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.