/wishes as set out by the directors of the company, that could constitute a breach of company law.
But there are no allegations of insubordination.
There are no allegations by the ICU period. As I said the high court action has stopped everything in its tracks (by design) and the goals of the EGM are to get rid of the currents board, no doubt to disband the investigation.
Herby wrote:
Seanie wrote:- The VHI at Plan E ~ €2,400
- Two pensions schemes one 100% funded by the ICU and another 98.65% funded by the ICU. (I estimate them to be worth over 25,000)
- Michael Scanlon confirmed that he did this without the knowledge or consent of the President, the Executive Committee or the Board of the ICU.
Worth over 25k - wow - he'll live a life of luxury on that. Arranging for your salary to be increased in line with the cost of living is not a reflection of someone trying to enrich themselves unduly. And the starting point for his salarly back in 2006, while not bad, is probably modest in the context of the then boom and in light of the expectations that you and perhaps others seem to place on CEOs of small organisations such as the ICU.
Utter nonsense. The ICU isnt exactly a massive company and the CEO was over just three full time employees. Out of 36K in annual pensions for all four staff Micheal Scanlon was taking nearly 30k! But most people didn't know that from looking at the books, most people assumed that the 36k sum was divided prorate. What percentage does that 30K amount to? What's the norm in the public sector? And did anyone have anything to gain by him getting such a large pension?

And taking in over 100K in a company that has a turn over between 800,000 and 1,000,000. So at some point that cost could have been 1/8 of the ICU's expenditure....yeah that seems like the idiocy we came to know and love during "the boom".

As an organisation the ICU consistently preformed poorly over the last ten years, that the opinion of the ISC and can be confirmed by the abysmal membership numbers. This isn't a reflection on the athletes, the member's or non executive employees. Its down to the ICU Board and the CEO. In light of that any argument for a higher CEO salary based upon comparisons to other organisations is moot.
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?

While at the same time accusing the ICU of poor corporate governance? That is utter nonsense. Dermot letting things like this slide are the very definition of poor corporate governance.
Herby wrote:
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.
"Change his behaviour", again I think you need to be reminded he's not a child.


Dermot I'm curious where you at the first part of that 2008 AGM? If so, as an accountant, what were your statements/motions towards the adoption of the accounts? I cant seem to remember, but as an accountant I'm sure you strongly objected to the accounts being adopted with known errors in them, at least until a later date when it could could be cleared up. Can you refresh our memory's. Thanks.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:32 pm

Herby wrote: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..... :?:
On what basis did you defend them?

Is Brendan O Connell in insurance – did his company place the pensions – and did he take any commissions ie use his position as chair or treasurer for personal gain ?
I'm sure these questions would be very easy to clear up. Surely the party related transactions issue was relevant on other grounds also.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:09 am

Last post as this is getting tedious.
leftism wrote:More that you were trying to back up Mick's denial that related party transactions took place (a denial that i still do not believe) and to a lesser extent trying to validate the accounts by quoting "company law requirements". I know the 2008 issue is for another thread, but Seanie argued for 2 days that there were serious errors in those audited accounts. You're a chartered accountant and i don't recall you backing HIM up? In fact your club mate dismissed Seanie's questions as "a waste of time". I know hindsight is 20-20, but maybe more time should have been spent addressing Seanie's concerns instead of just dismissing him as "that crazy guy from Galway"!
It's rare that related party transactions don't occur - I was stating that related party transactions should be disclosed in the financial statements. I can't state my view any clearer.

From what I recall from the 2008 agm, Seanie's concerns were about typos and the level of detail reflected in the financial statements. The level of detail that Seanie wanted is not required by accounting standards. Yes, typos should have been picked up by those assigned responsibility for reviewing the financial statements. They weren't matters that I cared enough about to comment on to be honest. You use the term 'serious errors' but that's not a term I'd consider appropriate in the context of the typos detected.
Seanie wrote:There are no allegations by the ICU period.
Extract from the statement of the directors of the ICU
5. The outcome of the Investigation, containing seven finding of fact was made known to the Board of the ICU and to the Chief Executive.
Seanie wrote:the goals of the EGM are to get rid of the currents board, no doubt to disband the investigation.
Extract from letter from concerned ICU members:
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.

Seanie wrote:Utter nonsense. The ICU isnt exactly a massive company and the CEO was over just three full time employees.
I referred to 'small organisations such as the ICU.' Who are you arguing with?
Seanie wrote:But most people didn't know that from looking at the books, most people assumed that the 36k sum was divided prorate. What percentage does that 30K amount to? What's the norm in the public sector
I don't know but if you are benchmarking against the public sector then I doubt Mick's pension benefits would be considered excessive.
Seanie wrote:And taking in over 100K in a company that has a turn over between 800,000 and 1,000,000. So at some point that cost could have been 1/8 of the ICU's expenditure....yeah that seems like the idiocy we came to know and love during "the boom".
I don't know where you're getting your figures from. I'm more inclined to rely on the official statement from the directors:
'Included in the document created was a new salary arrangement implemented from the 1st January 2006 that aligned his salary to a public Sector pay scale. This had the effect of increasing his annual salary from around €56,000 to €65,000. In addition, other benefits including two pensions schemes one 100% funded by the ICU and another 98.65% funded by the ICU and VHI at Plan E was also fully funded by the ICU.'
Seanie wrote:As an organisation the ICU consistently preformed poorly over the last ten years, that the opinion of the ISC and can be confirmed by the abysmal membership numbers. This isn't a reflection on the athletes, the member's or non executive employees. Its down to the ICU Board and the CEO. In light of that any argument for a higher CEO salary based upon comparisons to other organisations is moot.
I've made no such argument and I've no comment on the performance targets Mick was set (or was not set).
Seanie wrote:While at the same time accusing the ICU of poor corporate governance? That is utter nonsense. Dermot letting things like this slide are the very definition of poor corporate governance.
The employment contract was backdated 5 years ago. Detecting this incident now is hardly a reflection of good corporate governance - it's not like the financial statements of the ICU are complex. Did the directors / executive ever ask Mick about his remuneration arrangements over that 5 year period? (don't bother answering).

I'm not suggesting letting things slide. I think things could be resolved by people discussing matters across the table, punishment meted and punishment accepted. Instead we have a situation where people have to resort to the high court in an attempt to get what they believe is fair treatment.
Seanie wrote:"Change his behaviour", again I think you need to be reminded he's not a child.
I used an analogy - don't take it literally. So adults don't ever have to change their behaviour? (that's a rhetorical Q)
Seanie wrote:Dermot I'm curious where you at the first part of that 2008 AGM? If so, as an accountant, what were your statements/motions towards the adoption of the accounts? I cant seem to remember, but as an accountant I'm sure you strongly objected to the accounts being adopted with known errors in them, at least until a later date when it could could be cleared up. Can you refresh our memory's. Thanks.
I didn't submit any statements / motions.

So, no, I didn't strongly object to the accounts being adopted.

See earlier reply for my views on your comments on the financial statements.
Seanie wrote:On what basis did you defend them?
Sigh. That''s my point - I didn't defend them. I was stating certain requirements that they should comply with.
Seanie wrote:Is Brendan O Connell in insurance – did his company place the pensions – and did he take any commissions ie use his position as chair or treasurer for personal gain ?
I'm sure these questions would be very easy to clear up. Surely the party related transactions issue was relevant on other grounds also.
Don't know.

canned
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:37 am

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by canned » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:36 am

Wow....

Can I ask is it fair to say:
anyone in any position of responsibility should surely QUESTION AT LEAST the appropriateness of backdating their own contract of employment?
the terms of the 2 pensions + "massage with a happy ending while in for a peticure" plan VHI is not exactly standard fare in any emplyment?

Also, in all of this, we need to be clear not only of the structure of the ICU but about the FUNCTION of the ICU. Surely it's to represent its members' interests and present best practice? Can't see how this situation fits that.

Bottom line; if you think that Mick's actions as outlined in the statement is acceptable you quite simply have a fucked up set of morals regardless of what the law says.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:31 pm

canned wrote:
Bottom line; if you think that Mick's actions as outlined in the statement is acceptable you quite simply have a fucked up set of morals regardless of what the law says.
+1 on that!

We can argue the minor details til we're blue in the face but the simple fact is this;

Mick falsified his employment records in order to improve his financial position, and he did it behind the backs of the ICU executive. To put it another way, Mick stole from the ICU.

If you can defend (dismiss) those actions and call for the ICU investigation to end, either your moral compass is seriously off course or you (your club) have something to gain from no further revelations being exposed... Anyone arguing against a complete and fully transparent investigation into Mick's past financial dealings in the ICU is extremely suspect in my opinion. It is only through a full exposure of all information, that we can finally put this mess behind us and move forward with a cleaner and more accountable national governing body!

Post Reply