CIF rewards Parlon Policies?

democrates

Tom Parlon is now to head up the CIF, is this a reward for his pivotal role in setting government policies that suit the construction industry during his tenure over the OPW or is that unfair?

Afaik the CIF is not a government body so they might want to only employ people on their merits.
Parlon is a good businessman in his own right and was a very sucessfull leader of the IFA,a not too dissimilar lobbying organisation.
A third merit and the one you allude to is that organisations like these do tend to like bringing people on board who have been in government ie people who have influential friends in high places.
Thats common with company directorships also-it's nothing new.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Afaik the CIF is not a government body so they might want to only employ people on their merits.
Parlon is a good businessman in his own right and was a very sucessfull leader of the IFA,a not too dissimilar lobbying organisation.
A third merit and the one you allude to is that organisations like these do tend to like bringing people on board who have been in government ie people who have influential friends in high places.
Thats common with company directorships also-it's nothing new.

It;s nothing new you're right. It's just another demonstration of how government and big business are intertwined.

edanto

I'm interested. What kind of policies did he introduce, and can you show, even broadly, how people he was associated with benfitted?

I'm not challenging you to disagree that it was a quid pro quo thing, just interested in the details.

Jackie laughlin

Edanto,
You are confusing corruption with the exercise of power. In all policies there are winners and losers.

Seth Brundle

Given the controversy over Tom's new job as head of the CIF (which has even drawn criticism from Transparency International - www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfideyidmh/) do you believe that it was inappropriate for him to take the job?

Heinrich

kbannon wrote:

Given the controversy over Tom's new job as head of the CIF (which has even drawn criticism from Transparency International - www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfideyidmh/) do you believe that it was inappropriate for him to take the job?

Inappropriate, NO! Unethical YES!

• Bertie's dig outs
• Bev's deals with Government funded RTE
• Joe Burke - Dublin Port
• Finian - Docklands landfilling
• Jackie HR - private deals worth millins

and the list goes on.

mike65

I think there should be a manditory 5 year 'clean period' so ex ministers cannot use thier contacts and knowledge for personal/company gain with a third party.

Mike.

kbannon

kbannon wrote:

Given the controversy over Tom's new job as head of the CIF (which has even drawn criticism from Transparency International - www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfideyidmh/) do you believe that it was inappropriate for him to take the job?

I find some of that funny.
Firstly it's the Irish branch...
And secondly the breaking news article has such gems as "As part of his role in the last government, the former Laois-Offaly TD oversaw the Office of Public Works, which gives out lucrative contracts to construction firms.
"
Where should the OPW give construction contracts?? To doctors and nurses perhaps ?

Whilst I can see the point in frowning upon "insiders" getting related jobs outside after they have left the "inside"-I'd have to point out that the CIF represents the whole of the construction industry so I fail to see where the coruption is when a member organisation is going to get a contract anyway.

Unless of course you want to give the construction contracts to doctors and nurses...

oscarBravo

Moved & merged.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I find some of that funny.
Firstly it's the Irish branch...
And secondly the breaking news article has such gems as "As part of his role in the last government, the former Laois-Offaly TD oversaw the Office of Public Works, which gives out lucrative contracts to construction firms.
"
Where should the OPW give construction contracts?? To doctors and nurses perhaps ?

Whilst I can see the point in frowning upon "insiders" getting related jobs outside after they have left the "inside"-I'd have to point out that the CIF represents the whole of the construction industry so I fail to see where the coruption is when a member organisation is going to get a contract anyway.

Unless of course you want to give the construction contracts to doctors and nurses...

You don't see any conflict of interest?

Heinrich

Akrasia wrote:

You don't see any conflict of interest?

The new Fianna Fail Green Spectacles filter out any conflicts of interest, shady deals, dig out grey areas etc. Join the Party now and receive your free pair. The Green ones may be exchanged for Rose coloured ones after one year.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

I find some of that funny.
Firstly it's the Irish branch...
And secondly the breaking news article has such gems as "As part of his role in the last government, the former Laois-Offaly TD oversaw the Office of Public Works, which gives out lucrative contracts to construction firms.
"
Where should the OPW give construction contracts?? To doctors and nurses perhaps ?

Whilst I can see the point in frowning upon "insiders" getting related jobs outside after they have left the "inside"-I'd have to point out that the CIF represents the whole of the construction industry so I fail to see where the coruption is when a member organisation is going to get a contract anyway.

Unless of course you want to give the construction contracts to doctors and nurses...

CIF represents the Irish construction industry

Irish construction companies are not the only ones that apply for Government contracts so for example are GAMA members of the CIF

So whilst it may not benefit one Irish construction company over another Irish construction company it may benefit Irish construction companies over foreign construction companies and it gives the impression at least of a less than transparent system of handling government contracts.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

You don't see any conflict of interest?

In what way?
I mean all members can tender for public projects-Are you suggesting that the CIF favour one of their members over another?
Or what exactly is the issue here other than having a go with little behind it other than a prejudice because he's a pd?
I mean why not just be up front about it and say you hate pd's ergo none of them should get on well in the world.

There'd be some point to this if he had joined the board of a private company but the CIF is a lobbying body.It's to a sector as a union is to workers.

Heinrich wrote:

The new Fianna Fail Green Spectacles filter out any conflicts of interest, shady deals, dig out grey areas etc. Join the Party now and receive your free pair. The Green ones may be exchanged for Rose coloured ones after one year.

You do realise that such one liners only underline what your moan looks like and thats a moan.No substance.
Debate would be better.
Perhaps you could go back to the drawing board now and show us where you think the coruption is in this one?

Voipjunkie

mike65 wrote:

I think there should be a manditory 5 year 'clean period' so ex ministers cannot use thier contacts and knowledge for personal/company gain with a third party.

Mike.

5 years is too long but there should definitely be a cooling off period

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

In what way?
I mean all members can tender for public projects-Are you suggesting that the CIF favour one of their members over another?

As the minister in charge of the OPW up to a few weeks ago he has knowledge for example of how much the Government is willing to spend on certain contracts he would also have knowledge as to what details in a tender might impress more than others.
While I agree that as head of the CIF that information should he provide it would be available to Cramptons as much as SISK it would not be available to a contruction company from outside of this state who are entitled to tender for government contracts.
That is where i see the main problem also there is the issue of knowing how much the Government is prepared to spend when tendering I remember that Martin Cullen when announcing the various LUAS lines and extensions last year pointedly refused to give an estimate of the cost as this was sensitive information he did not want to make public in advance of the tendering process.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

So whilst it may not benefit one Irish construction company over another Irish construction company it may benefit Irish construction companies over foreign construction companies and it gives the impression at least of a less than transparent system of handling government contracts.

Lol at bringing Gama into this,given their history.

So your fear here is that theres a chance that parlons experience might lose foreign companies like Gama state construction contracts?
Horses for courses I suppose but personally I'd prefer where possible that a government maximised Irish jobs and the associated drop down positive economic effects.

Besides that is there anything else substantial that mythically might happen non transparently with this appointment?

Voipjunkie

Heinrich wrote:

Inappropriate, NO! Unethical YES!

• Bertie's dig outs
• Bev's deals with Government funded RTE
• Joe Burke - Dublin Port
• Finian - Docklands landfilling
• Jackie HR - private deals worth millins

and the list goes on.

Look your scraping around here

RTE did what was in the best interest of RTE which is what they are obliged to do that is an indisputable fact that they got much more money than they would have by bankrupting Flynn

Joe Burke as far as I know has not been charged with or convicted of anything


Finian McGrath stood on a platform of opposing the infill of the 52 acres it was on that basis that Sean Dublin Bay Loftus supported him. It is hardly surprising that he would have secured one of the issues that he has campaigned for in his negotiations with the Government

JHR deals are for the benefit of his constituents not himself nothing unethical in any of that

Heinrich

Voipjunkie wrote:

Look your scraping around here

RTE did what was in the best interest of RTE which is what they are obliged to do that is an indisputable fact that they got much more money than they would have by bankrupting Flynn

Joe Burke as far as I know has not been charged with or convicted of anything


Finian McGrath stood on a platform of opposing the infill of the 52 acres it was on that basis that Sean Dublin Bay Loftus supported him. It is hardly surprising that he would have secured one of the issues that he has campaigned for in his negotiations with the Government

JHR deals are for the benefit of his constituents not himself nothing unethical in any of that

More FF rhetoric as usual.

Your take on the RTE "deal" is par for the course. She effectively got away with over 1.6m euros and that money gets paid by someone else. It did not grow on trees.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

also there is the issue of knowing how much the Government is prepared to spend when tendering I remember that Martin Cullen when announcing the various LUAS lines and extensions last year pointedly refused to give an estimate of the cost as this was sensitive information he did not want to make public in advance of the tendering process.

In fairness that should be pretty common knowledge within the industry.
Of course Parlon has a specefic knowledge of the workings of the tendering process which I suppose would be helpfull to Irish industry and not foreign industry but it's highly unlikely to be in his job spec as I said to favour one company over another in the way he uses his knowledge.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Lol at bringing Gama into this,given their history.

So your fear here is that theres a chance that parlons experience might lose foreign companies like Gama state construction contracts?
Horses for courses I suppose but personally I'd prefer where possible that a government maximised Irish jobs and the associated drop down positive economic effects.

Besides that is there anything else substantial that mythically might happen non transparently with this appointment?

Gama is an example of a company that has won large Government contracts and is not a member of the CIF as such it blows your argument that there is no conflict because he represents all the industry out of the water.
The issue of Gama's treatment of its workforce or your preference for Irish companies is irrelevant as I am sure you are aware we are in the EU and the government cannot favour companies based on the nationality of its owner(s) or the country where it is headquartered.

Heinrich

Voipjunkie wrote:

Gama is an example of a company that has won large Government contracts and is not a member of the CIF as such it blows your argument that there is no conflict because he represents all the industry out of the water.
The issue of Gama's treatment of its workforce or your preference for Irish companies is irrelevant as I am sure you are aware we are in the EU and the government cannot favour companies based on the nationality of its owner(s) or the country where it is headquartered.

Is Gama a Turkish company?

Voipjunkie

Heinrich wrote:

More FF rhetoric as usual.

Your take on the RTE "deal" is par for the course. She effectively got away with over 1.6m euros and that money gets paid by someone else. It did not grow on trees.

I do not support FF and as I have previously stated I did not vote for them at the most recent election.

I do not allow my politics to blind me into believing that RTE should do my bidding for me the issue of Bev has nothing to do with this but for the record my understanding is that if they had bankrupted her they may have got €300,000 but they got 4 times that in the deal

Heinrich

Heinrich wrote:

Your take on the RTE "deal" is par for the course. She effectively got away with over 1.6m euros and that money gets paid by someone else. It did not grow on trees.

Look did you not listen to the RTE DG outline his choices?
Accept a deal or go for broke and get no money at all.
Remind me not to put anyone that can't see the wood for the tree's in charge of anything.
Wood=making the best of a bad situation.
Tree's= going all out personal instead of making the financial most of it.

Voipjunkie

Heinrich wrote:

Is Gama a Turkish company?

Yes it is again that is irrelevant

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

The issue of Gama's treatment of its workforce or your preference for Irish companies is irrelevant as I am sure you are aware we are in the EU and the government cannot favour companies based on the nationality of its owner(s) or the country where it is headquartered.

I'm aware of that but realistically there are several ways of skinning cats to ensure a preferred outcome.
I'd imagine a prefered outcome for most of the electorate would be the one that provides the most jobs locally up and downstream.That would be the aim of all politicians oversee'ing government contracts regardless of any restrictions.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

In fairness that should be pretty common knowledge within the industry.
Of course Parlon has a specefic knowledge of the workings of the tendering process which I suppose would be helpfull to Irish industry and not foreign industry but it's highly unlikely to be in his job spec as I said to favour one company over another in the way he uses his knowledge.

Tristrame wrote:

I'm aware of that but realistically there are several ways of skinning cats to ensure a preferred outcome.
I'd imagine a prefered outcome for most of the electorate would be the one that provides the most jobs locally up and downstream.That would be the aim of all politicians oversee'ing government contracts regardless of any restrictions.

I did not say he would favour one Irish company over another but he could make information available to all "Irish" companies that would not be available to non Irish companies
it is a fact that the introduction of "non irish" construction companies has led to a reduction in the cost of government contracts and an improvement in the completion times for contracts.
It is not in our interests for just "Irish companies" to have an inside track on government contracts

Well I'd imagine that the contract would still have to be won by the best bidder so that rules out your worry there-unless you think Parlon is going to mean that there won't be any more foreign companies bidding for state construction contracts as they deem it not worth their while to even bid.
A tad paranoid that I think.

Jackie laughlin

There is no corruption in the usual sense of the word here. Tom Parlon's appointment will increase the efficiency with which public money will be transferred to private hands. It's called the market and the "players" seek to exercise power within it.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Well I'd imagine that the contract would still have to be won by the best bidder so that rules out your worry there-unless you think Parlon is going to mean that there won't be any more foreign companies bidding for state construction contracts as they deem it not worth their while to even bid.
A tad paranoid that I think.

Of course "Best" bidder is the whole point as Parlon has the inside track on what the OPW would consider best and what exactly is likely to impress them in a tender.

price is not the only consideration in determining what is the "best" bid

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Of course "Best" bidder is the whole point as Parlon has the inside track on what the OPW would consider best and what exactly is likely to impress them in a tender.

If the direction in it remains the same as when he was there,thats not guaranteed.Seriously do you think that a foreign company wouldn't eventually be aware or even as it is, of the style of other bids (aside from price) going into the OPW or elsewhere for that matter ? If you think that then this hair split you're on is exactly that a hair split.

price is not the only consideration in determining what is the "best" bid

Obviously.I refer you back to my skinning cats post above.