Primetime on FAS in Castlebar

quad_red

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Theres always been a few chancers working in fas ,but the majority of people in there are good.And the lads they train are hard working.

Remember hearing a story of a guy ordering in supplies for classes and using the goods to do his own jobs. But he was found out and got the boot as far as I know.

And that's good enough oversight for hundreds of millions of euros of tax money? Never mind lacking oversight that it's being spent efficiently! But lacking oversight whether it's even being spent on what the hell it was claimed for?!?!

How can it not be fraudulent behaviour to claims hundreds of thousands of euro, year after year, for purposes different than you're actually claiming the money for.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

So Fás pays people but they are not part of core establishment, so they have almost total indpendence ?

"Almost total independence" might be overstating things a bit. The supervisors are answerable to FAS. But let's allow for human nature: the rigour with which control is exercised can vary from on CE scheme to another.

Ok if in this case they diverted the funds to some other projects, did not steal or pocket it, weren't they still not dishonest by not using the funds for what they were earmarked for and thus screwing the chances some other legimitate "meals on wheels" provider had of getting funding ?

Is this the thin end of the wedge and if you can divert funds to some other project in one instance, what is stopping someone else from diverting the funds into their own pockets or buddies poickets in another location ?

A CE scheme is set up and maintained on the basis of a proposal form a community group. That proposal sets out the projects and activities to be supported. Most of the support is in the form of paid CE workers, and there is some general financial provision for resourcing work and for training of the workers. A proposal might include, for example, the provision of two CE workers to assist in the preparation of Meals on Wheels. If no workers are assigned to Meals on Wheels, but two extra workers are assigned to working for the Tidy Towns committee, I would consider that wrong.

That said, I have heard suggestions (which I cannot verify) that FAS itself has re-allocated provision in existing schemes.

yoshytoshy

quad_red wrote: »

And that's good enough oversight for hundreds of millions of euros of tax money? Never mind lacking oversight that it's being spent efficiently! But lacking oversight whether it's even being spent on what the hell it was claimed for?!?!

How can it not be fraudulent behaviour to claims hundreds of thousands of euro, year after year, for purposes different than you're actually claiming the money for.

I don't understand that reply ,I have nothing to do with fas. Are you suggesting I am defending fas ?
Well I can assure you I'm not ,but they have and do provide a future for a lot of people in ireland.

Is fas going to be another scape goat for the real issues at hand ?

jimmmy

quad_red wrote: »

The head of the actual meals on wheels service (a retired Garda) tried to bring this to the authorities in a number of different ways. He claims the local priest, who was involved in these companies, told him to stop asking questions.

Basically, scamming FAS by drawing down hundreds of thousands of euro claiming to provide services that others were struggling to provide.

Only saw part of the programme, but I gathered that the Priest was involved in getting hundreds of thousands of euro for each of the 3 different companies, all based in the same church building, to provide meals on wheels, yet none were prepared or delivered from there ? And nobody knows where the guts of a million euro went to ?

As another poster said, the thing is shameful.

mayfire

The FAS guy is very arrogant and came across as a complete clown. He is well fit to fly his own kite though. Have a look here before it disappears.

http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/Mayo/News/ConnTel/Features/EHoban.htm

P. Breathnach

mayfire wrote: »

The FAS guy is very arrogant and came across as a complete clown. He is well fit to fly his own kite though. Have a look here before it disappears.

http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/Mayo/News/ConnTel/Features/EHoban.htm

From that piece, it appears that he was a FAS official, not simply a CE Supervisor.

If he sat the Leaving Certificate in 1949, he is probably about 77 years old now. He may have involved himself in CE schemes on a different basis after retiring. I wonder if he might be likened to a gamekeeper turned poacher.

JonathanAnon

"Dont answer that PJ, dont answer that" .... most memorable quote from the program. ... LOL

whadabouchasir

My favourite qoute was when the interviewer asks yer man "so you've been working in FAS for 18 years and you don't know the basic rules?" and the oul fella just says no. From what I can see he looked as guilty as hell.when he was asked what he did with themoney he just couldn't answer the question.

netman

from the article wrote:

"Eddie says it was not the bending of rules, but the making of ways, that enabled him to so some of the things he did"

hahahaha it sure was!

Faster Doudle

I think a few people in this thread have missed the point of the Prime Time piece last night. It wasn't about proving wrongdoing or explaining where the money went, it was about exposing the shocking lack of oversight and accountability that exists in Fas.

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so. They had drawn down funding based on providing meals and wheels and in the programme Fas head office was quoted as saying the schemes in Castlebar "never provided meals on wheels".

There's something seriously wrong there. It's not up to Prime Time to explain what went on - it's up to Fas. In that regard they failed miserably in last nights programme, both at a local and a national level.

nesf

Faster Doudle wrote: »

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so.

They weren't FAS lads.

skelliser

they were'nt employed by fas and are not on the fas payroll, the main guy used to work in fas but retired 18 years ago and worked voluntarily on these schemes. His position is described as a sponsor
He is not an employee of fas and was never paid.
The other two are supervisers on their respective schemes.

All or part of these schemes are funded in part by fas.

Sand

However I have heard that Prime Time may have overstepped the mark with last nights show. While the three stooges (well one buffoon and two stooges) were both scary and comical in equal measure - god forbid they were put in charge of anything - there wasn't actually any proof or even charge from RTE that these giys had pocketed the millions - I think the 'fat man' had taken one payment of 300 euro for something in 2002.

No one is saying they took the money. What is being said is that they drew down the money on the basis that they were providing a meals on wheels service.

The 3 morons in questions couldnt and wouldnt state clearly what involvement they had in the actual provision of meals on wheels. My bull**** detector is already going off the chart - as supervisors they should be able to say very clearly who was employed and what their duties were - thats the absolute minimum for anyone in a supervisory position. You have to at least know what the **** the guys youre supervising are doing or not doing.

In contrast, the Social Services that actually did provide meals on wheels stated clearly that FAS involvement was minimal and funding was tight.

When confronted, the three morons played semantics - they were called Meals on Wheels, so in theory that justified them drawing down funds to provide meals on wheels - thats something you get here on Boards, not from an organisation overseeing an annual budget of 400 to 500 thousand euros of *OUR* money.

One of the highlighted reports noted that without the three morons meals on wheels would not otherwise be possible - this ignored that actually Social Services were providing the meals on wheels service, not the FAS scheme. Another report refused to comment on if the FAS scheme actually was performing the service it claimed to provide - a diplomatic silence surely...

And where has the 2.5 million euro gone? On wages for the 2 part time FAS staff that were noted as having any involvement in the provision of meals on wheels? For 3-4 years work [ the last year after the meals on wheels service had completely disowned the FAS scheme ] ? Those 2 part timers were better paid than Bertie Ahern ever was, brown envelopes and all.

And I havent even mentioned the training fraud [ the amount of 350 euro is not huge] but it does again indicate the scheme was at best, poorly managed, and worst actively taken for all that was on offer.

The whole thing stinks. And trying to divert into a distractionary attack on the character of the representitive of the social services isnt going to change that. That man was a lot more clear, concise and to the point than the shower of chancers lined up to represent the FAS scheme.

Faster Doudle

skelliser wrote: »

they were'nt employed by fas and are not on the fas payroll, the main guy used to work in fas but retired 18 years ago and worked voluntarily on these schemes. His position is described as a sponsor
He is not an employee of fas and was never paid.
The other two are supervisers on their respective schemes.

All or part of these schemes are funded in part by fas.

Yeah I didnt' mean to say they were Fas employees. They were representing Fas though in that they managed the 2.3m that the 4 companies recieved in funding from Farce. The main guy signed company documents as a director - these people were in charge of contolling millions in Fas money at ground level - presumably employing others to work for Fa. So while they weren't themselves employees they were heavily associated with Fas.

It was mentioned in the programme that they did other things in the community - perhaps they weren't getting paid or drawing funds themselves. The question of what, exactly, the 2.3 million was spent on remains though. It's hard to imagine it all went to salaries for people working in the community. Why can't they name the people who worked for them and account for the money spent? They threw up a load of smoke and mirrors by avoiding specifics and thought that would do as an explanation (that kind of crap was obviously acceptable to Fas management for years). It's the lack of transperancy and accountability that's most important. Oh, and Fas' total failure to keep schemes like this in check.

They claimed to Fas that they were preparing 50 meals a day - didn't anyone from Fas need to see evidence of a kitchen, workers, a bus or anything like that? If they had, they'd have found nothing except the social services facilities. It's like Fas just don't give a ****.

old boy

Faster Doudle wrote: »

I think a few people in this thread have missed the point of the Prime Time piece last night. It wasn't about proving wrongdoing or explaining where the money went, it was about exposing the shocking lack of oversight and accountability that exists in Fas.

It was put to those three local fas guys to explain what the money was spent on and they failed to do so. They had drawn down funding based on providing meals and wheels and in the programme Fas head office was quoted as saying the schemes in Castlebar "never provided meals on wheels".

There's something seriously wrong there. It's not up to Prime Time to explain what went on - it's up to Fas. In that regard they failed miserably in last nights programme, both at a local and a national level.

what about certified accounts,

knex

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

MisterAnarchy

knex wrote: »

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Of course,all is clear now.
I wonder who you are ?:rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

knex wrote: »

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000. What you saw was a bitter ex-guard hitting out at a dead parish priest who could not answer for himself. 95% of money received went on wages and was all accounted for with certified accounts which were produced to Prime Time which they failed to show. Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident. Hey lads some advert for Social Services this ex-guard!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Are you aware of how many FAS employed workers you can get for around 2.4million Euros?

Bob Z

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Of course,all is clear now.
I wonder who you are ?:rolleyes:

Yea he/she only has one post

Faster Doudle

old boy wrote: »

what about certified accounts,

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think it's Fas policy to destroy documents after 6 years or so. Certified accounts. Certified by who exactly - Fas? The problem is that money was partially awarded based on the provision of Meals on Wheels, which Fas admits wasn't provided.

@ knew - As for the ex-Guard's past, I fail to see what that has to do with Fas funding. Maybe that's a subject for another programme, but it doesn't explain what the 2.3m of taxpayers money was spent on. How would you know whether certified accounts were presented to Prime Time anyway and what reason would they have to ignore such evidence?

knex

watched it on tv in castlebar pub everybody knew the story no sympathy for the ex gaurd plenty of history there. All to be revealed in this weeks local papers 2.4 million employed 40+ Fas people each year for five years working in castlebar and sorrounding areas doing great work that helped many people. Remember alot of the employees suffered from various disabilities and gained gainful employment working with Fas schemes

nesf

knex wrote: »

watched it on tv in castlebar pub everybody knew the story no sympathy for the ex gaurd plenty of history there. All to be revealed in this weeks local papers 2.4 million employed 40+ Fas people each year for five years working in castlebar and sorrounding areas doing great work that helped many people. Remember alot of the employees suffered from various disabilities and gained gainful employment working with Fas schemes

Were any of those schemes providing meals to elderly people in the area? Whether the money was spent correctly or not is a separate issue, the problem seemed that on the applications they claimed they were providing this service when it appears that they weren't.

knex

helping to provoide meals how many does it take to provide 15 meals that were provided at that time? I know that the whole building was done up by the Fas scheme drylined, painted,new bars placed on the windows to prevent break ins of which there were many:)

P. Breathnach

knex wrote: »

Know the story here lads the ex-guard had two unfair dismissal cases against him which cost Social Services over €35,000... Ex-guard removed fas staff members from Social Services in 2004 one of whom had lost her partner and child less than one week previous in a tragic accident...

I googled a bit, and was unable to find anything to support these claims.

Can anybody else find support for these allegations?

knex

google a bit more 2006 and 2007 they are there. Maybe have alook at social services accounts from CRO they are on those as well not allegation fact

nesf

knex wrote: »

google a bit more 2006 and 2007 they are there. Maybe have alook at social services accounts from CRO they are on those as well not allegation fact

Link to them then.

knex

nesf wrote: »

Link to them then.

cro.ie

nesf

knex wrote: »

cro.ie

The unfair dismissals. Link to reports of them or withdraw the claims.

P. Breathnach

knex, you have made allegations. I think you should back them with useful urls. As of now, I don't believe what you say.

knex

I do not care if you beleive me or not proof is there if you bother to look for it