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 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:38 pm

Pete wrote: 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,
I was thinking about this earlier and you are dead right about rumours, opinion and half-truths! That is exactly why the fairest and most unbiased way for Mick to defend himself is through the process of an independent investigation and appeals process. This is exactly what the ICU are attempting to carry out at present.

An EGM is the last place you will find unbiased opinion. We all know that an EGM will be filled with two opposing groups, both of whom have arrived to the meeting with a predetermined judgment about Mick based almost entirely on rumours, opinion and half-truths. No good can come of that!

The final judgement at this proposed EGM will be based around the size and voting power of each respective "posse" and little or nothing to do with the facts. I think we can all agree that this is not how modern justice should operate!

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by canned » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:21 pm

I figured that when people saw that ICU statement that there would be a rush of two sides.
The WFT!? side and the "he's a good man - leave him alone" side.

I am glad to not know Mick Scanlon, I feel it may interfere with my opinion. Can this group of 16 clubs/17 individuals not see that the ICU are stating facts? Can those who appear to be steadfastly on Mick's side take off the blinkers just for a second and admit that there is appears to be a case to answer here?

As for due dates passing - SFAIK the ICU must respond within 60 days to any notice of EGM (maybe I was high when I heard that?!)

I was reading down through the group response to the statement and I have to say I had a few laughs myself. I was looking forward to reading the replies - and they didn't disappoint! Keep it up!

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:58 pm

Grassey wrote: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.
These are the ICU articles relating to EGMs

Extraordinary Delegate Meeting

21. All meetings other than Annual Delegate Meetings shall be called
Extraordinary Delegate Meetings.

22. The Board shall convene Extraordinary Delegate Meetings:
(i) if a resolution to so call an Extraordinary Delegate Meeting is passed
at the preceding Annual Delegate Meeting.
(ii) where ten ICU Registered Clubs so requisition such a meeting by
service on the Honorary Secretary of a written notice seeking the
holding of such a meeting.
(iii) where two thirds of the Board resolve to convene such an
Extraordinary Delegate Meeting.

23. A requisition made by ICU Registered Clubs to call an Extraordinary
Delegate Meeting must in the form of a motion and be signed by the
Chairman and Secretary of each of the ICU Registered Clubs calling the
Extraordinary Delegate Meeting and be deposited at the registered office of
the Union.

24. On receipt of a requisition by the required number of ICU Registered Clubs
calling an Extraordinary Delegate Meeting, the Board shall proceed to
convene an Extraordinary Delegate Meeting as soon as is practicable. If the
Board, however, fails to convene an Extraordinary Delegate Meeting within
60 days from the date of the deposit of the requisition, the requisitionists or
a majority of the requisitionists may themselves convene a meeting.

So according to this, the chairman and secretary from at least 10 of those clubs should have signed the motion calling for an EGM. If anyone knows chairmen or secretaries from any of these clubs, could they confirm that they did in fact sign the motion. I would hate to see smaller clubs being used to fill a quorum simply because an ordinary member decided to sign a form...

The other interesting thing (which Canned has already mentioned) is that the ICU are not obliged to respond to the request until 60 days after reciept of it (on March 2nd). So they will sit down some time at the start of May and decide a date for the EGM. I would imagine they would then have to allow at least 14 days notice in order for clubs to organise and submit relevant motions. So we can expect the date of this EGM to be the end of May or early June. Anyone else prefer to wait until the AGM???

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:31 am

The problem at the ICU is a lack of governance excercised by the directors down through the years. Did Mick breach guidelines, rules, explicit instructions given to him by the directors / executive or is it that there never were any and Mick followed a path that he deemed appropriate? If that is the case then we can't really complain if Mick has done something we don't like. For all I (and you) know Mick was formalising an existing arrangement when he backdated his employment contract. I'm aware he was interested in introducing best governance practices to the ICU.

I'm not excusing the back dating of his employment contract but I think its symptomatic of how things are done at the ICU and of the lack of governance exercised by the directors. When something goes wrong at a company it's those at the helm that take responsibility, the directors. It's the directors that are responsible for setting the culture / standards of behaviour at organisations. However, I see all of the blame and responsibility placed at the feet of one person. If parents allows a child to behave unruly, do you blame solely the child for how they turn out when they grow up?

annie
Posts:59
Joined:Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:02 pm
Location:Galway

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by annie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:04 am

That's a lovely point, except that Mick wasn't employed as a CEO during his formative childhood years. Neither are 2 pensions part of best governance practice for an organisation whose aim is to promote sport.

Also, I don't think the attitude here is focusing on blaming one person. If you read back through threads on this board a lot of the concerns are not legal or even financial. Until a few years ago my issue with the ICU was its reluctance to run training courses outside of a few established bases, a situation which has improved substantially since then. We are all aware that there is a lot more wrong with the ICU than the issue of the contract. It is the only the defensive argument that is focusing on the blame placed on this one person. And the defence isn't doing him any favours IMO.

Having said that it is refreshing to hear someone argue for him coherently and without all this melodramatic tabloid-style !!! !!!

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:53 am

Herby wrote:Did Mick breach guidelines, rules, explicit instructions given to him by the directors / executive or is it that there never were any and Mick followed a path that he deemed appropriate?
Did Mick seek to clarify guidelines, rules and seek out explicit instructions? To say that Mick "was interested in introducing best governance practices to the ICU" is laughable. Read this account of an AGM with our CEO's best practices.
Herby wrote:When something goes wrong at a company it's those at the helm that take responsibility, the directors. It's the directors that are responsible for setting the culture / standards of behaviour at organisations. However, I see all of the blame and responsibility placed at the feet of one person. If parents allows a child to behave unruly, do you blame solely the child for how they turn out when they grow up?
What you're accusing the directors of the ICU of not doing is exactly what they are doing. They are taking responsibility, setting standards and not tolerating this type of behaviour. The ICU board have only instigated an investigation sofar, they still haven't gotten an opportunity to take any action against Mick, and wont do so until the High Court ruling comes back. As far as I can see they are doing this according to best practices.

I find it pretty funny that you compare the CEO Michael Scanlon to a child, he acted like a child, that's where the comparison ends. Comparing the CEO position in a company to a child ignores that CEO's have duties and responsibilities, and in some cases they are meant to advise and give council to company directors.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:58 am

Seanie wrote:Did Mick seek to clarify guidelines, rules and seek out explicit instructions? To say that Mick "was interested in introducing best governance practices to the ICU" is laughable. Read this account of an AGM with our CEO's best practices.
I don’t know, but it’s like asking your boss or teacher to be more strict so I doubt he would have.
Seanie wrote:What you're accusing the directors of the ICU of not doing is exactly what they are doing. They are taking responsibility, setting standards and not tolerating this type of behaviour. The ICU board have only instigated an investigation sofar, they still haven't gotten an opportunity to take any action against Mick, and wont do so until the High Court ruling comes back. As far as I can see they are doing this according to best practices.
Would it not be better to set the rules / expectations first and then if Mick disobeys instructions / doesn’t meet expectations (after being given adequate time to improve) then take action? The list of accusations levelled at Mick doesn’t include insubordination. It probably would have saved the ICU a second visit to the high court in a very short space of time.

annie wrote:Also, I don't think the attitude here is focusing on blaming one person. If you read back through threads on this board a lot of the concerns are not legal or even financial. Until a few years ago my issue with the ICU was its reluctance to run training courses outside of a few established bases, a situation which has improved substantially since then. We are all aware that there is a lot more wrong with the ICU than the issue of the contract. It is the only the defensive argument that is focusing on the blame placed on this one person. And the defence isn't doing him any favours IMO.
I’m sure many of the complaints are valid, however, they are irrelevant to the discussion on the fairness or otherwise of Mick’s suspension. If Mick disobeyed instructions from the directors / executive to run courses down in the country or wherever then that would be a different matter.

annie wrote:years. Neither are 2 pensions part of best governance practice for an organisation whose aim is to promote sport.
My point was that it is the responsibility of the directors to introduce best corporate governance practice – I didn’t suggest Mick had done so only that he had an interest in doing so. Mick could never be instrumental in introducing best governance despite his own efforts because of his lack of independence from operations.

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:19 am

Herby wrote: I don’t know, but it’s like asking your boss or teacher to be stricter so I doubt he would have.
.....
Would it not be better to set the rules / expectations first and then if Mick disobeys instructions / doesn’t meet expectations (after being given adequate time to improve) then take action? The list of accusations levelled at Mick doesn’t include insubordination. It probably would have saved the ICU a second visit to the high court in a very short space of time.
Having to set specific obvious rules for a CEO ... I'd fire a CEO on these grounds alone, seriously its a CEO position, not a janitor gig. Most of the rules and expectations that a CEO is meant to abide by are laid out by the law of the land, it should be fairly obvious.


If the CEO does not have the personal qualities, intelligence or the ability to read company law (aka. being qualified for the CEO position), the ICU has a documented and complete Governance Policy for a while now (that has been audited by PWC for what it's worth).
ICU Governance Document.pdf
(310.44KiB)Downloaded 616 times
An entry worth noting on page 11:
Prohibitions of the Chief Executive
The Chief Executive must not:
......
11. enter into contracts and agreements where revenue or expenses have not been budgeted for or the amount in the contract or agreement exceeds the budgeted amount by €2,000. In such a case, the approval of the Executive or Board must be obtained prior to the contract or agreement being entered into.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:46 am

Seanie wrote:Having to set specific obvious rules for a CEO ... I'd fire a CEO on these grounds alone, seriously its a CEO position, not a janitor gig. Most of the rules and expectations that a CEO is meant to abide by are laid out by the law of the land, it should be fairly obvious.
Every CEO is set boundaries by the board of directors and is answerable to the board of directors. Mick can't be expected to automatically know what is expected of him (in terms of strategic direction, level of reporting, extent to which he can use his own discretion etc).
Seanie wrote:If the CEO does not having the personal qualifications, intelligence or the ability to read company law (aka. being qualified for the CEO position), the ICU has a documented and complete Governance Policy for a while now, that has been audited by PWC (for what thats worth
So the ability to read company law qualifies someone to be CEO of the ICU? Mick isn't even on the board of directors - he's just an employee of the ICU. This corporate governance policy is not company law. No allegation of company law breaches are being levelled at Mick.
Seanie wrote:An entry worth noting on page 11:
Prohibitions of the Chief Executive
The Chief Executive must not:
......
11. enter into contracts and agreements where revenue or expenses have not been budgeted for or the amount in the contract or agreement exceeds the budgeted amount by €2,000. In such a case, the approval of the Executive or Board must be obtained prior to the contract or agreement being entered into.
And was this requirement breached? For all you know all expenditure was in line with the agreed budgets. Certainly a breach of the above requirement is not listed among the charges against Mick.

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Seanie » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:26 am

Herby wrote:So the ability to read company law qualifies someone to be CEO of the ICU? Mick isn't even on the board of directors - he's just an employee of the ICU.
Understanding company law should be a basic requirement, and I think Mick has this understanding. Would you hire a CEO that didn't have the faintest idea of company law? Again he's not "just a employee" he's the Chief Executive Officer, and officially he's the Company Secretary also, as I said not exactly a janitor. Part of his extensive responsibilities are outlined in the document I included before.
According to the ODCE the company secretary's main role is to:
ODCE wrote:
  • carry out the directors’ instructions;
  • help ensure that the company obeys the law and its own constitutional rules; and
  • prepare and maintain the associated company documents.
...Company secretaries must act with due care, skill and diligence in the interests of the company and its members. Company secretaries can be penalised if they or the company are found to have breached the Companies Acts. The company secretary can be made liable for any loss resulting from their own negligence....
Herby wrote:This corporate governance policy is not company law. No allegation of company law breaches are being levelled at Mick.
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.
Herby wrote:And was this requirement breached? For all you know all expenditure was in line with the agreed budgets. Certainly a breach of the above requirement is not listed among the charges against Mick.
There are no "charges", the ICU still hasn't gone that far. But going on whats been made public alone, it would seem that it was in breach of this rule. But that's just speculation, that's up to the ICU board to decide.
Prohibitions of the Chief Executive
The Chief Executive must not:
......
11. enter into contracts and agreements where revenue or expenses have not been budgeted for or the amount in the contract or agreement exceeds the budgeted amount by €2,000. In such a case, the approval of the Executive or Board must be obtained prior to the contract or agreement being entered into.
- 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.

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by leftism » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:17 pm

Herby wrote:The problem at the ICU is a lack of governance excercised by the directors down through the years.
Herby,
i agree 100% with you on this! Mick was given far too much liberty and control over all aspects of ICU administration from the Liffey Descent, to High Performance, right down to accounts and payroll etc. But the big question is at what point in Micks career was he given this dangerous level freedom? And who was on the Executive at this time? I would hazard a guess that this has been going on for many years. In my opinion, the lack of control and governance shown by Brendan O'Connell during his tenure as ICU president is a root cause of the current debacle...

Over the past 3 years, there has been a very subtle and difficult battle taking place on the board to try and reign in Mick's level of freedom and liberty to govern independently. This battle has not been an easy one and has involved introducing fresh faces to the board at the technical committee level. A simple case in point; The slalom committee was disbanded many years ago. So who was representing slalom and had the casting vote at board level on their behalf??? The answer is MIck Scanlon. So 2 years ago, a group of concerned paddlers met in WWKC and elected a new slalom committee. This has significantly improved domestic participation in slalom (now we have a domestic calender) but more importantly, curtailed some of Micks power on the board by giving a vote to the chair of the slalom committee.

I see the current allegations against Mick as a success and testament to the work the current Executive have done to expose the level of control Mick has had in the ICU. Under a weaker Executive he may have continued to work independently and in many cases illegally.

Now before you think i am bashing Mick all the time, i'd like to point out that i have a lot of sympathy for him. I have sympathy for him because he was taught to act in this behaviour a long time ago. Poor governance at an Executive level and poor guidance by a previous President gave Mick the impression that he had "carte-blanche" to act however he felt fit. This is simply not the case and unfortunately for Mick he is only realising this now....

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.

(And maybe punish Mick while you’re at it) ;)
Last edited by leftism on Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:23 pm, edited 2 times 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 1:20 pm

Herby wrote:
Mick isn't even on the board of directors - he's just an employee of the ICU.
Please read my post RE: slalom

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...

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

Re: FW: Response to ICU statement

Post by Herby » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:23 pm

Seanie wrote:Understanding company law should be a basic requirement, and I think Mick has this understanding. Would you hire a CEO that didn't have the faintest idea of company law? Again he's not "just a employee" he's the Chief Executive Officer, and officially he's the Company Secretary also, as I said not exactly a janitor. Part of his extensive responsibilities are outlined in the document I included before.
I did employ a CEO that was a plumber the other week. I don't think he knew too much about company law though I didn't care to ask.

What I'm saying is that there is no allegation that company law has been breached by Mick and, in any case, primary responsibility for ensuring the ICU complies with company law rests with the directors. Have breaches occurred (since this is a point you are dwelling on)?
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.
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.

I suspect the directors / executive paid little attention to Mick's benefits / salary over the years. If they had then this issue would not have arisen. Of course Mick should have sought approval for any changes he made but, given the hands-off approach adopted by the directors / executive, Mick's actions are somewhat understandable (although I wouldn't condone them).

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?

Post Reply