IMO chief exec lump sum

iratira

Yup saw that story. Not quite fair to compare a 40/50k sho/reg to a 231 k + academic consultant.
Doesnt factor in the minimum 2k a year expenses to be a doctor with nil tax relief for these business expenses. What is the Indo's beef with doctors?
I'm aware it's good to have any work these days and I'm not complaining but nchds do not experience anything near the lifestyle of consultants.
Anyhow back to the IMO. Am curious also. Presume it was the usual drivel.
Mullingar probably cos its central dunno.

dissed doc

iratira wrote: »

Mullingar probably cos its central dunno.

Most likely because it was *not* central. Imagine how many peed-off medics would turn up if it was in Dublin? I am surprised they didn't host it on a blasket island.

2Scoops

I heard on the news that if the IMO's membership falls below 1,000, they will lose their licence to negotiate. I doubt that it will go that far, but just imagine if it did! :pac:

2Scoops

iratira wrote: »

Mullingar probably cos its central dunno.

Geographically central, kind of, but the population of doctors is not evenly distributed across this fair isle.

Squeaky the Squirrel

2Scoops wrote: »

I heard on the news that if the IMO's membership falls below 1,000, they will lose their licence to negotiate. I doubt that it will go that far, but just imagine if it did! :pac:

How many members has it?

2Scoops

About 5,000, mostly NCHDs and GPs.

Vorsprung

2Scoops wrote: »

About 5,000, mostly NCHDs and GPs.

Minus a lot following the recent issues.

OMD

2Scoops wrote: »

About 5,000, mostly NCHDs and GPs.

So every member was paying €100 a year purely to pay the salary of the CEO. But at least he was a great CEO. look at all the IMO achieved during that time, there was ..... Mmmmm let me think.......... Oh yes there was also.........

RobFowl

OMD wrote: »

So every member was paying €100 a year purely to pay the salary of the CEO. But at least he was a great CEO. look at all the IMO achieved during that time, there was ..... Mmmmm let me think.......... Oh yes there was also.........

As a GP I was paying 200 a year towards his pay. His pension settlement is 2 1/2 times the total turnover of the union !!!
Hard to reconcile that with the claim that it doesn't affect the financial health of the union and its viability in the future...

alchemist33

dissed doc wrote: »

Most likely because it was *not* central. Imagine how many peed-off medics would turn up if it was in Dublin? I am surprised they didn't host it on a blasket island.

Which is pretty much where they have the AGM, which always narked me when I was a member.

iratira

Vorsprung wrote: »

Minus a lot following the recent issues.

Not sure. Does anyone know the numbers that quit after the latest revelation about GmcN.. I'd be surprised if its many. Many Nchds take loads of abuse without much protest.

Ryder

Anyone know what happened at the meeting?

RobFowl

The doctor only forum (not a boards one) has a summary of what was said on it.

ShadyLane

RobFowl wrote: »

The doctor only forum (not a boards one) has a summary of what was said on it.

Can I ask what that forum is? Interested to hear a summary of what was said at the meeting. I couldn't attend because of location (and the fact that I cancelled my IMO membership!).

Vorsprung

iratira wrote: »

Not sure. Does anyone know the numbers that quit after the latest revelation about GmcN.. I'd be surprised if its many. Many Nchds take loads of abuse without much protest.

I obviously don't have numbers but I have a fair few pissed off NCHD mates who quit. I cancelled my membership the otheir week and Linda from membership asked me why I was doing it - maybe that's something she asks everyone but I found myself wondering if it was an informal straw poll to do with GMcN.

I've also heard that some fairly senior figures in NCHD politics were extremely disappointed with the whole story, and in the context of their substantial involvement in the IMO in the past, I think that's indicative of the fact that some fairly involved figures, previously very loyal to the IMO, were jumping ship.

opinion guy

The plot thickens......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/auditors-to-quiz-reilly-over-imo-chiefs-25m-deal-3350776.html

chanste

opinion guy wrote: »

The plot thickens......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/auditors-to-quiz-reilly-over-imo-chiefs-25m-deal-3350776.html

The most worrying part of that article to me is that they refer to over 100 doctors cancelling their membership. While technically this doesn't preclude the possibility of there being many more, I really have to ask, when an organisation with ~5000 members (AFAIK) gives its chief exec a goodbye worth several years of its revenue... is 1 in 50 membership cancellations all we will see? I would have expected/hoped that there would be >20% cancellations of memberships.

For the record the reasoning behind my thinking on this is I (perhaps naively) hope that if the IMO starts to fail we may possibly see something else setup with more credibility. Can't get past the idea myself that until the IMO has been replaced by something else doctors will continue to have inadequate representation.

Article in independent over weekend talking about troika telling Ireland to cut doctors pay - clueless, but the problem I have is with the ridiculous amount of comments from people talking about how doctors in Ireland are on a gravy train. Politicians will have less problem cutting doctors pay and conditions if the general population want exactly that - so why has the IMO never as the representitive body acted to challenge the exceptionally bad press that doctors get.

RobFowl

chanste wrote: »

The most worrying part of that article to me is that they refer to over 100 doctors cancelling their membership. While technically this doesn't preclude the possibility of there being many more, I really have to ask, when an organisation with ~5000 members (AFAIK) gives its chief exec a goodbye worth several years of its revenue... is 1 in 50 membership cancellations all we will see? I would have expected/hoped that there would be >20% cancellations of memberships.

I know some were waiting to see how this meeting panned out before making a decision on their membership.
To my mind the IMO have lost all credibility now.

2Scoops

Cancelling a membership requires that you contact them and explain. Perhaps the major losses will occur when the IMO come looking for renewals?

I also wonder if the fees will increase this year to mitigate the membership loss. May have to pare back the vanity projects to stay in the black, if that's even possible after forking out 1.5m.

If the IMO does implode and a new union is formed, I hope they concentrate on being a union and nothing more. There's no point in getting a new union if they continue with all the nonsense and charge €1000 a year.

ergo

2Scoops wrote: »

Cancelling a membership requires that you contact them and explain. Perhaps the major losses will occur when the IMO come looking for renewals?

I also wonder if the fees will increase this year to mitigate the membership loss. May have to pare back the vanity projects to stay in the black, if that's even possible after forking out 1.5m.

If the IMO does implode and a new union is formed, I hope they concentrate on being a union and nothing more. There's no point in getting a new union if they continue with all the nonsense and charge €1000 a year.

it's as easy as cancelling a direct debit - you can do it right now on your online banking

if the union goes bust where does the rest of GMcN's pension come from...?

iratira

ergo wrote: »

it's as easy as cancelling a direct debit - you can do it right now on your online banking

if the union goes bust where does the rest of GMcN's pension come from...?[/Quote

I imagine his pension is already separated from the other finances so no matter what happens, he will get it.
As for doctors not quitting, I'm not surprised.
Perhaps its due to the compliant, conservative nature ( which prob gets them into medicine in the first place). No disrespect meant as I am one too..
Although I got wiser to the bullsh1t over the years.
I really wish people would realise that the consumer has the power in this case.
Are they afraid that there could be no union if they quit?
Could conditions really get any worse anyhow?

laoisdoc

As a GP who has resigned membership of IMO on Xmas eve, let me point out that the annual sub for a GP is 1248 euro. There is reference above to a doctors only forum .. would somebody enlighten me as to where I can find it please.
Would anybody who has been to the meeting enlighten us on what happened please

DubDocX

The meeting, as expected, was a whitewash. They basically didn't have any answers and hid behind this up and coming forensic audit and implied legal action if anyone said anything they didn't like! I don't know what the story is with this remuneration committee but it's all a bit suspect. What's the point of a remuneration committee who don't know the remuneration of the person they're supposed to be assessing? It's all a bit odd. Most people left feeling disheartened and felt although we were there for nearly 6 hours, no satisfactory answers were given. As one of the attendees was quoted as saying 'it's as clear as mud'. I think they're hoping this will all just fizzle out.....

Vorsprung

DubDocX wrote: »

The meeting, as expected, was a whitewash. They basically didn't have any answers and hid behind this up and coming forensic audit and implied legal action if anyone said anything they didn't like! I don't know what the story is with this remuneration committee but it's all a bit suspect. What's the point of a remuneration committee who don't know the remuneration of the person they're supposed to be assessing? It's all a bit odd. Most people left feeling disheartened and felt although we were there for nearly 6 hours, no satisfactory answers were given. As one of the attendees was quoted as saying 'it's as clear as mud'. I think they're hoping this will all just fizzle out.....

Thanks for that DubDocx. Did they give any indication as to when this audit might be finalised, and whether members would have access to the report? Who is doing the audit?

DubDocX

Not sure when it's going to be finalised but I saw in the Examiner that it's going out to tender. I would certainly hope that all members will be sent a copy but I wouldn't hold my breath

opinion guy

DubDocX wrote: »

Not sure when it's going to be finalised but I saw in the Examiner that it's going out to tender. I would certainly hope that all members will be sent a copy but I wouldn't hold my breath

Will they have any members by the time its done ?

DubDocX

opinion guy wrote: »

Will they have any members by the time its done ?

I doubt it at this rate!

The latest twist:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/angry-doctors-launch-campaign-to-oust-union-head-and-probe-finances-3356669.html

So it turns out the acting CEO Niall Saul knew about McNiece's contract back in 2003 and has also been on a retainer of €60,000?! But he "has the trust and respect of the executive committee" !

And the President gets €105,000 for this part time role? I assumed it was an honourary role.

Dr Cathal O Suilliobhain, I will be in touch to add my signature.

echo beach

DubDocX wrote: »

So it turns out the acting CEO Niall Saul knew about McNiece's contract back in 2003 and has also been on a retainer of €60,000?! But he "has the trust and respect of the executive committee" !

He is a former board member of FAS, a sure fire way to gain trust and respect.

opinion guy

....and we wonder why nothing ever changes in this country :rolleyes:

opinion guy

So.......more questions arise.....troubling questions....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/imo-firm-paid-minister-114k-3358359.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/imo-fee-link-to-reilly-presidency-3357994.html

DubDocX

IMO EGM Saturday 23rd March in the Crowne Plaza, Santry at 11am

I think it's important that all members attend.

Article in Sunday's Indo
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/terence-cosgrave-squabbling-medical-union-not-what-doctor-ordered-29120455.html

" A doctor in the 'Save the IMO' group, Garret McGovern, said that the proposed review process would be like an 'investigation in reverse', without a proper external audit. "An investigation by the IMO themselves is pointless," he said."

"A major issue is that it appears to many members that the same people who worked closely with the former IMO CEO seem to be planning to conduct the investigation into what happened in the organisation," said Dr O Suilliobhain.

Something is clearly rotten in the state of Denmark!

Boethius

Judging by the responses here, would the advice from seasoned IMOers to next years interns be to save ourselves the subscription fee?

Reading about the details of McNeice's €10m settlement yesterday and the thought of handing over a substantial subscription each year makes me feel funny inside...

SleepDoc

Boethius wrote: »

Judging by the responses here, would the advice from seasoned IMOers to next years interns be to save ourselves the subscription fee?

Reading about the details of McNeice's €10m settlement yesterday and the thought of handing over a substantial subscription each year makes me feel funny inside...

Oh no, engage for change. Make a difference. You'll be fired if you strike and you're not a member. There is no alternative. Etc etc.

Save your money for a ticket to Australia.

Boethius

SleepDoc wrote: »

Oh no, engage for change. Make a difference. You'll be fired if you strike and you're not a member. There is no alternative. Etc etc.

Save your money for a ticket to Australia.

Should we at least attend the 'sponsored event' and consume as big a portion of the current members contribution as possible... just to be polite?

dissed doc

Boethius wrote: »

Judging by the responses here, would the advice from seasoned IMOers to next years interns be to save ourselves the subscription fee?

Reading about the details of McNeice's €10m settlement yesterday and the thought of handing over a substantial subscription each year makes me feel funny inside...

It's pointless joining. You will get whatever terms the HSE decides and pays, regardless of the contract. The IMO will also never challenge the HSE directly and take them to court on simple contract breaches.

For 15 yrs+ the IMO has prevented the development of safe working practices of Irish doctors. You will be paying money for an organisation that on behalf of the government has enabled the: removal of training grants, prevention of EWTD compliant working hours, encouraged the HSE to use doctors as backup staff for all others porters, phlebotomy, etc., .

Save your money, ignore the propaganda. Make your own decision on the intern year if you will stay and under no circumstances ever ever, ever...ever think that it will be better the next year; it will not, ever ever ever change.

You will need to spend €2000 on membership fees to cover McNiece's pension, before any money from your subs goes to actual things for you as a union member. Remember that: two thousand euros of your salary to pay his pension.

j.mcdrmd

IMO accounts for 2012 are out now, haven't had a chance to get them looked at ( I blame Cheltenham) but will try over the weekend.

http://www.imo.ie/news-media/publications/IMO-Financial-Statements-31-December-2012.pdf

dissed doc

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

IMO accounts for 2012 are out now, haven't had a chance to get them looked at ( I blame Cheltenham) but will try over the weekend.

http://www.imo.ie/news-media/publications/IMO-Financial-Statements-31-December-2012.pdf

Net deficit of 6 million or so, including €4.1 million for the termination package.

So this year's pension payment for McNiece is only ~€830/member. Or, all your membership fee. LOL!

Literally, pay your membership dues, and he is getting all of it!!!! This is priceless!

j.mcdrmd

I got the IMO financial statement for 2013 looked at. I asked for a rundown of the statement for busy doctors, here is the report I got back:-

---

IMO Financial Statements Commentary

The IMO have taken two major hits in 2012. In round sums, the settlement to the former CEO cost an additional €5M which was not provided for in 2011. In addition, there has been a €4M write down of properties.
Nonetheless, the organisation still has net resources of €3M down from €11M.

The IMO itself has fallen from €6M in the black to €0.6M in the red, mainly as a result of the Settlement but also from its share of the property write downs. The rest of the property write downs were absorbed by the property holding company, IMA.

What keeps the organisation above water is the broker company, Fitzserv whose net assets have increased slightly over the year from €3.5M to €3.9M.

So the Treasurer’s statement that no income from future membership subscriptions will be required to fund the Settlement would appear on the face of it to be correct.

However, the statement that “It was always our intention to reflect the full cost of the settlement…so that the agreement was transparent to members” rings very hollow.

Presumably some on the Management Committee and certainly Mr McNiece were fully aware of this contract when they compiled the 2011 Financial Statements. Recall that the original amount of the obligation, certainly as Mr McNiece saw it, was €20M i.e. €15M greater than was accrued for in the pensions fund. In the context of the finances of the organisation this was an enormous sum.

The Management Committee state, and the Auditors opine that they were correct to do so, that the Financial Statements give a “true and fair” view and are “free from material misstatement”. This is simply not credible in the context of the 2011 Financial Statements. The Auditors state that they “performed their audit to obtain all the information that was necessary…”. Presumably they were not made aware of these arrangements. Do the Auditors consider that Mr McNiece adequately co-operated with them in preparing the 2011 Financial Statements. If he did not why does the organisation feel obliged to honour this undisclosed obligation?

The IMO have represented that the final Settlement of €9.7M was the result of strong negotiations around the €20M face value of the secret arrangement or indeed that Mr McNiece has made a significant concession. In reality the IMO’s coffers have been cleaned out. The IMO was not in a position to give any more so let us not put this down to either negotiation skills on the part of the IMO or to concessions on the part of Mr McNiece. If it were not for the broker company the organisation would now be financially wiped out.

The IMO itself had accrued apparent reserves of €6M, €5M of which have been swallowed up by the Settlement. It begs the following questions:
Why were the subscriptions set at a level that such an apparent surplus would accrue?

Was it that the subscriptions were being set at a level to accrue for this off balance sheet liability?

Presuming no similar off balance sheet liability still exists does that mean there is ample scope to reduce subscriptions going forward?

---

Why does this basted thing tell me I'm not signed in when I hit Submit Reply? Luckily I have learned to edit/copy just before I post. Anyway I hope the commentary above is of help.

laoisdoc

Thank you very much for your summary. Very helpful for those of us who have resigned from the IMO and are denied information as a result. I am very glad I resigned (as a long term GP member). There would have to be extraordinary changes in the IMO for me to return. These changes seem increasingly unlikely as it appears the IMO leadership are congratulating themselves that there hasnt been that much fall out from the McNeice affair, and they have successfully blocked the Save our IMO petition for an EGM.

Is it really true that the president of the IMO is paid 100,000 euro plus expenses or is it an urban myth? If he is being paid, then are all the members of the various committees also being paid plus expenses?

j.mcdrmd

laoisdoc wrote: »

Thank you very much for your summary. Very helpful for those of us who have resigned from the IMO and are denied information as a result. I am very glad I resigned (as a long term GP member). There would have to be extraordinary changes in the IMO for me to return. These changes seem increasingly unlikely as it appears the IMO leadership are congratulating themselves that there hasnt been that much fall out from the McNeice affair, and they have successfully blocked the Save our IMO petition for an EGM.

Is it really true that the president of the IMO is paid 100,000 euro plus expenses or is it an urban myth? If he is being paid, then are all the members of the various committees also being paid plus expenses?

The numbers are available to all, see the link I posted above.

Individual pay is not detailed in the accounts.

laoisdoc

But does anybody have any evidence that the IMO president is being paid 100000 per year or is it an urban myth? I picked this gem up on one of the bulletin boards, but is it true?

Dr Nic

How could the imo possibly negotiate a pension pot that would definitely wipe them out financially?
How is that even possible? And this was done in 2003 when presumably the imo coffers were still smallish on early celtic tiger growth.

I dont understand. I definitely would prefer to rot in 36 hour hell in letterkenny than fund such an incompetant orgsnisation. The imo must read this board. Will some1 not come on here and answer this? A good answer might help docs rejoin the organisation!

opinion guy

laoisdoc wrote: »

But does anybody have any evidence that the IMO president is being paid 100000 per year or is it an urban myth? I picked this gem up on one of the bulletin boards, but is it true?

Seek and you shall find...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/imo-was-advised-against-exposing-itself-to-claims-for-reckless-trading-1.4218

SleepDoc

Dr Nic wrote: »

How could the imo possibly negotiate a pension pot that would definitely wipe them out financially?
How is that even possible? And this was done in 2003 when presumably the imo coffers were still smallish on early celtic tiger growth.

I dont understand. I definitely would prefer to rot in 36 hour hell in letterkenny than fund such an incompetant orgsnisation. The imo must read this board. Will some1 not come on here and answer this? A good answer might help docs rejoin the organisation!

The IMO has not been run for the benefit of its members.

It is just not acceptable to fob us off with their "independent" audit.

drzhivago

dissed doc wrote: »

It's pointless joining. You will get whatever terms the HSE decides and pays, regardless of the contract. The IMO will also never challenge the HSE directly and take them to court on simple contract breaches.

I am not happy with the CEO pay off BUT the above statement not true, IMO took HSE to High Court on NCHD Contract issue

[QUOTE=dissed doc;83675718
For 15 yrs+ the IMO has prevented the development of safe working practices of Irish doctors. You will be paying money for an organisation that on behalf of the government has enabled the: removal of training grants, prevention of EWTD compliant working hours, encouraged the HSE to use doctors as backup staff for all others porters, phlebotomy, etc., .[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence the IMO prevented development of safe working practices, in fact quite the opposite and continues to do so in face of extreme opposition from HSE
If you are going back 15 years here you need to mention that the IMO negotiated introduction of training grant in 1st place, strangely these are unprecedented times and the removal of NCHD training grant from individuals has supposedly been replaced by direct funding of training bodies and increased numbers of training places-- that has been challenged directly by IMO-- I dont see many individuals who are non members challenging this either so the implication of this is that non members of IMO are happy with their lot

dissed doc wrote: »

Save your money, ignore the propaganda. Make your own decision on the intern year if you will stay and under no circumstances ever ever, ever...ever think that it will be better the next year; it will not, ever ever ever change.

That is a very defeatist attitude to say it will never change, I hope fowl will come in here with some support and say it has changed significantly since our days as interns however even though it has changed a lot for me a person coming into the job fresh wants change from their perspective and that needs people to be engaged with the process to change, sadly now even though i encourage Juniors to get involved they appear to have a very apathetic approach and comments as your own wont help them at all. They should not be discouraged from trying to make a difference from within the IMO or not, the only thing I would say is that it is very difficult to effect change without an organisation to back you.

It is not impossible but the work for the individual alone is massive

dissed doc wrote: »

You will need to spend €2000 on membership fees to cover McNiece's pension, before any money from your subs goes to actual things for you as a union member. Remember that: two thousand euros of your salary to pay his pension.

From reading the IMO accounts this statement is false and also a settlement aggregated over 15 years is not paid out this year

The money which has been paid into pension funds has already been paid over the last 20 years and in my opinion would never be recoverable, if the former CEO dies that would have been paid to his dependents

As I say again I am not happy with these development, not happy at the sums involved, not happy that the man who was put into a position to head our union has effectively feathered his nest and almost broke the union in the process BUT that is not a reason to turn against the UNUON itself at a time when we need such supports

Some of you out there will be ant union for whatever reason that is your choice

Some of you will feel yo cant afford it and again that is a choice

BUT a large number do need a union every year to fight on their behalf and they need cohesive groups to force change

If you resign the best of luck to you with getting your issues solved your selves as it will not be easy as tbh we as doctors have neither the time or the skills to do this generally, that is why we pay for the services of a union

drzhivago

laoisdoc wrote: »

Thank you very much for your summary. Very helpful for those of us who have resigned from the IMO and are denied information as a result.

I think that quote should actually say you are not entitled to the information laoisdoc to be fair as with any organisation that has a membership when you resign you lose your entitlements.

Saying you are denied something implies you have a right or entitlement when as a resigned former member you do not

laoisdoc wrote: »

I am very glad I resigned (as a long term GP member). There would have to be extraordinary changes in the IMO for me to return. These changes seem increasingly unlikely as it appears the IMO leadership are congratulating themselves that there hasnt been that much fall out from the McNeice affair, and they have successfully blocked the Save our IMO petition for an EGM.

Again I have a contrary view here, I dont think anyone is taking a congratulatory tone in this, I think they are relieved that they have a settlement and that he IMO has not been wound down. I have been to public meetings on this, expressed my discontent and listened to the arguments from all sides. There has been an EGM properly constituted with motions from the IMO council far stronger than the save motions originally drafted

Regarding the EGM, the strangely titled Save the IMO group had a proposal for an EGM with a number of motions, some of which called for the resignation of members of the IMO from the IMO itself not from the committees they served on but from the organisation. THe other motions called for a group to be elected from the floor of the EGM to oversee the governance review

From what I have seen at the original information meeting and read in the email releases fro the IMO President the IMO Council put forward other EGM motions which included what I believe to be the thrust of what the Save group wanted in terms of the Governance review (which is not from within the IMO but to be tendered externally and will also include very detailed review of whole process of CEO involvement in other subsidiary companies also and how they were set up) - I think this goes much further than what the SAVE group were looking for and also by getting this done externally should be more independent.

laoisdoc wrote: »

Is it really true that the president of the IMO is paid 100,000 euro plus expenses or is it an urban myth? If he is being paid, then are all the members of the various committees also being paid plus expenses?

yes that is true for president stipend, chairs of committees get stipend (4 people) ALL other committee members get travel expenses refunded and thats it

drzhivago

Dr Nic wrote: »

How could the imo possibly negotiate a pension pot that would definitely wipe them out financially?
How is that even possible? And this was done in 2003 when presumably the imo coffers were still smallish on early celtic tiger growth.

I dont understand. I definitely would prefer to rot in 36 hour hell in letterkenny than fund such an incompetant orgsnisation. The imo must read this board. Will some1 not come on here and answer this? A good answer might help docs rejoin the organisation!

What question are you asking here

I dont think the intention with his contract was to give him a pension that would wipe out the organisation, in fact there is a view that as the person financially responsible for the running of the IMO that it was his responsibility to outline to the MAnagement Committee of the IMO that there was a pension deficit specifically related to his own pension as a result of his very large salary

from the meetings I have attended it is clear he had some confidentiality clause negotiated with his deal which sought to limit information about his salary and bonuses being divulged

I understand ALL of that is forming part of the review which will be done by an outside agency ie tender being prepared which one would expect one of the large accountancy firms to win and then dig through all the records etc and produce a report

drzhivago

SleepDoc wrote: »

The IMO has not been run for the benefit of its members.

It is just not acceptable to fob us off with their "independent" audit.

What do you suggest a "non independent audit"

SleepDoc

drzhivago wrote: »

What do you suggest a "non independent audit"

No audit is fully independent.

The terms of reference of the proposed audit will be set by the IMO.

These terms of reference need to be presented to the members and made public before an auditor is appointed.

drzhivago

SleepDoc wrote: »

No audit is fully independent.

The terms of reference of the proposed audit will be set by the IMO.

These terms of reference need to be presented to the members and made public before an auditor is appointed.

I was at croke park meeting where they presented the broad terms of the audit and it looked fairly extensive

Terms of reference have to be set by someone/somebody/some group if IMO corporate wants to investigate dealings of its past who would you suggest set up the terms of reference

I think Matt Sadlier and Paul McKeown spoke to this topic in Croke park (think names correct )

The EGM last week was to propose such motions

Now terms of reference need to be set BUT I think the motion from last week authorises MAnagement committte to set the terms of reference for the tender (need to check that but i dont think they will be coming back to membership until report is due)

That is my limited understanding of it so far