Siptu- The money was just resting in our account?

Head The Wall

We'll have to agree though there's something rotten in all camps related to this

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

We'll have to agree though there's something rotten in all camps related to this

It looks like there is something rotten, all right, and it is important that the facts come out.

I think that the word used by Fitzcaraldo used is the right one: misappropriated. I would use the word in its narrowest sense for the time being: the money was put in the wrong place. It might emerge later that money was spent dishonestly (which I don't believe, but I await the facts) or recklessly and extravagantly (which I suspect is what happened, but I still need the facts).

Head The Wall

It was put in the wrong place on purpose though is what I would tend to believe. Tora Bora got an infraction for one of his pictures but it is entirely appropriate for what went on here.

There is no possible way this can be misconstrued to be anything other than theft, fraud and deception

jdivision

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

How do idiots consistently get to positions of power in this country?

Because we elect them and in the case of the unelected they're entitled to promotion after a certain amount of time

dfbemt

I've an idea for a new play called Bertie or Biffo or Mary or ..... Some of the purists may recognise it.

Dim the lights, silence, curtains....

Act I Scene IV

Lenny:
He waxes desperate with imagination.

Inda:
Let's follow. 'Tis not fit thus to obey him.

Lenny:
Have after. To what issue will this come?

Inda:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark Ireland.
Lenny:
Heaven will direct it.
Inda:
Nay, let's follow him.

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

It was put in the wrong place on purpose though is what I would tend to believe. Tora Bora got an infraction for one of his pictures but it is entirely appropriate for what went on here.

There is no possible way this can be misconstrued to be anything other than theft, fraud and deception

Is there anything wrong with seeking the facts before making a judgement?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with seeking the facts before making a judgement?

Except that the alleged wrongdoers are the ones conducting the investigation.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Except that the alleged wrongdoers are the ones conducting the investigation.

That's not a fair representation of what is happening.

One of the alleged wrongdoers is the HSE. Their internal auditors discovered questionable transactions and disclosed them. The matter is before the PAC and, I infer, is also with the CAG.

There is an allegation that SIPTU is involved, and allegation that SIPTU refutes. This allegation is in the public domain, and they have refuted the allegation in the same forum. They have indicated clearly that they intend to co-operate with any enquiry.

While the matter is in the public domain, and SIPTU is being criticised by some and judged by others, should they be obliged to say nothing?

Head The Wall

If the guys that were involved in this were not members of SIPTU then this probably would not have been able to happen. So whether it wants to or not SIPTU is involved in it. It's noty a case of deciding were they or were they not, but a case of how and to what extent was SIPTU involved

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is an allegation that SIPTU is involved, and allegation that SIPTU refutes. This allegation is in the public domain, and they have refuted the allegation in the same forum. They have indicated clearly that they intend to co-operate with any enquiry.

While the matter is in the public domain, and SIPTU is being criticised by some and judged by others, should they be obliged to say nothing?

It is this side of things rather than the HSE that I'm concerned about. You say we should wait for all the facts to emerge, however the process by which the facts will emerge appears to be an internal investigation carried out be the union itself.

Nowhere did I say that the SIPTU should be obliged to say nothing, by the way. If anything, their silence is the problem. The questions that need to be answered are:

1. If they had nothing do do with these bank accounts, how come they are now in control of them?

2. Why didn't they hand back the money as soon as they came into control of the bank accounts?

3. Why didn't they call the gardaí when they became aware of these irregularities?

Now they are not obliged to answer these questions in public but in keeping silent they and those who defend them can't complain when there's speculation by others on the internet.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is this side of things rather than the HSE that I'm concerned about.

It's really the HSE that should be first in line for attention: they are the ones responsible for the disbursement of public funds.

You say we should wait for all the facts to emerge, however the process by which the facts will emerge appears to be an internal investigation carried out be the union itself.

What would you suggest? That they provide answers without knowing what happened? Perhaps invent a plausible story?

Nowhere did I say that the SIPTU should be obliged to say nothing, by the way. If anything, their silence is the problem.

They haven't been silent. They have been careful.

The questions that need to be answered are:

1. If they had nothing do do with these bank accounts, how come they are now in control of them?

2. Why didn't they hand back the money as soon as they came into control of the bank accounts?

3. Why didn't they call the gardaí when they became aware of these irregularities?

Now they are not obliged to answer these questions in public but in keeping silent they and those who defend them can't complain when there's speculation by others on the internet.

You say that they are not obliged to answer the questions in public, but you put the questions out there in a public forum and complain that they have not been answered. Give us a break.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What would you suggest? That they provide answers without knowing what happened? Perhaps invent a plausible story?

How can you come into control of a bank account while at the same time saying that you had nothing to do with that bank account? You have to admit that is very suspicious.

They haven't been silent. They have been careful.

You say that they are not obliged to answer the questions in public, but you put the questions out there in a public forum and complain that they have not been answered. Give us a break.

All I'm saying is that that it does indeed look as if they are up to something dodgy and that they know a lot more than they are letting on. Like I said, they have a legal right not to answer questions but that does not mean they haven't left a lot unanswered. I think it is reasonable on that basis to form certain judgements about them.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

How can you come into control of a bank account while at the same time saying that you had nothing to do with that bank account?

It's quite possible. I have done so, and it was entirely proper. [No, I'm not going to give details, because the privacy of other people has to be respected.]

You have to admit that is very suspicious.All I'm saying is that that it does indeed look as if they are up to something dodgy and that they know a lot more than they are letting on. Like I said, they have a legal right not to answer questions but that does not mean they haven't left a lot unanswered. I think it is reasonable on that basis to form certain judgements about them.

You are making judgements on insufficient information. You are also making a "guilty unless proven innocent" approach, and that's not a proper way to do things.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's quite possible. I have done so, and it was entirely proper. [No, I'm not going to give details, because the privacy of other people has to be respected.]

OK, but what is inconcievable is that you would not know where that account originated and the circumstances by which it came into your control.

You are making judgements on insufficient information. You are also making a "guilty unless proven innocent" approach, and that's not a proper way to do things.

We'll that is how a court of law operates and rightly so. But when an organisation like a union appears to be hiding information on how they came into receipt of public funds, then it is only natural to draw conclusions. They may well have a legal right to withhold information or "be careful" as you put it, but the consequence of that is speculation among the public as to what is actually going on. As far as I can see, what seems to have gone on (by the union's own admission) would in the normal organisation have warranted a call to the gardaí yet this has not happened. Imagine if you were running a company and you felt you had good reason to believe that people posing as you were in receipt of money that the payees believed was destined for your company. The first thing you would do would be pick up the phone to the police. There would be no question of an internal inquiry.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

OK, but what is inconcievable is that you would not know where that account originated and the circumstances by which it came into your control.We'll that is how a court of law operates and rightly so. But when an organisation like a union appears to be hiding information on how they came into receipt of public funds, then it is only natural to draw conclusions. They may well have a legal right to withhold information or "be careful" as you put it, but the consequence of that is speculation among the public as to what is actually going on. As far as I can see, what seems to have gone on (by the union's own admission) would in the normal organisation have warranted a call to the gardaí yet this has not happened. Imagine if you were running a company and you felt you had good reason to believe that people posing as you were in receipt of money that the payees believed was destined for your company. The first thing you would do would be pick up the phone to the police. There would be no question of an internal inquiry.

You seem to have a fundamental objection to SIPTU trying to find out what happened. In that, I think you are being quite unreasonable.

Frankly, I think you are more interested in jumping to conclusions and in condemning SIPTU than in making fair comment.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You seem to have a fundamental objection to SIPTU trying to find out what happened. In that, I think you are being quite unreasonable.

Frankly, I think you are more interested in jumping to conclusions and in condemning SIPTU than in making fair comment.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but as far as I can see, Siptu have put out statements that don't make a lot of sense and leads one to be very suspicious. If they had nothing to hid I don't think they would be acting in this way.

Sponge Bob

Seems that the HSE only found out about this scamola at the highest levels when they tripped over Matt Merrigan ( signatory to that 'special' account) and the lads in Australia on a "study trip".

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/oct/10/235m-slush-fund-rumbled-by-hsechief-on-australia-t/

The probe into the controversial €2.35m 'Skill' training slush fund was only ordered after the then HSE chief accidentally bumped into a senior Siptu official who was on a 'study trip' to Australia.


Brendan Drumm was attending a high-profile health seminar in Australia when he met Matt Merrigan and other union and HSE officials.


Drumm returned to Ireland and immediately confronted the HSE's HR director Sean McGrath and demanded to know what the party was doing in Australia and why the HSE was footing the bill.

goat2

is there a list of who went on the australian trips, and did these pay anything twoards these trips, were meals, taxis and acommodation included it these expenses, or was it just airfairs, what were they studying on this studytrip, could one or two have gone and brought home their findings, why did a bigger number go, and how many went

Nijmegen

This should not be an internal investigation on either behalf.

The Gardai should be removing computers and records from both the HSE and SIPTU and questioning people, on an official basis, involved or with knowledge of this program.

Self policing, or investigation, is not acceptable in these cases.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

... The Gardai should be removing computers and records from both the HSE and SIPTU and questioning people, on an official basis, involved or with knowledge of this program....

Has there actually been a crime?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Has there actually been a crime?

It is up to the gardaí to determine that. They were called by the HSE a while back.

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Has there actually been a crime?

The Gardai are often called in where there may have been a crime committed and outside, independant eyes are needed. "Treating it as suspicious", as they say when they find a body in the river. Did some poor unfortunate fall in, or were they strangled and thrown in? That's for the Gardai to determine.

P. Breathnach

I don't think there are grounds for believing that a crime has been committed.

It looks to me more like a case of people being wildly extravagant with public money and, perhaps, not having adequate records (it's already admitted that the HSE did not have adequate records; we have yet to see if the group who controlled this fund kept good records).

This looks to me like a case for accounting investigation, and we have the CAG for that purpose. Accountability in the public domain would be the business of the PAC, who are currently taking an interest.

The idea that people have been wasteful with public money bothers me as much as it bothers most other people. But waste, even reckless waste, has been happening for decades, and in those heady days when "the country was awash with money" (Remember them? They seem so long ago.) many spending programmes got out of control, and the commentarait were generally not too concerned because they too were overspending like mad.

Don't misunderstand me. If wrong was done, I want it exposed and dealt with. But I want it dealt with equitably. Some people seem to be on a witch hunt because the name of a trade union has been linked to the story.

SkepticOne

Siptu themselves claim that someone set up an account in the name of Siptu which then recieved money from the HSE over the course of several years without the knowledge of Siptu.

If Siptu are to be believed (and I'm not saying they should be) then it is fairly obvious that we're not merely dealing with an accounting issue or an issue of waste.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think there are grounds for believing that a crime has been committed.

Let us put aside for one moment that it is Siptu that is saying these things.

How would you describe setting up an account in the name of an organisation but without the knowledge of that organisation and then receiving public funds into that account again without the knowledge (allegedly) of that organisation?

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Siptu themselves claim that someone set up an account in the name of Siptu...

Source?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Source?

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Headline/Name,11964,en.html

We understand, at this stage, that monies were paid into an account that bore the name of SIPTU and that this account was operated by a Senior Official of the Union. It was not an authorised or approved account of the Union nor was it in our control.

It's actually linked to on the front page of the Siptu website.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Let us put aside for one moment that it is Siptu that is saying these things.

How would you describe setting up an account in the name of an organisation but without the knowledge of that organisation and then receiving public funds into that account again without the knowledge (allegedly) of that organisation?

Highly irregular. It is wrong for anybody associated with an organisation, whether as officer or employee, to transact any business in the name of that organisation without the proper authority and without lines of accountability.

Crazy Taxi

Deleted User wrote: »

I think SIPTU have been set up here to further the anti-union agenda..

That is a very interesting theory! I have no time for unions (they really are a toothless tiger) but we still need some sort of worker representative body to keep the tyrants from taking over completely.

Essexboy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think there are grounds for believing that a crime has been committed.

It looks to me more like a case of people being wildly extravagant with public money and, perhaps, not having adequate records (it's already admitted that the HSE did not have adequate records; we have yet to see if the group who controlled this fund kept good records).

This looks to me like a case for accounting investigation, and we have the CAG for that purpose. Accountability in the public domain would be the business of the PAC, who are currently taking an interest.

The idea that people have been wasteful with public money bothers me as much as it bothers most other people. But waste, even reckless waste, has been happening for decades, and in those heady days when "the country was awash with money" (Remember them? They seem so long ago.) many spending programmes got out of control, and the commentarait were generally not too concerned because they too were overspending like mad.

Don't misunderstand me. If wrong was done, I want it exposed and dealt with. But I want it dealt with equitably. Some people seem to be on a witch hunt because the name of a trade union has been linked to the story.

Actually there are several trade unions involved eg Impact said it had repaid a total of €112,791.53 while the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation (INMO) is to give back €127,491.60.
Talking of Impact one of the freeloaders was Peter McLoone, ex-chairman of FAS and Impact's onetime General Secretary.
"March 15-22, 2007: Boston. Social Partnership Study. Three members of Skill and their spouses, three officials from the Department of Health, five from the HSE, five from unions, including Peter McLoone from IMPACT who was on the board of Fás at the time."
http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland/siptu-funded-finance-department-officials-six-trips-abroad-132938.html
How strange that the trip straddled St Patrick's Day!!

Here is a question for SIPTU: have the officials concerned been suspended? if not, why not? ditto for the other agencies involved.

SkepticOne

Essexboy wrote: »

Here is a question for SIPTU: have the officials concerned been suspended? if not, why not? ditto for the other agencies involved.

One of them, the main signatory, is apparently on sick leave.

P. Breathnach

Essexboy wrote: »

...
Talking of Impact one of the freeloaders was Peter McLoone, ex-chairman of FAS and Impact's onetime General Secretary.
"March 15-22, 2007: Boston. Social Partnership Study. Three members of Skill and their spouses, three officials from the Department of Health, five from the HSE, five from unions, including Peter McLoone from IMPACT who was on the board of Fás at the time."...

The report you linked named a number of people. Why did you single out one for special mention in your post?

Fat_Fingers

Crazy Taxi wrote: »

That is a very interesting theory! I have no time for unions (they really are a toothless tiger) but we still need some sort of worker representative body to keep the tyrants from taking over completely.

IMHO they are hardly “toothless” as they can and they have created major disruption to the country at the drop of the pin. Unfortunately it has become evident that union leaders have neglected their duty to members they represent and happily went about been “more equal “ then their members.
Union members should demand to have election / ballot on who should represent them. All the top union representatives are damaged goods and to bring some sort of credibility to those organisations they should replaces all the “representatives” who were involved in dodgy practices or simple showed incompetence.

I remember interview with David Beggs lashing at banking system yet at the same time he was himself on the board of director of the central bank for 10 long year!

Essexboy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The report you linked named a number of people. Why did you single out one for special mention in your post?

Because he already went joyriding with FÁS eg "FAS chairman Peter McLoone clocked up a €7,300 bill travelling business class to Orlando." and presided over the waste and corruption which is endemic in that organisation without lifting a finger. Well he couldn't as he was part of it.

The man is a parasite, pretending to represent ordinary workers, while enjoying the bosses' lifestyle

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Highly irregular. It is wrong for anybody associated with an organisation, whether as officer or employee, to transact any business in the name of that organisation without the proper authority and without lines of accountability.

It's a crime.

If any member of my staff did similar, no matter what they did with the money, it would be fraud and theft and I would hound them into a court and press for them to go to jail.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

It's a crime.

If any member of my staff did similar, no matter what they did with the money, it would be fraud and theft and I would hound them into a court and press for them to go to jail.

Your qualification "no matter what they did with the money" cuts the ground from under your claim that it is fraud. Secretiveness and deception are not in themselves fraudulent. If a member of your staff ran a line of business in your name, but without your authority, that is misbehaviour and you would certainly be justified in dismissing that person; but if the operation was set up in such a way that profits were directed into the business, then you might have difficulty in convincing a court that a fraud had been perpetrated.

It's for such reasons that I would prefer to see people hold back until more information has emerged.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

but if the operation was set up in such a way that profits were directed into the business, then you might have difficulty in convincing a court that a fraud had been perpetrated.

Again, Siptu claimed they never received any money.

Tora Bora

So, it seems there are two SIPTU's in the country:rolleyes:

By extension, does it follow that there are two Jack O Connor's:eek:

Yes:mad:

That explains it so. That's why the country is panned, and all the comrades have got together to peddle this nonsense about Anglo and Irish Nationwide etc, to cover up the facts .............. :cool:

It's all a set up. There is no NAMA ..... that's all part of the cover up.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again, Siptu claimed they never received any money.

I still think you have some work to do to establish that a fraud has been perpetrated. And I think that there is not enough information available to us to prove or disprove that there has been one.

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I still think you have some work to do to establish that a fraud has been perpetrated. And I think that there is not enough information available to us to prove or disprove that there has been one.

Pull it apart, question everyone officially and we'll know in a week, maybe two.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

Pull it apart, question everyone officially and we'll know in a week, maybe two.

On that we can agree, at least to the extent that the whole thing should be examined aggressively and with some urgency.

I believe that the appropriate person to lead the investigation is the CAG. If fraud or some other illegality is discovered, then the matter can go into legal process.

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On that we can agree, at least to the extent that the whole thing should be examined aggressively and with some urgency.

I believe that the appropriate person to lead the investigation is the CAG. If fraud or some other illegality is discovered, then the matter can go into legal process.

I speak regularly with financial managers in the public service who are in my social circle, and the thing I hear regularly about the C&AG is that the office is understaffed and not always the best sort of auditor you'd expect.

But if they can turn around a speedy investigation, go ahead.

I dislike how, in Ireland, we tend to let these things drag on in the most expensive fashion possible.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I still think you have some work to do to establish that a fraud has been perpetrated. And I think that there is not enough information available to us to prove or disprove that there has been one.

Except that taking what Siptu are saying at face value, they are saying that someone set up an account in Siptu's name, obtained taxpayers money into that account, did not pass the money on to Siptu and all this was done without Siptu's knowledge or control. Let us assume for a moment that Siptu are telling the truth, then what further information would you need?

Let's remove the context of trade unions here. What do you call the activity of taking money in someone else's name without their knowledge and not passing it on? What would be the conceivable mitigating circumstances if you knew such a thing was going on?

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

I speak regularly with financial managers in the public service who are in my social circle, and the thing I hear regularly about the C&AG is that the office is understaffed and not always the best sort of auditor you'd expect.

Par for the course. It's unusual to hear anybody, public sector or private sector, say nice things about auditors.

But if they can turn around a speedy investigation, go ahead.

I dislike how, in Ireland, we tend to let these things drag on in the most expensive fashion possible.

I share your feelings on that one. You might infer from this thread that I believe in a cautious approach to tricky questions. That does not mean that I like things to be unduly slow, and I certainly don't like anything being unduly expensive.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Except that taking what Siptu are saying at face value, they are saying that someone set up an account in Siptu's name, obtained taxpayers money into that account, did not pass the money on to Siptu and all this was done without Siptu's knowledge or control. Let us assume for a moment that Siptu are telling the truth, then what further information would you need?

If you want me to say that what happened is wrong, then no problem: I say that it is wrong.

Let's remove the context of trade unions here. What do you call the activity of taking money in someone else's name without their knowledge and not passing it on? What would be the conceivable mitigating circumstances if you knew such a thing was going on?

It would be a considerable mitigation if the funds were applied for a proper purpose. So I would be interested in knowing how the fund was operated. But I have no hesitation in saying that something wrong was done; I'm simply not sure that it was actually a fraud. Remember that the money was not strictly intended to benefit SIPTU; it was intended that SIPTU administer it for a particular purpose, and it seems that another group of people who happen to be associated with SIPTU usurped that function.

Head The Wall

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This looks to me like a case for accounting investigation, and we have the CAG for that purpose. Accountability in the public domain would be the business of the PAC, who are currently taking an interest.

What is that strange word in bold? I didn't think it existed in relation to any HSE or union issue

vincentdunne

I am a member of SIPTU and I have to say that I feel fairly sick and betrayed over the whole episode. We have spent the last year hammering the banks and politicians and now we find that 'our own' have been profigate in the same way.
Who do you trust anymore??

Nijmegen

vincentdunne wrote: »

I am a member of SIPTU and I have to say that I feel fairly sick and betrayed over the whole episode. We have spent the last year hammering the banks and politicians and now we find that 'our own' have been profigate in the same way.
Who do you trust anymore??

It was never any secret that the union leaders were sitting on a load of state agency boards and other slush funds.

ei.sdraob

The same leaders sat on the boards of banks such as our central bank putting a blind eye on things...

deise blue

vincentdunne wrote: »

I am a member of SIPTU and I have to say that I feel fairly sick and betrayed over the whole episode. We have spent the last year hammering the banks and politicians and now we find that 'our own' have been profigate in the same way.
Who do you trust anymore??

Before rushing to judgement perhaps it would be better to wait until the various investigations are concluded ?