Merger of Waterford VECs with Wexford

merlante

Psychedelic wrote: »

Cheeky cunt that Lawlor fella isn't he. Basically, "Waterford did well under Fianna Fail with Martin Cullen, now it's our turn, fcuk Waterford."

Yeah, and didn't Martin Cullen grant the headquarters of the department of the Environment to Wexford during his tenure as part of decentralisation?

Now, I don't think the decentralisation happened (fully?), but Wexford does seem to have a significant office of the department there now.

Risible stuff. Imagine if ever patch of county Cork had this sort of enmity towards the city. Would it be the size it is now?

Bards

This is also the same Wexford Mentality "Everything is going to Waterford" That moved the Director of the IDA S.E to Cork from Waterford in the Hope that "Wexford" would get more jobs. (IIRC it was a certain well known FG Minister of a now failed bookmaker and current broadcaster who perfromed this task)

Nett result was that the whole of the S.E haemorrhaged jobs and will continue do so until the director is brought back to the Regional Capital.

merlante

Bards wrote: »

This is also the same Wexford Mentality "Everything is going to Waterford" That moved the Director of the IDA S.E to Cork from Waterford in the Hope that "Wexford" would get more jobs. (IIRC it was a certain well known FG Minister of a now failed bookmaker and current broadcaster who perfromed this task)

Nett result was that the whole of the S.E haemorrhaged jobs and will continue do so until the director is brought back to the Regional Capital.

I'm a fan of local government, but if national government cannot see that Waterford city is the natural centre for the headquarters to be located in -- being both central and highly populated -- then forget the whole thing. Just have a regional council and have done with it. Because this sort of BS is just unbelievable. And the sort of demographics spouted by that junior minister they sent out to bat: Co. Wexford population larger than Co. Waterford, more schools and budget in Wexford, etc., completely overlooks where people actually live in the combined area, where the transport infrastructure is, and where the centre of the area is -- and while we're at it, where the so-called regional capital and gateway city in the national strategy is. (And where it would continue to be even in a reformed national spatial strategy.) And if Cullen really wanted to stick the knife into Wexford and favour Waterford, as he is alleged to have done, he would have halved the number of gateways and hubs and left Wexford out in the cold. That particular plan would have suited the powers that be a lot better and it might be gospel by this point.

And on another point, the fact that Dungarvan was the second choice surely undermines all of the demographic arguments given in the Dail. Waterford city was not even shortlisted, despite being the blindingly obvious location for the combined VEC. Hard to imagine any case for Dungarvan at all given that it is the centre of the sparsest part of the combined area. It really shows what a total joke the process was.

This can't be left go. If this logic prevails then the same argument can be made to move all infrastructure to Wexford town on the basis of county boundaries established 800 years ago and an inconvenient mountain range in Co. Waterford. It also suits Wexford to forget that Waterford city is a county in itself situated between Co.s Waterford and Wexford. (Hence the 3 VECs in the first place.)

Yes Boss

merlante wrote: »

I'm a fan of local government, but if national government cannot see that Waterford city is the natural centre for the headquarters to be located in -- being both central and highly populated -- then forget the whole thing. Just have a regional council and have done with it. Because this sort of BS is just unbelievable. And the sort of demographics spouted by that junior minister they sent out to bat: Co. Wexford population larger than Co. Waterford, more schools and budget in Wexford, etc., completely overlooks where people actually live in the combined area, where the transport infrastructure is, and where the centre of the area is -- and while we're at it, where the so-called regional capital and gateway city in the national strategy is. (And where it would continue to be even in a reformed national spatial strategy.) And if Cullen really wanted to stick the knife into Wexford and favour Waterford, as he is alleged to have done, he would have halved the number of gateways and hubs and left Wexford out in the cold. That particular plan would have suited the powers that be a lot better and it might be gospel by this point.

And on another point, the fact that Dungarvan was the second choice surely undermines all of the demographic arguments given in the Dail. Waterford city was not even shortlisted, despite being the blindingly obvious location for the combined VEC. Hard to imagine any case for Dungarvan at all given that it is the centre of the sparsest part of the combined area. It really shows what a total joke the process was.

This can't be left go. If this logic prevails then the same argument can be made to move all infrastructure to Wexford town on the basis of county boundaries established 800 years ago and an inconvenient mountain range in Co. Waterford. It also suits Wexford to forget that Waterford city is a county in itself situated between Co.s Waterford and Wexford. (Hence the 3 VECs in the first place.)

How was Dungarvan the second choice? Is there any possibility that the report that Ciara Conway claimed she wrote in favor of Waterford was in fact Dungarvan, Co. Waterford?? If this is the case did Waterford in fact have No representation?

How can we see this report?

Bards

Yes Boss wrote: »

How was Dungarvan the second choice? Is there any possibility that the report that Ciara Conway claimed she wrote in favor of Waterford was in fact Dungarvan, Co. Waterford?? If this is the case did Waterford in fact have No representation?

How can we see this report?

Freedom of Information Act maybe, plus necessary dosh

Psychedelic

It's a bit depressing isn't it when you see the lame arguments put up by our TDs compared to the posters here who put up solid arguments against the decision.

Their (Paudie & Deasy, haven't heard anything from Halligan, Conway not worth mentioning) initial response was to make accusations about favouritism and that the HQ should be in Waterford City. True enough but that was it, no detailed analysis to support the case for Waterford City. Then the counter arguments were made to justify the decision to locate it in Wexford, more schools in Wexford, faster growing population etc. I haven't heard any counter-response to this by our TDs. Are they just going to accept this now and move on? They need to fight tooth and nail for this. We concede on this and we are just setting the scene for more losses like this to come.

merlante

Bards wrote: »

Freedom of Information Act maybe, plus necessary dosh

Interesting. FOI requests only cost something like €6 iirc.

Might be a way of making a campaign about it, because, according to what that junior minister said in the Dail, Dungarvan was the second choice, which proves that the whole thing was a pile of nonsense.

The Waterford (Seanad) debate: here.

Interesting, HQs of all VECs: here. Note Athenry is actually chosen instead of Galway... but Dublin, Cork and Limerick have VECs in the cities.

merlante

Hmm...

Freedom of Information section on Department of Education site: here.

Note the Section 15 Manual and Section 16 Manual links.

Bards

Yes Boss wrote: »

How was Dungarvan the second choice? Is there any possibility that the report that Ciara Conway claimed she wrote in favor of Waterford was in fact Dungarvan, Co. Waterford?? If this is the case did Waterford in fact have No representation?

How can we see this report?

A thought just occured to me. Brendan Howlin is minister responsible for reform.

We know Phil Hogan wants to merge Waterford City and Waterford County Council.

What if, they (FG & Lab) already have decided that Dungarvan is going to be the new HQ of the amalgamated Council, hence why Dungarvan was compared to Wexford in deciding where to locate the HQ of the VEC for the S.E

maybe Deasey has been informed of this which is why he is now soooooo damn quiet.

You know what they say "If it looks like a Rose, smells like arose, then it probably is a Rose"

merlante

Bards wrote: »

A thought just occured to me. Brendan Howlin is minister responsible for reform.

We know Phil Hogan wants to merge Waterford City and Waterford County Council.

What if, they (FG & Lab) already have decided that Dungarvan is going to be the new HQ of the amalgamated Council, hence why Dungarvan was compared to Wexford in deciding where to locate the HQ of the VEC for the S.E

maybe Deasey has been informed of this which is why he is now soooooo damn quiet.

You know what they say "If it looks like a Rose, smells like arose, then it probably is a Rose"

Either way, I am going to try to figure out a way of getting at this detail with an FOI request.

The pertinent question is why Waterford was not short listed for the headquarters when Dungarvan was?

Whatever logic they give is likely to undermine the logic given in favour of Wexford in the Seanad, because Co. Waterford cannot claim any demographic advantage over the rest. If you do not get a decent answer, or if the answer is nonsense, you can push it further with an internal review for €75. I'll ask for a whip around if it gets to that stage. Might as well expose the hypocrisy.

The more ridiculous the whole thing gets, the more the government looks incompetent or corrupt. I had hoped with the new government we were past this sh1t. Or maybe Howlin thinks that nothing escapes from the media black hole of the south east to damage him. If deals and exchanges have been made behind the scenes, maybe they can be exposed.

In fairness to Leo Varadkar, he seems to have the balls to close Galway airport and leave Waterford's subvention alone on the basis of a sustainability report. It's a pity the labour boys are engaging in the parish pump.

Yes Boss

merlante wrote: »

Either way, I am going to try to figure out a way of getting at this detail with an FOI request.

The pertinent question is why Waterford was not short listed for the headquarters when Dungarvan was?

Whatever logic they give is likely to undermine the logic given in favour of Wexford in the Seanad, because Co. Waterford cannot claim any demographic advantage over the rest. If you do not get a decent answer, or if the answer is nonsense, you can push it further with an internal review for €75. I'll ask for a whip around if it gets to that stage. Might as well expose the hypocrisy.

The more ridiculous the whole thing gets, the more the government looks incompetent or corrupt. I had hoped with the new government we were past this sh1t. Or maybe Howlin thinks that nothing escapes from the media black hole of the south east to damage him. If deals and exchanges have been made behind the scenes, maybe they can be exposed.

In fairness to Leo Varadkar, he seems to have the balls to close Galway airport and leave Waterford's subvention alone on the basis of a sustainability report. It's a pity the labour boys are engaging in the parish pump.

If you know how to go about this - send me a PM and i will contribute to the cost because it don't look right. If CC is supporting Dungarvan over Waterford then that needs exposing.

Psychedelic

Yes Boss wrote: »

If you know how to go about this - send me a PM and i will contribute to the cost because it don't look right. If CC is supporting Dungarvan over Waterford then that needs exposing.

Me too.

fuzzy dunlop

merlante wrote: »

The Waterford (Seanad) debate: here.

Interesting, HQs of all VECs: here. Note Athenry is actually chosen instead of Galway... but Dublin, Cork and Limerick have VECs in the cities.

With Ciarán Cannon being from Athenry it explains why he doesn't want to upset the apple cart:rolleyes:

Both Waterford VEC's merged with Wexford and relocated to peripheral Wexford Town.Reason Being Labours Brendan Howlin is at Cabinet and has the Ear of his fellow Labour Cabinet Minister.

Galway City and Galway County VEC merrged and located in Athenry despite Galway County Council offices being located in Galway City.Reason being Ciarán Cannon the Junior Minister for Education is from Athenry. You couldn't make it up.


Fianna Fáil is dead.Long live Fine Fáil.

Speak Now

Surprised to see Carlow as the location for Carlow/Kilkenny VEC. Long way from The abbey in Ferrybank!

road_high

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Surprised to see Carlow as the location for Carlow/Kilkenny VEC. Long way from The abbey in Ferrybank!

I think it includes Kildare as well I think...plus Carlow and KK are in the same constituency and has the IT and a very nice VEC building to boot so not a vote getter/looser as such. Plus Carlow is only 20 mins from KK versus Waterford and Wex which can be up to an hour apart.

Speak Now

mfitzy wrote: »

I think it includes Kildare as well I think...plus Carlow and KK are in the same constituency and has the IT and a very nice VEC building to boot so not a vote getter/looser as such. Plus Carlow is only 20 mins from KK versus Waterford and Wex which can be up to an hour apart.

Still with all the stuff being said here about ministers you have though Hogan would have had his say. At least Waterford VEC is staying open as a regional office, nothing at all in KK. Still think Waterford/Kilkenny merger would have made more sense with Waterford city being the location especially when many would look at the abbey being a Waterford city school in Carlow/Kilkenny VEC.

road_high

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Still with all the stuff being said here about ministers you have though Hogan would have had his say. At least Waterford VEC is staying open as a regional office, nothing at all in KK. Still think Waterford/Kilkenny merger would have made more sense with Waterford city being the location especially when many would look at the abbey being a Waterford city school in Carlow/Kilkenny VEC.

There's kind of an understand compromise between KK and Carlow; "they have the IT we have the hospital"! They're geographically close as well on excellent road so I don't think anybody in KK will bat an eyelid to be honest.
You have to remember Phil Hogan represents Carlow as well and I'm sure he gets/got many thousands of votes there as many people were voting to "get a minister".
Good point as 2 of the KK VECs are in south KK outside Waterford but Carlow/KK are generally always put together for most governmental body units. I'm glad these kind of efficiencies are finally taking place; it's ridiculous extragavence that these bodies have seperate departments for HR etc. Crazy stuff and if I had my way I would go far further with these mergers. Why couldn't the 4 counties be merged??
Don't get me started on local authrities; the biggest quangos and job creating scheme in the country!

fricatus

merlante wrote: »

...you can push it further with an internal review for €75. I'll ask for a whip around if it gets to that stage.

Count me in - PM me when the time comes.

merlante

fricatus wrote: »

Count me in - PM me when the time comes.

Cheers! Hopefully it won't come to that.

I've submitted an FOI request by post today requesting

1. The detail of the precise criteria used for the selection of headquarter locations in the proposed amalgamated VECs (such that a 3rd party can reproduce the reasoning and decisions made).
2. A list of the locations that were considered for the headquarters location for the proposed City of Waterford, Co. Waterford and Co. Wexford VEC.
3. The reasoning, under the criteria, for the selection of Wexford town as the headquarters of this VEC.
4. The reasoning, under the criteria, for the selection of Dungarvan town as the second choice location.
5. The reasoning, under the criteria, for the non-selection of Waterford city as the headquarters, or as one of the final two shortlisted locations, Wexford town and Dungarvan town, for the headquarters.

I made reference to various sources/links where appropriate. Still, I didn't have much time to do it and the instructions online are confusing, so hopefully I have done everything by the book.

They have to give some kind of acknowledgement within 2 weeks and a reply within 4 weeks, if I recall correctly.

merlante

Just noticed something else from the Seanad transcripts:

In terms of redeployment, the distance between Waterford city and Wexford exceeds the 45 km distance agreed under the Croke Part agreement on mandatory redeployment. This will preclude redeployment of staff currently employed in Wexford to either Waterford or Dungarvan. Consequently at least one sub-office would be required.

Dungarvan is only a shade over 45km from Waterford. (47km between VEC offices themselves, slightly less than that from town to city centre.) Selecting either Dungarvan or Waterford would (should) allow the department to close one sub-office. Whereas with Wexford as HQ, both sub-offices have to be kept open. This decision gets more illogical the more you think about it.

bookworms

merlante wrote: »

Just noticed something else from the Seanad transcripts:


Dungarvan is only a shade over 45km from Waterford. (47km between VEC offices themselves, slightly less than that from town to city centre.) Selecting either Dungarvan or Waterford would (should) allow the department to close one sub-office. Whereas with Wexford as HQ, both sub-offices have to be kept open. This decision gets more illogical the more you think about it.

I agree. Everything about this decision is illogical and the more we dig into it the more it's plain to see that this was a political stroke. I doubt that the Dept. will go back on the decision now that it has been made. A real push needs to come now for a separate Waterford (city and county) entity. Keep control of our education in our county. This is the basis for the VECs across the country.... local authorities to respond to the local education needs.

merlante

bookworms wrote: »

I agree. Everything about this decision is illogical and the more we dig into it the more it's plain to see that this was a political stroke. I doubt that the Dept. will go back on the decision now that it has been made. A real push needs to come now for a separate Waterford (city and county) entity. Keep control of our education in our county. This is the basis for the VECs across the country.... local authorities to respond to the local education needs.

Well, I am pursuing the Freedom of Information angle on the decision. You never know. I think in general the illogic of these decisions desperately need to be highlighted. If it's something to do with Trinity college, the Railway Procurement Agency, government departments, or other 'national agencies/departments', everything is scrutinised by the media and is more or less above board, but when it falls in to the 'regional' category, where the Dublin based media won't report it, it's a case of anything goes. "Ah sure, everything is parish pump stuff 'down the country'." But the problem is that 'in the regions' infrastructure provision is sporadic, highly parochial and utterly corrupt.

Just because it is corruption between Waterford and Wexford, doesn't mean the government and the national media get not to care. I think these sorts of instances should be highlighted each and every time with an FOI request:
- What are the criteria?
- What is the reasoning for the decision?
If the result is truly ridiculous, then either the criteria or the reasoning will be ridiculous, or something corrupt will have happened.

I think it is a non-starter fighting against rationalisation, particularly with something like the VECs, which are in every county. Living in the 5th largest centre of population in the country and the regional capital of the south east (region of 0.5m people), you wouldn't expect to suffer much from rationalisation, would you? (Except maybe in some of the big stuff.)

bookworms

merlante wrote: »

- What are the criteria?
- What is the reasoning for the decision?
If the result is truly ridiculous, then either the criteria or the reasoning will be ridiculous, or something corrupt will have happened.

I bet the decisions were made regarding HQ's before criteria were made to suit each decision to locate the HQ's. I think you will find that criteria for Waterford/Wexford will be different for other amalgamations.

Bards

bookworms wrote: »

I bet the decisions were made regarding HQ's before criteria were made to suit each decision to locate the HQ's. I think you will find that criteria for Waterford/Wexford will be different for other amalgamations.

.....yes such as does the location for the HQ have a sitting minister at the cabinet table!

merlante

bookworms wrote: »

I bet the decisions were made regarding HQ's before criteria were made to suit each decision to locate the HQ's. I think you will find that criteria for Waterford/Wexford will be different for other amalgamations.

That could be the case, but then you have to answer why different criteria are used in each case when the process is one of national rationalisation. This in itself is highly suggestive and a bat to hit the government with. Because if the criteria is always different then the contention that the whole thing is a home town ministerial decision seems more and more convincing.

I'm not saying you'll definitely get them by the balls, but that rubbish that was given in the senate doesn't make much sense, and it's possible that the matter can be brought up again after an FOI request, depending on what they come back with.

Got an acknowledgement today, by the way, from the department of education and skills so it's ticking along...

bookworms

merlante wrote: »

That could be the case, but then you have to answer why different criteria are used in each case when the process is one of national rationalisation. This in itself is highly suggestive and a bat to hit the government with. Because if the criteria is always different then the contention that the whole thing is a home town ministerial decision seems more and more convincing.

I firmly believe that the same criteria should be applied across the board, otherwise this is a joke of an exercise. How else can the economies be found?

bookworms

I have quoted some interesting sections of the Heads of Bills regarding the amalgamations. Note number 1, 10 local reps. Explain how there will be equal representation when 3 into 10 = 3.33!! Laughable.
Also 2 parents reps and 2 staff reps from the whole area. The Dept. have made previous reference to the large geographic area and population figures. How are these figures representative?? Again how impartial will these reps be?? They will obviously have their own local area's interest as a priority.
***************************************************************
1. Composition of education and training boards (ETBs).
(a) Each education and training board to consist of 18 members comprised of:
Ø 10 people elected by the local authority or local authorities as appropriate in the proportions specified by the Minister [11(2)(a)]
Ø 2 people nominated by each national association of parents (one male, one female)
Ø 2 people who are members of staff and elected by members of staff
Ø 4 people nominated by bodies specified for this purpose by the Minister, having a special interest in or knowledge relating to education and training.
(b) The Minister may, by order, specify a class or grade of staff which shall be ineligible to be a member of an education and training board (ETB). The purpose is to maintain the distinction between reserved and executive functions and avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

2. Each local authority shall hold a meeting within three months of the local elections to elect the members of the ETB, the number of which is prescribed by the Minister.

The term of office of every member of the ETB will commence at the first meeting of the ETB following the local elections and will continue in office until the date fixed for the holding of the first meeting of the ETB following the next local election.


3. Where more than one local authority is specified to nominate members to the ETB the Minister shall make an order specifying the number of members of each ETB that shall be elected by each local authority significant to a maximum of 10.

4. Where the Minister has specified that more than one national association of parents may elect members to the ETB, the members already appointed by the local authorities and staff shall appoint the two parents members from those nominated by the two associations of parents.

5. In respect of the membership of the ETB there shall be due regard for the desirability of attaining gender balance on the boards

6. A person shall not hold membership simultaneously of more than one ETB.

7. Certain senior grades of staff will be ineligible to be a member of an ETB.

8. The Bill also specifies conditions for disqualification of board membership and resignation or cessation of membership, the filling of casual vacancies etc.

Dan133269

Has Ciara Conway actually come back and explained what reasons Ruairi Quinn gave her for making this decision?

Yes Boss

Dan133269 wrote: »

Has Ciara Conway actually come back and explained what reasons Ruairi Quinn gave her for making this decision?

No, nor did you confirm whether or not she was batting for the Dungarvan or Waterford office. I always wondered why Dungarvan came second and Waterford 3rd - Strange.

bookworms

Isn't she from Dungarvan??