Eirgrid cable case dismissed by court

MaurMaurMaur

Spidermany wrote: »

I was opposed to the route Eirgrid have used. I was extremely concerned about the health issues raised by RCC. With children and a potentially heredity illness in the family I did not need any additional stress about external factors which could trigger the illness.

I read the safety report from Kema and felt that was the end of it, nobody could argue with that.

I was shocked that RCC could bring a case to court, claiming to be the representatives of the people of Rush, without contacting the people of Rush first. They didn't represent me and I had been on their side.

I couldn't get a copy of the judgement from them despite them being contacted on many occasions. I eventually got one, (should have asked spatialplanner!). When I read the judge's comments I was shocked, in particular with this comment: "... it is reasonable for them to seek answers and information... But what is not reasonable in my view is to then ignore the information and answers given"

Why haven't RCC notified the people of Rush that they bought this court case. Why haven't they notified us that they lost and most importantly of all, why aren't they shouting to let us know that "we are worrying ourselves quite needlessly."

Still nothing on rushcoco.ie, but in fairness it looks like this website was abandoned about a year ago. I don't think, or wouldn't expect anything to be said at the festival with everyone having a bit of Craic, it's not the right place. I don't even want an apology. I think a statement should come around informing everyone who got sucked in about the judgement, acknowledging the interconnector issues are now concluded and that Rush Community Council wants everyone in here to know that there is no risk to their health. I look forward to reading Mr Thorp's views in his publication.

SpatialPlanner

MaurMaurMaur wrote: »

Still nothing on rushcoco.ie, but in fairness it looks like this website was abandoned about a year ago. I don't think, or wouldn't expect anything to be said at the festival with everyone having a bit of Craic, it's not the right place. I don't even want an apology. I think a statement should come around informing everyone who got sucked in about the judgement, acknowledging the interconnector issues are now concluded and that Rush Community Council wants everyone in here to know that there is no risk to their health. I look forward to reading Mr Thorp's views in his publication.

Me too. I'm not sure anyone is looking for an apology (at this stage) but I can see why there are people angry about no communication from RCC. The merits of announcing it at the festival launch (to me) are twofold. 1) It is a positive 'good news story' that could have been announced to reassure people. 2) The launch had a sufficient attendance to ensure the message would have dissemination throughout the community.

Remember, this information has been available since Tuesday last. There was ample time to release a statement and have it covered in the national media. Unfortunately my suspicion is that RCC don't see it as the end of the matter, for whatever reason they see fit. Should that be the case, there is more uncertainty on the way for numerous families living along the route of the interconnector.

Due to the legal costs relating to the case, they may be willing to take their chances with a Supreme Court appeal. However, the question remains, on who's behalf are they pursuing it?

Cardinal Richelieu

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

Me too. I'm not sure anyone is looking for an apology (at this stage) but I can see why there are people angry about no communication from RCC. The merits of announcing it at the festival launch (to me) are twofold. 1) It is a positive 'good news story' that could have been announced to reassure people. 2) The launch had a sufficient attendance to ensure the message would have dissemination throughout the community.

Remember, this information has been available since Tuesday last. There was ample time to release a statement and have it covered in the national media. Unfortunately my suspicion is that RCC don't see it as the end of the matter, for whatever reason they see fit. Should that be the case, there is more uncertainty on the way for numerous families living along the route of the interconnector.

Due to the legal costs relating to the case, they may be willing to take their chances with a Supreme Court appeal. However, the question remains, on who's behalf are they pursuing it?

Can I ask typically how many votes do you need from the 8,500 people they claim to represent to secure a seat on RCC?

SpatialPlanner

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Can I ask typically how many votes do you need from the 8,500 people they claim to represent to secure a seat on RCC?

Not sure what a quota is but I know that there would have been an average of about 60/70 people in attendance at RCC AGMs over the last few years.

Cardinal Richelieu

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

Not sure what a quota is but I know that there would have been an average of about 60/70 people in attendance at RCC AGMs over the last few years.

Hang on, 60-70 people vote members onto RCC and there are 27 members on the council.:eek: Is it the Late Late Show? One for everyone in the Audience! Not exactly a mandate to speak for all the 8,500 is it that only 0.8% decide who sits on the Community Council which believes it has a mandate to represent and speak for all the people of Rush . Can the 60/70 vote for multiple people on the Council? If so its an easy system to ensure that certain people have control if they arrange for their mates and relatives to show up on the night of the AGM.

I don't mind them speaking for me if they organise a local election using the election register with a required quota of votes, perhaps have a quota number of candidates from local clubs and the business sector and then divide the balance of seats among mini wards so everyone has a fair chance to have their voice heard but the present system seems to resemble how North Korea elects its leaders.

I read the minutes from FCC the odd time and the Rush Liaison Committee crops up. Who are they? I know they love speed ramps. Are they a secret cabal of local car mechanics who cornered the suspension market or is this another name for RCC?

SpatialPlanner

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Hang on, 60-70 people vote members onto RCC and there are 27 members on the council.:eek: Is it the Late Late Show? One for everyone in the Audience! Not exactly a mandate to speak for all the 8,500 is it that only 0.8% decide who sits on the Community Council which believes it has a mandate to represent and speak for all the people of Rush . Can the 60/70 vote for multiple people on the Council? If so its an easy system to ensure that certain people have control if they arrange for their mates and relatives to show up on the night of the AGM.

I don't mind them speaking for me if they organise a local election using the election register with a required quota of votes, perhaps have a quota number of candidates from local clubs and the business sector and then divide the town into mini wards so everyone has a fair chance to have their voice heard but the present system seems to resemble how North Korea elects its leaders.

I read the minutes from FCC the odd time and the Rush Liaison Committee crops up. Who are they? I know they love speed ramps. Are they a secret cabal of local car mechanics who cornered the suspension market or is this another name for RCC?

The Rush Liaison Committee is a Fingal County Council concept that has run successfully in other towns around Fingal (Skerries, Mulhuddart & Portmarnock, I think). It is a good way to enhance communication between the council and the community. It was a very good resource in Skerries during the implementation of their Traffic Management Plan. The Rush one is made up of...yes you've guessed it - Rush Community Council and it's sub committees.

To go back to your first point. I agree with you completely that they have no mandate from the people of the town. Firstly, they are not provided for in the Local Government Act so are not legislated for. Then there is the transparency issue. When we elect TDs and councillors they are compelled to make an annual "Declaration of Interests" to the Standards in Public Office or what is more commonly known as SIPO. You may be familiar with this office from a most recent case involving a Senator and expenses returns, for example.

Community Councils are generally limited liability companies and so are private companies with nothing to compel the members to make any declaration of interests to the public.

For example, I can walk into County Hall in Swords and look at elected members declarations to see if they are promoting anything they might have a personal interest in. I cannot do the same in our local Community Centre. Additionally, I can attend a council meeting in the public gallery or view it on a webcast. Have you ever tried to attend a Community Council/Development Committee meeting? They are held in private and members of the public aren't permitted to attend. For that reason, I prefer to discuss local issues with my councillors than with members of a private company who do not have a mandate.

So I agree with you, the AGM attendance is not representative of the population of the town but nobody has ever contested this and with all of the other community groups being sub-committees (Tidy Towns, Chamber of Commerce) of RCC, Fingal County Council see them as the main representatives of the community.

Should things go south in terms of legal costs in relation to the court case, there will be a massive impact on the community. If RCC Ltd own the freehold on the Community Centre (I don't know if they do) and cannot pay the legal costs of a failed High Court case or a Supreme Court Appeal, it seems reasonable to speculate at this stage that the Community Centre may have to be sold to pay the costs.

As for holding an EGM and getting new members to take over the committee. Would you want to take over the responsibility of a company that has the possibility of a massive legal bill hanging over it? That a rhetorical question.

LeoB

Should we rename this thread "The bash Rush community council thread"

Whether you like it or not they are elected locally at A.G.M and you all have a vote. Bit like a general election or Council election. The A.G.M is representative of the interest some people have in their community. We mentioned here a while back about the poor turnouts we have in elections. You can also step forward and try and do something about it rather than moan here to each other,(me included). The A.G.M will be well advertised before it takes place and if You and me dont go.........

I would have though The whole idea of a community council is for the community to be involved but we as a community dont get involved half enough. It seems obvious to me that people who do attend the A.G.M get on to committee because they are interested in their community and we stay at home.

I was told a few months ago the reason the website was noy updated was they had nobdy to work it for them. Its one small job like many others where the council need more people to be involved.

The big problem as I see it if we compare the council to the one in Skerries. The Skerries one in non political where as the Rush one is seen as a political council. We associate the chairman with a political party and have done for years and some people just wont support them if they are members of another but will rather just critise and back bite.

As for the mention of Mr Thorp and his publication. Its not his its ours and again nobody has stepped for ward to either assist or take it over.

I am not going back over all the Eirgrid stuff but like spidermanny I thought this was all over and done with also and would also give time for the festival to be over before we get a response. The community council have done a tremendous job on this week end and do deserve credit for their efforts on our behalf.
Look forward to the next A.G.M and some new faces.

SpatialPlanner

LeoB wrote: »

Should we rename this thread "The bash Rush community council thread"

Whether you like it or not they are elected locally at A.G.M and you all have a vote. Bit like a general election or Council election. The A.G.M is representative of the interest some people have in their community. We mentioned here a while back about the poor turnouts we have in elections. You can also step forward and try and do something about it rather than moan here to each other,(me included). The A.G.M will be well advertised before it takes place and if You and me dont go.........

I would have though The whole idea of a community council is for the community to be involved but we as a community dont get involved half enough. It seems obvious to me that people who do attend the A.G.M get on to committee because they are interested in their community and we stay at home.

I was told a few months ago the reason the website was noy updated was they had nobdy to work it for them. Its one small job like many others where the council need more people to be involved.

The big problem as I see it if we compare the council to the one in Skerries. The Skerries one in non political where as the Rush one is seen as a political council. We associate the chairman with a political party and have done for years and some people just wont support them if they are members of another but will rather just critise and back bite.

As for the mention of Mr Thorp and his publication. Its not his its ours and again nobody has stepped for ward to either assist or take it over.

I am not going back over all the Eirgrid stuff but like spidermanny I thought this was all over and done with also and would also give time for the festival to be over before we get a response. The community council have done a tremendous job on this week end and do deserve credit for their efforts on our behalf.
Look forward to the next A.G.M and some new faces.

I understand from your post that you are supportive of RCC and that's fine. You say that they are doing positive work and that's demonstrated this weekend and you are correct. But to say this is a bash Rush Community Council thread is incorrect. I actually find it incredible that you would say that.

You've been involved in clubs in the town for years and I'm sure you've learned that when people are left to their own devices without supervision or questions being asked, things go wrong. If an organisation says they represent the people of the town, the people are entitled to ask questions. You may have also missed the point that RCC is a limited company and they are not legislated for so have no legal standing in Local Government terms. You do pose an important question though when you ask why people do not participate. That is a good question and I can only surmise why that is. In fact, you almost answer the question yourself by mentioning that people see it as a quasi political organisation.

People are entitled to ask questions as to how the Community Council is being run. Don't you want a high level of transparency regarding the actions of people who are the conduit between the community and the local authority?

What is coming from this thread is that there are questions emerging as to why the information that has been available since Tuesday of last week has not been distributed in the community. There are people I have spoken to, people you know LeoB, who were immensely concerned about the health implications of the interconnector because they have young children and live along the route. They are disgusted that nobody chose to inform them that at last they can rest assured there are no health hazards hanging over them or their children due to this project.

Okay, as for the website. They had a guy who set that IT stuff up for them. You mean to tell me there is nobody trained or capable of updating the website with such important information? Some of my work is updating websites and it isn't complicated for people who can even use Facebook so I find that hard to accept.

Let's say it is the case that nobody can update the website. Why weren't copies of the judgement left in the Community Centre for members of the public to see? They could have put that big road sign outside the centre (like they did on many occasions before to advertise meetings and protests against the project) to let people know the judgement was available to look at. Remember, this is good news for the town! RCC could have delivered that good news, they didn't for whatever reason they chose. In fact people I have spoken to told me that after the articles in the Irish Times and the Herald they could not get any information on the judgement when they called the Community Centre or spoke to members of the committee. Why would that be?

As for the Community News, there is a sub committee dealing with that so the last thing they need are people to assist or take it over. See here http://www.rushcoco.ie/communitycommittees/community-news/

Cardinal Richelieu

LeoB wrote: »

Should we rename this thread "The bash Rush community council thread"

I would have said its more of an examination of what went wrong and how it can be corrected, identifying the fundamental flaws in the Community Council structure but yet again the wagons circle and the Rush Defense Complex kicks in. Nothing gets solved, the same mistakes get made and we continue to rant that its Rush against the World.

LeoB wrote: »

Whether you like it or not they are elected locally at A.G.M and you all have a vote. Bit like a general election or Council election. The A.G.M is representative of the interest some people have in their community. We mentioned here a while back about the poor turnouts we have in elections. You can also step forward and try and do something about it rather than moan here to each other,(me included). The A.G.M will be well advertised before it takes place and if You and me dont go.........

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the Council been elected locally so I think you may have misread a post. How do you define well advertised? Some of the complaints in the Mega thread was that the AGM was only advertised to a small section of the community usually by word of mouth and the main advertisement was last minute when people had already made other plans. Granted this has improved but only after people on here had to point it out. People new to the town that I spoke with, arrived into Rush with a spirit of involving themselves within the community so they went along to the AGM and were asked to leave after getting the who the hell are they stares:mad:. That isn't remotely a bit like a general or local election, that's a closed shop.

LeoB wrote: »

I would have though The whole idea of a community council is for the community to be involved but we as a community dont get involved half enough. It seems obvious to me that people who do attend the A.G.M get on to committee because they are interested in their community and we stay at home.

I agree with your point but its not as black and white as you make it out to be for the reasons outlined in my response above.

LeoB wrote: »

I was told a few months ago the reason the website was noy updated was they had nobdy to work it for them. Its one small job like many others where the council need more people to be involved.

Seriously LeoB that's a very weak excuse. The majority of the set up work is already done, all it requires is someone to maintain it and upload the minutes of RCC meetings and project updates which they surely have in electronic format already. Its not an intensive time consuming job. They already put more effort into monitoring and controlling the comments on the FaceBook page and the Chairperson blog before it was took down than would be required for the RCC site.

LeoB wrote: »

The big problem as I see it if we compare the council to the one in Skerries. The Skerries one in non political where as the Rush one is seen as a political council. We associate the chairman with a political party and have done for years and some people just wont support them if they are members of another but will rather just critise and back bite.

I agree its political dominated and for all that political domination has it ever benefited Rush? No. Spatial Planner suggestion about transparecy is an excellent idea to overcome the high level of cynicism that exists in the older residents of Rush that have witnessed the shenanigans over the years. Hopefully it would encourage some of the talented people who did try out on RCC in the past but who left in disgust when secret meetings were conducted after the main RCC between the real power brokers of the council to really decide matters.

LeoB wrote: »

As for the mention of Mr Thorp and his publication. Its not his its ours and again nobody has stepped for ward to either assist or take it over.

Can't really comment as I haven't purchased it in years.

LeoB wrote: »

I am not going back over all the Eirgrid stuff but like spidermanny I thought this was all over and done with also and would also give time for the festival to be over before we get a response. The community council have done a tremendous job on this week end and do deserve credit for their efforts on our behalf.
Look forward to the next A.G.M and some new faces.

When is the next AGM or EGM?

SpatialPlanner

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

When is the next AGM or EGM?

I would imagine the pressure is building now if the mood of those I have spoken to is a reflection of the feeling in the town, and there will be people expecting a public meeting. People want accountability for actions and deserve nothing less.

I know posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to see new faces after the next AGM. Can you imagine? That would be some poison chalice for anyone to take over when considering the dismissal of the court case and the legal costs that have yet to be determined. I certainly would not advise anyone to take any formal role in an organisation, the future of which was uncertain but more importantly one that carried the possibility of a substantial financial burden, if that is indeed the case.

I noticed that someone posted a message on the Rush Needs You Facebook page yesterday saying they hoped the Community Council will issue a statement on the outcome of the court case, after the festival is over. Nobody has even responded to the message. Yet there where other posts by the Admin on the page subsequent to the message being posted so it's not as if they haven't seen it.

The silence of these people is deafening. Think about it, these are neighbours and friends of people who are genuinely concerned over the health implications of the project. It is really unfair to the residents of Rush who rallied behind them in their campaign, based on the information put forward at the time. The answers and information are available so where is the communication with the people of the town to let them know everything is okay? Why wasn't there a statement at the launch of the Harbour Festival or signs at the Community Centre?

Is it really plausible that members of the Community Council are too busy with the Harbour Festival to deal with the issue when there is actually an Event Company hired in to run the festival? http://alaevents.ie/?portfolio=rush-harbour-festival

I just can't accept that people are too busy when this is such an important issue for the town.

LeoB

Where do I start to try and give a little balance to this.. Firstly Yas I support the efforts of the community council, and any other club or organisation who try to act in the best interests of the town

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I understand from your post that you are supportive of RCC and that's fine. You say that they are doing positive work and that's demonstrated this weekend and you are correct. But to say this is a bash Rush Community Council thread is incorrect. I actually find it incredible that you would say that.

Nothing incredible at all about my statement. Its an opinion and you will be aware of how we can often knock each other in this town.

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

You've been involved in clubs in the town for years and I'm sure you've learned that when people are left to their own devices without supervision or questions being asked, things go wrong. If an organisation says they represent the people of the town, the people are entitled to ask questions. You may have also missed the point that RCC is a limited company and they are not legislated for so have no legal standing in Local Government terms. You do pose an important question though when you ask why people do not participate. That is a good question and I can only surmise why that is. In fact, you almost answer the question yourself by mentioning that people see it as a quasi political organisation.

People are entitled to ask questions as to how the Community Council is being run. Don't you want a high level of transparency regarding the actions of people who are the conduit between the community and the local authority?

Hard to argue with this. However whether we like it or not they were elected and unfortunatley it could be described as a quasi political organisation but again WE PUT THEM THERE. On transparancy yes people are entitled to ask questions and get answers but despite having 27 or 28 names in fairness they are not all active

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

What is coming from this thread is that there are questions emerging as to why the information that has been available since Tuesday of last week has not been distributed in the community. There are people I have spoken to, people you know LeoB, who were immensely concerned about the health implications of the interconnector because they have young children and live along the route. They are disgusted that nobody chose to inform them that at last they can rest assured there are no health hazards hanging over them or their children due to this project.

Okay, as for the website. They had a guy who set that IT stuff up for them. You mean to tell me there is nobody trained or capable of updating the website with such important information? Some of my work is updating websites and it isn't complicated for people who can even use Facebook so I find that hard to accept.

Let's say it is the case that nobody can update the website. Why weren't copies of the judgement left in the Community Centre for members of the public to see? They could have put that big road sign outside the centre (like they did on many occasions before to advertise meetings and protests against the project) to let people know the judgement was available to look at. Remember, this is good news for the town! RCC could have delivered that good news, they didn't for whatever reason they chose. In fact people I have spoken to told me that after the articles in the Irish Times and the Herald they could not get any information on the judgement when they called the Community Centre or spoke to members of the committee. Why would that be??

I dont know why copies were not left in community centre, I am not a spokesperson for them. But the website which I enquired about last year was down for the reason nobody would take it on. You know what its like to get help when running a project or organisation to get people on board.
[/QUOTE]

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I would imagine the pressure is building now if the mood of those I have spoken to is a reflection of the feeling in the town, and there will be people expecting a public meeting. People want accountability for actions and deserve nothing less.

Accountability or the pound of flesh? I think its the latter

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I know posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to see new faces after the next AGM. Can you imagine? That would be some poison chalice for anyone to take over when considering the dismissal of the court case and the legal costs that have yet to be determined. I certainly would not advise anyone to take any formal role in an organisation, the future of which was uncertain but more importantly one that carried the possibility of a substantial financial burden, if that is indeed the case. I noticed that someone posted a message on the Rush Needs You Facebook page yesterday saying they hoped the Community Council will issue a statement on the outcome of the court case, after the festival is over. Nobody has even responded to the message. Yet there where other posts by the Admin on the page subsequent to the message being posted so it's not as if they haven't seen it.

So as a limited company there is a way out for the council? It wont be a poison chalice then I would think. I posted a heap of photos up on facebook from festival and what I did see were the same faces at 8am on Saturday all through Saturday and again all day today doing positive work for the town. I suspect an A.G.M or E.G.M will be called soon

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

The silence of these people is deafening. Think about it, these are neighbours and friends of people who are genuinely concerned over the health implications of the project. It is really unfair to the residents of Rush who rallied behind them in their campaign, based on the information put forward at the time. The answers and information are available so where is the communication with the people of the town to let them know everything is okay? Why wasn't there a statement at the launch of the Harbour Festival or signs at the Community Centre?
Thats very emotive language. The same spin we got from some of the re-route campaign people

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

Is it really plausible that members of the Community Council are too busy with the Harbour Festival to deal with the issue when there is actually an Event Company hired in to run the festival? http://alaevents.ie/?portfolio=rush-harbour-festival
.

I am very suprised at this. Where or who are these people hired to run the festival. I have seen locals on duty all day yesterday and today so is this a company hired as advisors or what?
There are one or two areas of the festival I would not be very happy with and I will bring this up when I get the chance.
I just can't accept that people are too busy when this is such an important issue for the town.

Sorry thought I had included the Cardinals post here so will be back later

LeoB

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I would have said its more of an examination of what went wrong and how it can be corrected, identifying the fundamental flaws in the Community Council structure but yet again the wagons circle and the Rush Defense Complex kicks in. Nothing gets solved, the same mistakes get made and we continue to rant that its Rush against the World. ?

If its an examination of what went wrong nobody should have a problem with that. The big flaw as I see it is we all stayed away from A.G.Ms over the years and didnt give a fck about what was going on. Now people appear to just want a pound of flesh. So lets say the C.C were wrong do we lambaste them or change things. I think lambaste them first and then make changes.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the Council been elected locally so I think you may have misread a post. How do you define well advertised? Some of the complaints in the Mega thread was that the AGM was only advertised to a small section of the community usually by word of mouth and the main advertisement was last minute when people had already made other plans. Granted this has improved but only after people on here had to point it out. People new to the town that I spoke with, arrived into Rush with a spirit of involving themselves within the community so they went along to the AGM and were asked to leave after getting the who the hell are they stares:mad:. That isn't remotely a bit like a general or local election, that's a closed shop.

I think, am pretty sure the A.G.M is advertised in Community news, Parish bulletin, Fingal Indo and I have seen the notices up in shops for quite a few years. Mind you if I had training session or something in GA.A thats where I went. Really clubs should be asked to have meetings on another night but then we get the same people on Club committees and Rush C.C then we here this one has their hand in every pie. As for people going to meetings and being put off by people looking at them is just plain ridiculous. Believe me being involved as I have been I have witnessed many people coming into Maurs and going on to committees some look at them Im sure but if they are big enough to go a few stares would hardly put them off. Its a kop out when people see whats involved

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I agree with your point but its not as black and white as you make it out to be for the reasons outlined in my response above.

Seriously LeoB that's a very weak excuse. The majority of the set up work is already done, all it requires is someone to maintain it and upload the minutes of RCC meetings and project updates which they surely have in electronic format already. Its not an intensive time consuming job. They already put more effort into monitoring and controlling the comments on the FaceBook page and the Chairperson blog before it was took down than would be required for the RCC site.

I know sweet f.a about websites but its what I was told when I enquired. If its as easy as facebook then I could do it but already I coach 2 football teams thats 3 evenings and Saturday taken care of, help with For Oige which is another night, Member of camera group one night every forthnight and an outing if I can squeeze it in, have a job and a family. People just dont come forward enough. Until they do we have a problem.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I agree its political dominated and for all that political domination has it ever benefited Rush? No. Spatial Planner suggestion about transparecy is an excellent idea to overcome the high level of cynicism that exists in the older residents of Rush that have witnessed the shenanigans over the years. Hopefully it would encourage some of the talented people who did try out on RCC in the past but who left in disgust when secret meetings were conducted after the main RCC between the real power brokers of the council to really decide matters.

Well some might argue with you on this. At various stage there was good work done on various issues when locals could not get a fair hearing when we had problems with roads, lighting, and stuff like that but I agree with you NO would be the honest answer.

Thats pretty serious stuff. I have yet to see a club where officers dont meet seperatley to the committee. As was pointed out this could have something to do with it being a limited company. I would also agree to a point about about transperancy, some stuff just does not get put out in public. Fact it happens in political parties, clubs and organisations all over the country.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Can't really comment as I haven't purchased it in years.

The community news could be a great tool for Rush. The editor who is not getting any youner has done a fair enough job. I have seen the lengths he goes to for articles. He used to call me for G.A.A news but I was often tied up in Maurs because nobody else would take on a role. He wont refuse any article given to him.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

When is the next AGM or EGM?

Dont know but will post here 9along with nomination papers;))

So where to from here. Rush C.C could be wound up? and so no poison chalice.

Cardinal Richelieu

LeoB the preview post option is great to use when you want to check that all your quotes are working before posting. I use it all the time.

This is a link to a freedom of information request from RCC concerning correspondence between the Dept of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Eirgrid and the emails between the two bodies circa Oct-Nov 2010 regarding Health & Safety concerns with the East-West Interconnector. Correspondence from Rush CC can be viewed so it offers an insight into how the situation was managed by all sides to easy the people of Rush safety concerns.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/CF290BC6-1189-41A9-A99B-A99A65D948C4/0/FOI201050RequestandReplyPart1.pdf

MaurMaurMaur

I'm not sure I know anyone here and tbh I would prefer to stay well out of the glare here as I sleep in Rush and walk the dog, go for a pint. The quiet life..

I take an interest in politics. Considering how much influence the Community Council has there is a low level of representation behind the selection of people to be on it. The RCC compensates for the poor agm turnouts by increasing the number of seats on its council. This is a PR job. The main question here is why have the public withered away from the meetings? Other than the eirgrid meetings which were single issues off a controlled agenda that didn't question the approach of RCC. Many people criticise Councillors they do at least have a couple of thousand people voting for them rather than being elected unopposed into specially created seats. Ken Farrell from Lusk got 3,300 votes in the 2009 election. That's 3,300 more than some who think they have a bigger democratic mandate sitting on the rcc nominated by friends.

The festival is a good thing. It got a lot more people involved than the RCC. Anyone would think that they did it all alone. Not the case. I am not denying them praise for it, but I would look at the eirgrid negatives as outweighing the festival positives. We tidy up after the festival and it's done. We keep the sour taste of eirgrid forever unless the RCC comes out and tells the people it "represents" what happened and that they should not worry about their health.

Now, be good. I have to catch a flight.

LeoB

MaurMaurMaur wrote: »

I'm not sure I know anyone here and tbh I would prefer to stay well out of the glare here as I sleep in Rush and walk the dog, go for a pint. The quiet life..

While I appreciate you might be busy with work and have other commitments this is what we dont need. People need to get involved if they want things to change and judging by this thread people feel that things do need to change.

MaurMaurMaur wrote: »

I take an interest in politics. Considering how much influence the Community Council has there is a low level of representation behind the selection of people to be on it. The RCC compensates for the poor agm turnouts by increasing the number of seats on its council. This is a PR job. The main question here is why have the public withered away from the meetings? Other than the eirgrid meetings which were single issues off a controlled agenda that didn't question the approach of RCC. Many people criticise Councillors they do at least have a couple of thousand people voting for them rather than being elected unopposed into specially created seats. Ken Farrell from Lusk got 3,300 votes in the 2009 election. That's 3,300 more than some who think they have a bigger democratic mandate sitting on the rcc nominated by friends.

I to have a passing interest in politicis. We, Rush had an oppertunity to get a Cllr elected at last election and enough of us didnt get out to support him despite the fact I believe he done a good job and was good for the town. Rush needed a seat at the council but some people I believe twisted things a little to mess up his chances, mind you the greens were on a downward spiral at the time. The fact the R.C.C.C is so big most likely has some thing to do with the fact so few attend so whoever does gets a job or gopes on a sub committee. I have seen this happen in other organisations where poor turnouts led to the same situation. The public never got behind the council in Rush. It was left to a small few to get everything done. We have a chance next year to change this and I hope Rush C.C. and locals come up with a stratagy to ensure we get more than one elected. We could have 3 councillors.

MaurMaurMaur wrote: »

The festival is a good thing. It got a lot more people involved than the RCC. Anyone would think that they did it all alone. Not the case. I am not denying them praise for it, but I would look at the eirgrid negatives as outweighing the festival positives. We tidy up after the festival and it's done. We keep the sour taste of eirgrid forever unless the RCC comes out and tells the people it "represents" what happened and that they should not worry about their health.

Now, be good. I have to catch a flight.

The festival is a great thing and yeas it got more people involved which was vital and they dDID do most of it themselves. The Eirgrid negatives may outweigh the positives but its up to US all to push the positives of the weekend. We have to move on. In this case we have to let the water go under the bridge for the good of the town. No doubt a few will keep dragging it up.

Have a good flight and send us a card:)

Spidermany

According to an article in Fingal Independent an appeal of the judgement may be considered by RCC Ltd.

Surely, this would be throwing good money after bad.

SpatialPlanner

Spidermany wrote: »

According to an article in Fingal Independent an appeal of the judgement may be considered by RCC Ltd.

Surely, this would be throwing good money after bad.

It sounds like they're "In for a penny, in for a pound."

I thought the most astonishing part of their comment to the Fingal Independent was that they were "disappointed" with the outcome of the case.

What way is that to be interpreted? Are they disappointed that there are no health issues related to the interconnector. As I have said previously, getting a clean bill of health and no cancer causing emissions from the cable is good news for the town.

Maybe I'm getting this completely wrong but the newspaper article today was another lost opportunity by Rush Community Council to assure residents living along the route of the interconnecctor that they have nothing to worry about, in terms of harmful emissions. Instead they state publicly that they are disappointed. Astonishing.

The other interesting part of the short comment given in the newspaper was that they are having a meeting "soon" to analyse the outcome of the case. What?! Is this for real? How soon is soon?!

I'd have thought with the judgement given out on Tuesday last that an urgent meeting would have been arranged for Wednesday. At least between those on the committee. What would have been better would be a public meeting to discuss the fall out, with the people they say they represent in attendance. It's been a full week since the outcome of the court case.

As for the comment about considering an appeal. Why is that a unilateral decision for RCC? Are they not going to consult the community of Rush as to whether we want them to pursue this appeal to the Supreme Court? After all, they say they're doing it on behalf of the town.

Honestly, the more I hear about this the more I think RCC has been caught off guard by the outcome of the court case. That means they had no plan B, no fall back position if things didn't go their way on the day. I'm starting to think there is an element of delusion in the motivation to prolong the agony of this debacle by bringing it to the Supreme Court. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, it's on behalf of the people of Rush. Good grief! Not in my name, folks! :mad:

Spidermany

Before anyone comments that RCC Ltd were busy organising the festival they weren't. There was a separate sub-committee set up for that.

Have to say that after thd Kema Safety Report they don't speak for me either.

SpatialPlanner

This is the sort of thing brought to Rush by the people driving the campaign. It certainly wasn't done in my name or my family's for that matter. Imagine how history will look on this. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35xuB1w0G-o

leeroybrown

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

Where will the money for costs come from? It may not be an issue if they wind up the Ltd company. The question is whether any subsequent Community Council will ever get off the ground amidst such fallout. Some legacy for the current members to leave behind them if it does come to that.

I'd suggest that the directors of the company would (and should) be personally pursued for for liability on the basis that they knowingly continued the action in a situation where no funds were available to pay costs in the event of a loss.

SpatialPlanner

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd suggest that the directors of the company would (and should) be personally pursued for for liability on the basis that they knowingly continued the action in a situation where no funds were available to pay costs in the event of a loss.

I agree leeroy. It's worth mentioning that the costs from Eirgrid's side are coming from the public purse. I certainly don't want to be footing the bill for a handful of people who embarked on a futile journey into the High Court. Surely these people had to demonstrate they were in a position to cover costs in the event of a failed case. I must see if I can find any information on it.

jack presley

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I agree leeroy. It's worth mentioning that the costs from Eirgrid's side are coming from the public purse.

Electricity users will end up footing the bill, which is pretty much the same as the tax payer I suppose but I wonder are these people the same people who will be complaining when their bill goes up?

SpatialPlanner

jack presley wrote: »

Electricity users will end up footing the bill, which is pretty much the same as the tax payer I suppose but I wonder are these people the same people who will be complaining when their bill goes up?

I doubt it. There are members of the committee who wouldn't be short of a bob or two.

SpatialPlanner

Just saw senior members of the Community Council chatting outside Eurospar in the Main Street. Looked like they were just finished a meeting and were heading off. Wonder if there are meetings taking place outside the official committee meetings as it is the norm to have RCC meetings in the Community Centre.

I am aware there is a meeting of the Community Council scheduled for tonight in the Community Centre so it would be completely improper if things were being discussed between a select few members of the Community Council and they weren't including other RCC members. If indeed that is the case.

This lack of communication from RCC is leading to huge speculation.

MaurMaurMaur

Spidermany wrote: »

According to an article in Fingal Independent an appeal of the judgement may be considered by RCC Ltd.

Surely, this would be throwing good money after bad.

It would be just that. I think that if that happens there will be protests in Rush. I hear a lot of people grumbling and more know about this than I gave credit. Interesting times.

Is anyone a committee member? How do you call an EGM.

MaurMaurMaur

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd suggest that the directors of the company would (and should) be personally pursued for for liability on the basis that they knowingly continued the action in a situation where no funds were available to pay costs in the event of a loss.

Rarely happens.

Spidermany

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I must see if I can find any information on it.

I'd be very interested to see how you get on.

leeroybrown

MaurMaurMaur wrote: »

Rarely happens.

I know it rarely happens but it's something that appears to have been tightened up on in the last couple of years. The courts have shown that they'll no longer accept directors claiming that they hadn't knowledge of liabilities/problems within their company and a company taking a court action without sufficient funds to pay costs could be viewed as a fairly clear example of directors not acting responsibly.

martinn123

leeroybrown wrote: »

I know it rarely happens but it's something that appears to have been tightened up on in the last couple of years. The courts have shown that they'll no longer accept directors claiming that they hadn't knowledge of liabilities/problems within their company and a company taking a court action without sufficient funds to pay costs could be viewed as a fairly clear example of directors not acting responsibly.

Directors can beheld liable if they act in breach of the Law, for example running up liabilities, while insolvent, or prefering one creditor over another.
I presume they had Legal advice on the case, and would say they had an expectation of success.

The Financial records show, ( from CashIQ, available on-line ) that Rush Comm Council Ltd had net Shareholder Funds of 750K, as at 31/8/11, the last Annual Returns, so it's unlikely they will be Liquidated unless the Legal bill exceeds that.

www.cashiq.net

You need to register, and have a password, but it's free.

MaurMaurMaur

leeroybrown wrote: »

I know it rarely happens but it's something that appears to have been tightened up on in the last couple of years. The courts have shown that they'll no longer accept directors claiming that they hadn't knowledge of liabilities/problems within their company and a company taking a court action without sufficient funds to pay costs could be viewed as a fairly clear example of directors not acting responsibly.

You are right and wrong. A limited company is regarded in law as a separate entity from the Directors that run it. Within this facility there is a legal 'limit' on their personal assets being recoverable, but loss of control of the company assets to be taken by a creditor.

You are right that the courts are tolerating much less messing around. In a case where the Directors are seen to be acting without responsibility the consequence on the LTD entity is that all and any of their assets are recoverable by the court's appointed officer.

If I was giving advice to RCC LTD I would tell them I wouldnt start from here. If the Community Centre is their principle asset then they picked the wrong time, what with the property collapse. A court could give direction to a liquidator who would sell the building and ensure that the cash is used for creditors first. This would mean they would pay whatever bills they and Eirgrid run up and be left with the surplus cash. I think if that happens people in Rush should be consulted on any cash they have in hand because to be blunt - I wouldn't think they have a great track record.