Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators:Seanie, EoinH

annie
Posts:59
Joined:Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:02 pm
Location:Galway
Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by annie » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:24 pm

Neil, as I see it, and I'm sad to see it, the only person continuing to bring the atmosphere in the past into the present is you. To suggest an upstanding person (who has acknowledged his occupation here) would take on a heavy voluntary role to profit from it when he has a history of doing just the opposite, providing free coaching and assessment as a certified instructor, holding many thankless development roles for sport, encouraging retired paddlers to donate their competitive equipment to clubs, it's quite offensive. As already noted, noone needs to defend him because he will continue to be the person for paddlesport that he has been for decades, if you'll give him longer than a wet week in office. However, in the interests of a "full declaration" about conflicts of interest you should make it clear to readers that you are a related party to the runner-up candidate.

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by canned » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:51 pm

keithmcguirk wrote:I have to say Pat as a Dublin paddler I'm a little worried about your references to Dublin in a negative way.

I find it strange that a President of a Countrywide organisation would voice that kind of opinion on a public forum?


But hey, maybe thats just me

Keith
Well as a Dublin paddler of course you are entitled to think that but for paddlers in the west DCU isn't Dublin City University it was Dublin Canoe Union.

When I head Pat was going for president I commented to someone "It'd be nice to see some high representation from the West". The reply I got was "I'd like to see it getting further west than Leixlip!"

This has been the general perception for some time IMO and given Pat is a paddler in the west I don't think you should be surprised that reference to such a feeling be made. It's not anti-Dublin; it's pro-inclusion. (If my opinion differs from the intention I apologise Pat)

WRT the OP.... While it's very easy to imagine that this person is being all "cloak and dagger" perhaps they are more interested in not pointing the finger? I'd share Seanie's frustration at this idea of mr devoy not understanding the question. I could understand it - and when it came up at this year's ADM the person who asked it was made feel like they were being deliberately vague and that they were stirring the pot. It's a very valid question and one which nobody should be afraid to ask.

The question now is, how do you deal with it? I would trust Pat completely that no abuse would occur. HOWEVER, we've seen how people have supported others within CI and other organisations before and my testimony and that of others who know Pat's good character should not be enough for the average paddler who doesn't know Pat (or any other exec member with any possible interests). I would suggest that when such questions arise, the ICU president and/or board members shouldn't have to be placating individual questions on every message board in the country. The questions should be submitted by clubs/individual members asking for clarification. Was this approach ever taken in the last board? If so was this ignored? If it was ignored what further action could (should) be taken?

A major theme at the recent ADM was with respect to communication. So far as I remember every candidate for every position raised this. So why not now open the lines from membership side and expect that transparency is provided and the communications issue is partly addressed in parallel?

dermo99
Posts:15
Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by dermo99 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:02 pm

I can understand people being cautious based on past experiences, but I do think it is unfair to automatically assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent as a result. I think the least Pat deserves is some time in his new role.
In terms of my own conflict of interest I do know Pat for many years and can also vouch for the fantastic voluntary support he has provided - and continues to provide - to Galway Kayak Club since it got back on its feet some years back.

paupier
Posts:29
Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by paupier » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:25 pm

I think that something has been over looked in this thread so far, and something that bodes well for the future of the current CI president. Pat has actually taken the time to post a reply up here.

I don't know the answer to this question, but how many times in the past has this occurred?

Transparency, Communication & Engagement. Not a bad start I would say! I hope the rest of the executive consider following suit....

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by canned » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:42 pm

Last 2 posts demonstrate the need for a Image button on this forum!


Seanie......Image

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by leftism » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:48 pm

seanie wrote:To be clear on this topic. I expect every ICU party related transaction to be declared on the audited accounts. I expect every large purchase to go to tender and I expect every persons with a conflict of interest to excuse themselves from the process. No matter who they are.
+1 (in the absence of a "thank" button)
annie wrote: To suggest an upstanding person (who has acknowledged his occupation here) would take on a heavy voluntary role to profit from it when he has a history of doing just the opposite, providing free coaching and assessment as a certified instructor, holding many thankless development roles for sport, encouraging retired paddlers to donate their competitive equipment to clubs, it's quite offensive.

Annie,
show me where i'm suggesting this? I'm not SUGGESTING anything. I am simply making the point is that it doesn't look good and could have and should be avoided. Re-read my posts from prior to the AGM. Having read Pat's manifesto, my conclusion was that he would make an outstanding president. Would my opinion have changed if he had disclosed his occupation? Maybe, maybe not. But NOT disclosing this information either in his manifesto or at the AGM does made me question his openness and transparency. There is a difference between questioning someones motives and questioning the openness with which they conduct themselves.

Look, i'm not going to go round and round on this one! Pat has stated that he will seek advice on this and i'm happy with that response.

P.S- Who i am or where i come from doesn't preclude me from questioning any matter that i see fit. I am not on the board and am not obliged to disclose ANYTHING! As with most internet debates, your better off attacking the post, not the poster. Otherwise what could be a decent and thought provoking debate could descend into "well your daddy does this" and "well you're from that club" Surely nobody wants that?!? :D
paupier wrote:
I think that something has been over looked in this thread so far, and something that bodes well for the future of the current CI president. Pat has actually taken the time to post a reply up here.
110% agree with that! Above anything else in this debate, it is a breath of fresh air to see a timely response from the head of our federation!

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by leftism » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:57 pm

canned wrote:

When it came up at this year's ADM the person who asked it was made feel like they were being deliberately vague and that they were stirring the pot. It's a very valid question and one which nobody should be afraid to ask.
I'm glad you raised that! Just to explain the background behind that question at the AGM: Brendan O'Connell, whom most of us should be aware, was implicated in the Mick Scanlon affair, decided to take the time at the AGM to stand up and give his account of events. In the middle of this speech, he actually ADMITTED that he had been the insurance broker to the ICU while serving on the executive. In effect he admitted to breaking the law! Seanie can probably confirm this, but i believe at the 2008 AGM, he and Mick catagorically denied any party related transactions?

Now Brendan O'Connell was the same person that questioned party related transactions towards the end of the recent AGM. I actually laughed when he raised the quesion!

POT====> KETTLE ====> BLACK

lizbyr
Posts:4
Joined:Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by lizbyr » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:07 pm

It is somewhat hypotrical of Neil Fleming (Leftism) to be talking about conflicts of interest.

His father Eamon Fleming is the Treasurer of the Marathon Committee, the Chairman of the Sprint Committee and was the other candidate for the position of ICU President at the recent AGM. Neil is a member of the Marathon and Sprint Teams and has and continues to receive substantial Sports Council funding through these committee as a member of the Marathon and Sprint Teams.

I do not recall any mention in Eamon Fleming's election manifesto of this conflict of interest.

Liz Byrne

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by canned » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:25 pm

I think in terms of Pat having to declare such things in his manefesto.... that doesn't sit well with me.

Far too many people are in suspicion mode. The slightest of comments being construed in certain light would have been disasterous for Pat's nomination.

It was not deliberately concealed and in my own opinion should never be expected to be announced. If there had ever been any transactions of any significance between CI and Pat's business then I'd understand it but in this situation the only reason there is ANY discussion on it now is because of what has happened in the past.

It seems to me that when someone gets voted in, the get voted in on the trust of people to uphold best practice. In this case we're talking company law. Do we really need someone to say on their manifesto "Unlike everyone else going for this position now and in the past - I promise I'll keep company law"?

No - but I think Pat has heard plenty of the stories of such situations over the years. I'm sure that while he has been professional enough to not express it, there is likely a bitter taste at the fact that tenders were never opened up. As mentioned before, why not write as a club/individual member directly to the board asking them to highlight any such existing breaches as per company law? I still don't see how it is that such a thread can do anything but link the old gaurd to the new?

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by leftism » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:26 pm

lizbyr wrote: Neil is a member of the Marathon and Sprint Teams and has previously received substantial Sports Council funding through these committee as a member of the Marathon and Sprint Teams.
Fixed that there for ya! ;)

lizbyr
Posts:4
Joined:Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by lizbyr » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:11 pm

Leftism (Neil Fleming)

Adequate provision is included in the ICU Articles in the event that a confict of interest might arise because of a executive/board's member's occupation. I woudl suggest you read though the relevant section.

No conflict of interest can exist if the confict is declared and any commercial transaction is open and transparent.

If Brendan O'Connell was the Canoe Union's insurance broker in the past it was obviously well known and accepted by the ICU Board and therefore did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Pat MacAlinney is a very well known retailer of canoeing equipment. The only time a confict of interest would need to be declared by Pat MacAlinney would be if and when the Canoe Union was purchasing canoeing equipment. Once this conflict is openly declared River Deep Mountain High would be fully entitled to quote for equipment the same as any other retailer.

Liz Byrne

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

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by Seanie » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:48 pm

lizbyr wrote:If Brendan O'Connell was the Canoe Union's insurance broker in the past it was obviously well known and accepted by the ICU Board and therefore did not constitute a conflict of interest.
Ummm, it wasn't well known. Most of the board had no clue. Mr O'Connell was on the ICU executive board and its part of company law that it should have been placed as a party related transaction on the ICU's Audited accounts. Even after questions in 2008/2009 no such declaration was made on the accounts. He stayed very quiet during the 2009 ADM part two, when I asked if there were any related party transactions that needed to be placed in the accounts. As a former director of the ICU and a director of his own business he should have known that declaration was needed, at the very least the accountant should have known.

Liz I have a question, and you seem to be in the know. When Mr O'Connell "back dated" the controversial contract for Mr Scanlon, the contract with two retirement packages, what company were the retirement packages with?

BOB
Posts:19
Joined:Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: Conflict of Interest with Related Party Transaction

Post by BOB » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:31 pm

Dear Liz

In reference to the reference that there may be a conflict of interest in Neil Flemming having a conflict of interest with his father being on the Marathon committee, can I assure you that Neil (nor anyone else) recieves favorable treatment from any other paddler in reciept of funding.
We have never ask Eamon to absent himself from decisions primarily because all decisions are taken by concensous and we have never need to vot to date. Secondly the committee is made up of equal represantation from 5 seperate clubs ensuring some degree of fairness . Also as I have no children or friends requesting funding or support I would like to think I am relatively impartial.
On a broader note I see alot of defence of individauls being good people who can be trusted - this is not really good enough we need systems and processes that make it impossible for anyone to break the rules rather than simply relying on an individuals honesty eg possibly as an organisation it should be decided that board members are simply not permitted to engage ( ie quote etc) for ANY business transactions - simple clear rules not open to interpretation or relying on the honesty of individauls which has failed us so badly in the past.
if you should wuish that committee memebrs absent themselves from future decisions on funding please let me know I am sure our committee would be happy to adopt this process if it makes any members feel more comfortable.
Kind regards

Bob

Post Reply