ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators:Seanie, EoinH

Post Reply
User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm
ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Post by Seanie » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:45 pm

Edit - This topic was split from Alex's post:
http://forum.iww.ie/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=901
seanmc wrote:Was it too much to hope for that all this bickering and lack of co-operation be put behind us so that we as a group of paddlers could move on and progress the sport in Ireland?
Sorry but I feel that this description is a slap in the face for some people. And it displays a massive ignorance of the facts.

There was serious fraud and financial impropriety happening within the ICU, some people were ok with it/clueless/in denial, others were not. The CEO has been fired. The high court even had serious questions with how things were run. Steps to make sure it doesn't happen again are in progress. The people who spent the last number of months under fire by people with questionable motivations and morals, and the misguided, should be praised for the work they have done. They have saved the ICU from its inevitable demise, a demise caused by numerous leeches sucking the ICU dry.

Edit: It has been pointed out that my reply might seem overly aggressive at what is clearly a joke on Seans part. I'll admit his opening part hit a nerve. There are some awesome people involved in the TDU, new people and people who have come back to the ICU after already putting a lifetimes worth of work into the ICU. And there are some great plans being enacted. But there are others in the TDU that will just use it as a new battlefield, these are the leeches that were sucking at Mick Scanlons tit for the last 10 years and want to continue on.

The TDU is a vital part of the ICU, and hopefully it will continue to be. The ICU AGM will be happening soon, let the relationship between the ICU and the TDU be ironed out there, in the open, because if there are any changes made to the relationship now its no more than backroom dealing.

Ken
Posts:49
Joined:Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 pm
Location:DCU
Contact:

Re: The ICU Training Unit needs your details

Post by Ken » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:41 pm

This all sounds very silly. Am I missing something because I don't see the link between the ICU office not giving the TDU access to it's member list and the CEO situation?

I agree with Sean Mc, time to put all this sillyness and infighting behind us and do something to progress the sport.

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

Re: The ICU Training Unit needs your details

Post by Seanie » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:04 pm

I'm sick of this attitude, "I don't understand it so can we all move on". And Ken your track record on calling this sort of stuff has been a bit off in the past too.

The board isn't doing this because it just feels like it. And to not associate this with the bullshit that's being going on for the last ten years, now that is silliness.

Ken
Posts:49
Joined:Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 pm
Location:DCU
Contact:

Re: The ICU Training Unit needs your details

Post by Ken » Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:57 pm

Seanie wrote:I'm sick of this attitude, "I don't understand it so can we all move on". And Ken your track record on calling this sort of stuff has been a bit off in the past too.
You mean that you don't particularly like people disagreeing with you so therefore you'd prefer they stopped? If I don't understand enlighten me! (I missed your response to the previous threat you linked to, not to dig up something that's gone, but I'd suggest you look up materiality in auditing)
Seanie wrote: The board isn't doing this because it just feels like it. And to not associate this with the bullshit that's being going on for the last ten years, now that is silliness.
Seanie wrote:And it displays a massive ignorance of the facts.
This is the part I don't understand, I have no knowledge of what's going on here or these facts your speaking of. This thread is insinuating that it's somehow linked to the squabbles surrounding the former CEOs departure. I can't see how refusing to allow a sub-committee of ICU access to information relevant to it's operation could have any relevance to that. So I'm calling it silliness which is inhibiting the development of this sport.

I'm very open to being shown the error of my ways. I'm not all that open to being dismissed just because I don't agree with you.

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

Re: ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Post by Seanie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:16 pm

Ken you seem to think that I'm dismissing you on the basis I don't particularly like people disagreeing with me, if anything I could be mistaken for dismissing you because I don't think you understand what I’m saying. ‘Materiality in auditing’ doesn't apply when the "audited" books are in fact balanced or partly fiction, and not actually audited. In this case the size of the accounting error doesn't matter, but the question of how the error happened in the first place. How the errors I pointed out couldn't possibly have happened if the books were audited does matte. And then it follows form all that why they might balance the books rather than properly audit. ie. the books were cooked.
Ken wrote:
Seanie wrote:And it displays a massive ignorance of the facts.
This is the part I don't understand, I have no knowledge of what's going on here or these facts your speaking of.
Yet you called the work that some dedicated people did for the ICU this year "sillyness and infighting". These people were threatened legally and have paid a great price to clean up the ICU.

But sure we might as well table all of that as its all old news.

At the moment there are about six groups as I see them in the ICU.

The Members (the majority, wondering WTF is going on)
The Instructors
The 10/11 ICU board
The TDU board
The pre 10/11 post 2002 ICU board(s)
The old cronies

The thing is some people fall into several of these categories.

The TDU has always been somewhat independent of the ICU, frankly the way it was treated and the status it was given within the ICU was a fucking joke. There was no scope for development. Some people were afraid that they might have to do some work if the instructors got their way. They set the standards and payed a annual membership for the honor of being part of the TDU. I never really got what the benefit's were, and going on the membership numbers a lot of other people agreed.

During the last number of months it was unclear if the current ICU board would prevail against the ex-CEO Mick Scanlon. There seemed like there was a large split in the ICU (it only appeared like that due to a vocal minority of Micks supporters). The TDU had been run for number of years by Paul Donnelly (far too many years, since 2002, term limits?). And then Paul stepped down after expressing his support for Mick Scanlon.

It was looking like the entire thing was a large seeping cluster fuck. Instructors that made a living from kayaking and instructors that cared about kayaking in Ireland were concerned. The new TDU committee has set out to fix the TDU, part of that new plan is to insulate itself from the clusterfuck that is Canoeing Ireland aka the ICU. This in and of itself isn't a bad thing. But the plans were drawn up with the old pre 10/11 ICU board in mind. The majority of the the present ICU board have proven themselves as being a solid bunch, but they are jumpy. And I don't blame them, the scale of the shit that went on for the last 10 years... Any talk of chaining how courses get paid for and who profits will be met with a scepticism and a big fat NO. Now I don't necessarily agree with it, but a no until the AGM seems reasonable for the time being. And I’m sure some sort of middle ground can be achieved.

Ken
Posts:49
Joined:Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 pm
Location:DCU
Contact:

Re: ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Post by Ken » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:00 pm

Seanie wrote:Ken you seem to think that I'm dismissing you on the basis I don't particularly like people disagreeing with me, if anything I could be mistaken for dismissing you because I don't think you understand what I’m saying. ‘Materiality in auditing’ doesn't apply when the "audited" books are in fact balanced or partly fiction, and not actually audited. In this case the size of the accounting error doesn't matter, but the question of how the error happened in the first place. How the errors I pointed out couldn't possibly have happened if the books were audited does matte. And then it follows form all that why they might balance the books rather than properly audit. ie. the books were cooked.
It's a pretty big accusation to say that the auditor signed off on accounts without doing an audit or that the books were entirely fabricated, If that were to be proved it would change my view completely. That said I don't think that's in anyway likely. The issue of the remuneration of the former CEO would not be something that an auditor would pass an opinion on. They would likely have looked for a valid contract and obtained one (they would have had no way of knowing it was post-dated by someone no longer on the board). That's all they could do, they could not or would not publicly disclose the salaries of individuals.

The issue of the €9k error that was there was likely below materiality. Do remember that an audit is designed to ensure that the accounts present a "true and fair view" of the financial activities of a company during the year. It's not to detect deliberate fraud, which is next to impossible to detect, particularly if senior management figures are involved, nor is it to pass any judgement on the wisdom of how well the financial affairs of the company are conducted.

To sum it up, I suspect you are expecting far more from the accounts and the audit then they were ever designed to do.

Thank you for sharing some of the facts on whats going on here. From the point of view of an ordinary ICU member I'm standing by my original point that I think there is far to much petty infighting which is pure silly (and this is coming from more then just the ICU board.)
Seanie wrote: Yet you called the work that some dedicated people did for the ICU this year "sillyness and infighting". These people were threatened legally and have paid a great price to clean up the ICU.
To clarify I'm not calling the work done to "clean up the ICU", as you put it, sillyness. I'm saying that this infighting over petty things such as allowing a preventing a Sub-committee from doing it's job, or spats between board members being aired on public forums is silly, It's that type of stuff I think should stop for the benefit of the sport.

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

Re: ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Post by Seanie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Ken wrote:It's a pretty big accusation to say that the auditor signed off on accounts without doing an audit or that the books were entirely fabricated, If that were to be proved it would change my view completely. That said I don't think that's in anyway likely. The issue of the remuneration of the former CEO would not be something that an auditor would pass an opinion on. They would likely have looked for a valid contract and obtained one (they would have had no way of knowing it was post-dated by someone no longer on the board). That's all they could do, they could not or would not publicly disclose the salaries of individuals.

The issue of the €9k error that was there was likely below materiality. Do remember that an audit is designed to ensure that the accounts present a "true and fair view" of the financial activities of a company during the year. It's not to detect deliberate fraud, which is next to impossible to detect, particularly if senior management figures are involved, nor is it to pass any judgement on the wisdom of how well the financial affairs of the company are conducted.
The books weren't entirely fabricated (I never said they were..). And I'm not referring directly to the CEO's remuneration, that issue came up only in the last year.

The accounts were neither true or did they give a fair view, that was my issue. I didn't know what was going on inside the ICU at the time. I will post the original audited accounts, signed off by the accountants, signed off by the then ICU board, that were submitted to the CRO, presented and adopted at the first part of the AGM even after the CEO and auditor acknowledged that their were errors they couldn't explain at the time. And I'll also post the amended accounts, and the letter from the auditor explaining the anomaly in a few hours. I'll let you be the judge.

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

Re: ICU Training Unit details - [Split for clarity]

Post by Seanie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:33 pm

This is enough to get you started, I think they are the right documents. I'm at work at the minute, so when I get a chance I'll post a more substantive post.

The key parts to note in the explanation/correction:
- Mixing of 2006 and 2007 figures.
- A "Clerical Error"
- Reference to a letter dated 5 September 2007, which was neither presented to the AGM or produced when it was requested.

Again, none of this made any sense to the two separate chartered accounts I showed the accounts to.
Attachments
ICU Signed 3-11-08 Audited Accounts 2007.pdf
(4.27MiB)Downloaded 303 times
ICU Audited Accounts 2007 - With Errors as adopted by AGM.pdf
(207.44KiB)Downloaded 302 times
Correction to Draft 2007 Audited Accounts.pdf
(434.09KiB)Downloaded 286 times

Post Reply