Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
IMO chief exec lump sum
Comments
-
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
Ok fair enough. Thanks0 -
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
I ran the latest comments past the author of the summary above, this is what I got back:
Confidentiality? You bet He wanted confidentiality. He stitched up a pension worth 25M on an organisation with annual subscriptions of 3M!! He is obligated to disclose this very significant contingent liability by Company Law, confidentiality or not.
The IMO was not only guilty of producing totally misleading financial statements for the last 5 years at least, it was trading unlawfully with a contingent liability a multiple of its net assets, and McNiece knew it, who else who signed off these accounts knew?
Independent review? Absolutely there must be an independent review. We will know ex post whether it has been independent if it has at least found McNiece guilty of these gross breaches of Company Law.
Please stop calling it a Pensions Deficit. Stop pretending that this is a consequence of our times. Pensions deficits are to be sure a commonplace occurrence arising out of the financial crisis. But there is nothing commonplace about this 25M and it has nothing to do with the financial crisis. This an arrangement negotiated by the CEO of an organisation with that organisation which it couldn't possibly ever hope to honour and He knew it. In the event he stripped the organisation right down to the bare bone where it can just about state that it is financially viable going forward. Thank you Mr McNiece for waiving your entitlement to 15M. There is a 3.5M deferred liability to McNiece on the IMO's shattered balance sheet.
We must hope that the independent review will find that given McNiece gross and at least partially illegal misbehaviour toward the IMO in the past the IMO has no moral or legal obligation to honour this.0 -
Ok, so more from the author of the above summary of the IMO accounts.
This is a personal view by a financial expert and is posted as such:-
Members of the IMO are asked to accept that, going forward, no subscriptions will be going toward McNiece’s retirement package. That may be so. The implication is that even the IMO would not expect its members to KNOWINGLY contribute to this travesty.
But for the last several years we now know that the bulk of the members subscriptions were indeed needed for this very purpose. If the members had been aware that Mr McNiece had a package of 25M would they have paid their subscriptions?
The terms of reference for the independent review should therefore include:
1. Did the financial statements for 2011 give a true and fair view of the finances of the IMO and were they free from material misstatements or omissions. Presuming the answer to this is no, the supplementary is:
2. For how many years have the financial statements failed to be true and fair or omitted material disclosure of the financial position?
With the presumably obvious answers to these questions it would appear that the IMO would have to concede that for a number of years they have extracted subscriptions from their members whilst failing to disclose key information as to what those subscriptions were for. It is simply for the IMO to admit that they effectively got the subscriptions under false pretences, even if some of them didn't know this at the time. If no one else is implicated then those alleged false pretences all devolve to Mr McNiece who knew about his package.
The IMO could then undertake to return all the assets, including its property, to the affected members. The members would then, hopefully, agree to onward transfer the assets to IMO 2 in return for a year’s free subscription, at least the members would be in control for a change. This latter being neatly financed by the saving on the deferred pension to Mr McNiece which would be left in the wound up IMO 1.
If there is one inkling of hope in this mess it is that the deferred payments to Mr NcNiece are not a liability of the pension fund, as they would then be beyond recapture. But whilst they are a deferred liability of the IMO I think that they are within reach, as described above.
In other words, members would get a years free subscription, staff would keep their jobs IMO 2 would concentrate on the members and the McNeice debacle would be well and truly in the past. Otherwise the McNeice problem will remain part of the IMO annoying members for years to come.0 -
-
I ran the latest comments past the author of the summary above, this is what I got back:
Confidentiality? You bet He wanted confidentiality. He stitched up a pension worth 25M on an organisation with annual subscriptions of 3M!! He is obligated to disclose this very significant contingent liability by Company Law, confidentiality or not.
The IMO was not only guilty of producing totally misleading financial statements for the last 5 years at least, it was trading unlawfully with a contingent liability a multiple of its net assets, and McNiece knew it, who else who signed off these accounts knew?
I think there is quite a bit to come out in independent review but lets put some figures here and facts to outline how difficult this can be in pension terms, the concept of a pension pot of €25million has been talked about mutliple times, that is a theoretical figurs based upon
Age at retirement
Final salary
Years likely to be paying pension
Pension % of final salary
As interest rates have varied over the years to purchase an annuity from a body which offers such services one has to give them the answers to the figures above and depending on the current interest rate over the last 20 years or so a company would normally have to pay 20-24 times the initial annual pension up front to the body offering the annual payment -- This changed apparently in recent years based on lower interest rates to between 36-48 hence the outside estimate of a potential liability of €25million-- I dont claim to be a pensions expert but this stuff is a little like rocket science
Now take a Salary of €100k - 20 years left to retirement /Defined Benefit pension scheme
Year 1 Employer puts contribution aside of X
Year 2 Same salary Employer puts contribution aside of X
Year 3 Same salary Employer puts contribution aside of X etc etc as person on same salary the can figure out exactly what should be put in pot annually
Second scenario - person has significant Bonus structure with retained bonus
Year 1 Salary €100k Employer puts contribution aside of X -- END YEAR 1 bonus rises salary 10%
Year 2 Salary €110 K Employer puts aside 1.1x +(retrospective contribution for Year 1) - END YEAR BONUS 20%
Year 2 Salary €132 K employer puts aside 1.32X +(retrospective contribution for Year 1 + Year 2 based on higher salary and higher eventual pension)
Year 3 etc etc etc
So as years go on the bonuses have a massive impact here so I dont know what people did in 2003 in negotiating his salary/pension etc but I wonder was that elemnt completely taken into account
The more bonuses the more retrospective payments must be made to fund the scheme and was there an obligation on the person who will benefit from the pension to report these liabilities knowing that others did not know what the salary was? that is the questionIndependent review? Absolutely there must be an independent review. We will know ex post whether it has been independent if it has at least found McNiece guilty of these gross breaches of Company Law.
A review cant find someone Guilty only the courts can do that and a trip to the 4 Goldmines will likely be a very costly endeavour in this circumstance
I fear the review itself will be a beef tribunal affair though not ragging on for as long.
But if you follow the maths above that is what it is a deficit in funds set aside in a pension account what else do you call itPlease stop calling it a Pensions Deficit. Stop pretending that this is a consequence of our times.Pensions deficits are to be sure a commonplace occurrence arising out of the financial crisis. But there is nothing commonplace about this 25M and it has nothing to do with the financial crisis. This an arrangement negotiated by the CEO of an organisation with that organisation which it couldn't possibly ever hope to honour and He knew it. In the event he stripped the organisation right down to the bare bone where it can just about state that it is financially viable going forward. Thank you Mr McNiece for waiving your entitlement to 15M. There is a 3.5M deferred liability to McNiece on the IMO's shattered balance sheet.
We must hope that the independent review will find that given McNiece gross and at least partially illegal misbehaviour toward the IMO in the past the IMO has no moral or legal obligation to honour this.
Your last statement has a lot of resonance with my own feelings BUT what options are there- Dont pay and wait for him to take legal action
- Refer to Garda to investigate
- Attempt to renegotiate
0 -
Ok, so more from the author of the above summary of the IMO accounts.
This is a personal view by a financial expert and is posted as such:-
Members of the IMO are asked to accept that, going forward, no subscriptions will be going toward McNiece’s retirement package. That may be so. The implication is that even the IMO would not expect its members to KNOWINGLY contribute to this travesty.
But for the last several years we now know that the bulk of the members subscriptions were indeed needed for this very purpose. If the members had been aware that Mr McNiece had a package of 25M would they have paid their subscriptions?
The terms of reference for the independent review should therefore include:
1. Did the financial statements for 2011 give a true and fair view of the finances of the IMO and were they free from material misstatements or omissions. Presuming the answer to this is no, the supplementary is:
2. For how many years have the financial statements failed to be true and fair or omitted material disclosure of the financial position?
With the presumably obvious answers to these questions it would appear that the IMO would have to concede that for a number of years they have extracted subscriptions from their members whilst failing to disclose key information as to what those subscriptions were for. It is simply for the IMO to admit that they effectively got the subscriptions under false pretences, even if some of them didn't know this at the time. If no one else is implicated then those alleged false pretences all devolve to Mr McNiece who knew about his package.
Fair questions and fair point
I really doubt looking at the people involved in the IMO in those positions over the years that they would have let themselves knowingly be placed in such a position or even that they had any knowledge of it
I have been to the AGM a fair few times, there is a rather old retired doctor who without fail questions annually details in the financial accounts and he is quite particular in some of his questions and has at times picked out some interesting errors
I never heard him ask a question regarding the pension fund of the Chief Executive which if he had concerns or was in a position to discern from the accounts he would have
The IMO could then undertake to return all the assets, including its property, to the affected members. The members would then, hopefully, agree to onward transfer the assets to IMO 2 in return for a year’s free subscription, at least the members would be in control for a change. This latter being neatly financed by the saving on the deferred pension to Mr McNiece which would be left in the wound up IMO 1.
You obviously have some close confidant who is a financial whiz please ask them would the negotiated settlement with Mr McNeice not put a charge on the assets and prevent them from being given away and thus prevent winding up as you say above or else if he is a preferred creditor leave no assets to transfer to IMO 2
If there is one inkling of hope in this mess it is that the deferred payments to Mr NcNiece are not a liability of the pension fund, as they would then be beyond recapture. But whilst they are a deferred liability of the IMO I think that they are within reach, as described above.
In other words, members would get a years free subscription, staff would keep their jobs IMO 2 would concentrate on the members and the McNeice debacle would be well and truly in the past. Otherwise the McNeice problem will remain part of the IMO annoying members for years to come.
I really wish what you say could happen but I cant see it0 -
-
It's completely academic now. The entire funds of the IMO built up through member's fees for the past what, 5+ years were used exclusively (and I use that word because the IMO as a union is bankrupt and only being supported by the financial services arm, right?) for McNiece's pension. The only reason it was reduced from 25 million is because that would have bankrupted everything IMO entirely; they want it to keep running on fumes to keep the payoff cash rolling. At 25 million, it might as well be 100 million; unaffordable and such massive off the book expenses is real Celtic-Tiger Anglo Irish Bank stuff. Magical account statements, completely devoid of truth, and one guy at the top swimming in the cash of all the "investors".
Explains why they were always "dealing with things on a national level" which really meant "we can't afford lawyers to challenge the HSE because Georgy Porgy has taken it all for his pension......plz kep peyin', kthnxbai!"0 -
From what I can tell Mc Niece made off with about 33% of the IMO take since 2005 in total.
<snip>
The IMO body itself acted in direct violation of the interests of members. It charged extortionate membership fee's (higher than the ICHAs) to build up massive reserves so it could turn them over to him. While it ignored again and again its members demands for legal action against the HSE. When it finally got the HSE to court ( amazing their was any money left in the kitty ) it made an agreement with the HSE to ignore the ruling it had won! It did this without consulting its membership. The IMO has not changed. Nor will it unless it is forced. Whats going on currently is a farce: Interim CEO ( former FAS insider with a hundred grand retainer close to Mc Niece ) is still running the show. No one has been implicated. No one has resigned. Despite the IMO having a full team of auditors go through its books every year no one wondered why the fee's were crazy high or why the salaries were crazy high or where the money was going. The IMO refused to allow the minutes of the meetings be reviewed for "legal reasons". The terms of the "independent" review are being set by the people with the most to hide. This is typical Irish bullshiit. No one will be blamed, mc niece will walk with every cent, reassurances will be given that the stable door is absolutely secure, no horse will ever get in there again.0 -
Mod Note
ThatDrGuy (and others), I've edited part of your post which I'm slightly uncomfortable with.
Some posts on this thread have been reported (thanks to those who have alerted us) and while I'm happy to let the discussion develop, I'd remind you that the matter is being investigated, and may or may not lead to further legal proceedings. I'd ask you to bear this in mind when posting.
Thanks0 -
Advertisement
-
From what I can tell Mc Niece made off with about 33% of the IMO take since 2005 in total.
<snip>
The IMO body itself acted in direct violation of the interests of members. It charged extortionate membership fee's (higher than the ICHAs) to build up massive reserves so it could turn them over to him.
As said above I went to the AGMS quite a few times where members fees and plans were discussed, there was never a plan outlined to develop massive reserves for a single future contingency such as recent developments, on that basis I have to say I dont believe any one knew that such potential contingency existedWhile it ignored again and again its members demands for legal action against the HSE. When it finally got the HSE to court ( amazing their was any money left in the kitty ) it made an agreement with the HSE to ignore the ruling it had won! It did this without consulting its membership.
Where were the members demands for legal action against HSE specifically ignored, I was an NCHD at the time and dont remember this
I do remember when the IMO wanted to take a High Court ACtion on behalf of NCHDs that they had difficulty getting individuals to volunteer and that when they did they screened them out to make sure they had the 6 or 7 best cases
The case was taken for those 6 or 7 people, the settlement terms were agreed with those 6 or 7 people which prevented the HSE from Unilaterally altering the terms of their contracts
Can you explain what was ignored of the settlement pleae because I would really like to know, have you in fact read the Case and settlement agreement
The IMO has not changed. Nor will it unless it is forced.
Probably correct hereWhats going on currently is a farce: Interim CEO ( former FAS insider with a hundred grand retainer close to Mc Niece ) is still running the show. No one has been implicated. No one has resigned.
I think this is unfair to the interim Man, I have been at the information day in Croke park, read the information handed out since and he has had no personal relationship with the former CEO. The interim was on retainer for a different piece of work which was ongoing when this happened. I am unaware of his interactions with FAS but because someone has done a piece of work for a different body that does not taint themDespite the IMO having a full team of auditors go through its books every year no one wondered why the fee's were crazy high or why the salaries were crazy high or where the money was going.
I strongly agree with you here and those questions have to be answered by the auditorsThe IMO refused to allow the minutes of the meetings be reviewed for "legal reasons".
I want answers but I think you are being liberal with your phraseology ere, there was a wording for an EGM set forward by a group of doctors who got 120 signatures, the wordings proposed publicising meetings of a large number of committees over a 20 year period -- that would cause some considerable difficulty publicising them HOWEVER to have them reviewed in independent audit is a different thing altogetherThe terms of the "independent" review are being set by the people with the most to hide.
I am a bit lost here-- who do you suggest should set the terms of the audit. This was discussed at the Croke park meeting with the motion put forward by the Save the IMO campaign
The terms of reference were put forward by the Current IMO Council (who were not part of the remuneration committee OR not involved in negotiating former CEO conditions) so in my feeling nothing that group have to hide
In addition the terms they put forward EXTENDED what the Save group were looking for and went far deeper apart from the publicising bit. They are going to be looking at more documents in more areas
This will be done by an independent group who will have to submit a tender for the work
How do you suggest you improve on that process.This is typical Irish bullshiit. No one will be blamed,
I agree , I believe your comments are reflected in your own comment directly above, reactionary comment which is possibly ill informed. I have sat through these meetings, read what has come out, digested what historic accounts I have available from the IMO to check whether I can see whether wool is being pulled over my eyes now
I am not an accountant so have to say that nothing stood out in accounts for me, that will be for the review group to look at what the auditors did
regarding blame I am unsure what will come from the report we must wait and see and also what action happens after it itself is publishedmc niece will walk with every cent, reassurances will be given that the stable door is absolutely secure, no horse will ever get in there again.
And that may indeed be the outcome but you will have to read the documents and form your own view whether that was indeed appropriate at the time0 -
Again I will state that the following is from a financial expert, it is their opinion and I am posting it as such:-
In answer to Dr Zhivago points posted yesterday.
Before addressing your points I would like to point out that McNiece is due the first part of his package, amounting to €1.5m, on 31st March. That happens to be this Sunday. It is therefore payable on the next business day. Whilst someone with a macabre sense of humour might like to hand this over on April Fools day, that too is a bank holiday. The payment is therefore due next Tuesday. The IMO should on no account make this payment pending the outcome of the Independent Review. McNiece may take legal steps to force payment, so be it, but the organisation desperately needs to demonstrate to its members that it is very serious about this matter and the upcoming Independent Review. Heaven forbid that the IMO in its anxiety to appease McNiece has already made this payment in advance of its due date!
I note your explanation of where the €25M came from. I got this from the media, for even now there is insufficient detail about what that original package was. I take your point that about €10M of this is due to “actuarial drift” in recent years which it would not have been expected that the Management Committee would have anticipated. Nonetheless the full current actuarial value of this package was known at the time of finalising the 2011 financial statements, so the level of non disclosure in those was indeed of the order of €20M. By the way, the reason that astute perennial accounts watcher never queried this package is precisely because it wasn't disclosed. That is the purpose of accounts. Proper disclosure would have flushed out this madness before it became too late.
However, there is no need to exaggerate this travesty. Based on traditional actuarial metrics, McNiece managed over a period of 10 years to wrangle out of the IMO a early retirement package of €15M or 60 times his initial salary as CEO. The Independent Review will presumably enquire as to whether McNiece at all times acted in the best interests of the organisation whilst he was in its employ or whether he had more focus on securing his grotesque package.
I will address the course of action that I advocate later but I wish to further emphasise how the members appear to have been paying subscriptions under false pretences for several years. The Treasurer in his report states that it was always the intention to be fully transparent on this matter. That is both worrying and an insult. It is an insult as it is saying that the members were always going to told how their pockets had been picked AFTER they had been picked. The time to tell them was as soon as it became known that it was going to happen so that they could empty their pockets in time! But it is also a profoundly worrying statement for it implies that there was indeed full knowledge of what was due to take place for some time. This of course will be flushed out by the Independent Review.
As to confidentiality. The IMO belongs to its members. They entrusted its oversight to the Trustees. The Trustees had no right to negotiate such an outrageous package with a hired employee of the organisation, never mind keep it confidential from them.
Now what should happen? Presuming that the Independent Review finds that for several years the members have been paying subscriptions under false pretences the IMO should declare that the collection of those subscriptions was invalid and they should be returned. The members then become creditors of the IMO. McNiece has no preferential claim on the assets of the organisation. That is the only sign of hope here. He must wait his turn and if there is nothing left for him after paying out other creditors whose due dates came earlier then that is hard cheese. If the IMO deems that members should have their subscriptions returned because they were extracted under false pretences then these repayments will come ahead of McNiece’s deferred pension in time albeit pari passu in priority. McNiece may seek an injunction but the best he could hope to get from that would be the winding up of the IMO and a divvying out of the assets between him and the members. That process would reduce his €3.5M pot to a mere fraction.
Of course, what would happen in practice is that a much more realistic renegotiation would take place with McNiece. Returning to the first paragraph, if the €1.5M has been withheld the outcome of that negotiation might be to release that payment and quash the deferred pension altogether (the 4.7m in the pension fund, that is out of reach). If the €1.5M has not been withheld the negotiating position is that much weaker.
Nothing less than a radical plan along these lines will restore morale to the members and staff alike of the IMO in my opinion.
0 -
As said above I went to the AGMS quite a few times where members fees and plans were discussed, there was never a plan outlined to develop massive reserves for a single future contingency such as recent developments, on that basis I have to say I dont believe any one knew that such potential contingency existed
Mc Niece did and the auditors who audited the IMO accounts every year did as well as those involved in negotiation as well as those they discussed it with. At a time of dwindling membership the IMO body consciously chose again and again to keep membership costs high despite it being the second biggest bone of contention the members had with the IMO. Can you please tell me why the membership costs were about a third higher than needed to be all these years?Where were the members demands for legal action against HSE specifically ignored, I was an NCHD at the time and dont remember this
I do remember when the IMO wanted to take a High Court ACtion on behalf of NCHDs that they had difficulty getting individuals to volunteer and that when they did they screened them out to make sure they had the 6 or 7 best cases
The case was taken for those 6 or 7 people, the settlement terms were agreed with those 6 or 7 people which prevented the HSE from Unilaterally altering the terms of their contracts
Can you explain what was ignored of the settlement please because I would really like to know, have you in fact read the Case and settlement agreement
I was reffering to the case regarding working hours. The first limitations of working hours in this country came into force with the 1997 Organisation and Working time act. The IMO ignored it. It was 13 years before it finally took a case to the high court regarding working hours. In 2010 it secured a ruling that the HSE was in breech of the EWTD. The IMO then made a "deal" with the HSE to ignore it's own victory - effectively allowing them to carry on the status quo to the present day. It was in this internecine period that I lost two of my clasmates. When the 2 year legal moratorium ran out: did the IMO bring the HSE back to court ? Did it hell. Why spend 5 million euro of reserves on legal action to try and safe guard the working conditions of its members when you can give all that money to the muppet at the top ? Even without the McNiece scandal those actions are unforgivable. Irish doctors are the only group of workers in the country for whom health and safety legislation is sidelined and undermined by their own union.I think this is unfair to the interim Man, I have been at the information day in Croke park, read the information handed out since and he has had no personal relationship with the former CEO. The interim was on retainer for a different piece of work which was ongoing when this happened. I am unaware of his interactions with FAS but because someone has done a piece of work for a different body that does not taint them
What piece of work was he working on that was worth 100,000+ euro of our money just to keep him hanging around not working on it ? Was there an open tender for the job or was it old boys club rules ? Who hired him? Who agreed his obscene retainer ? Why is an IMO insider the new interim CEO instead of some-one impartial outside of the organisation ?
I want answers but I think you are being liberal with your phraseology ere, there was a wording for an EGM set forward by a group of doctors who got 120 signatures, the wordings proposed publicising meetings of a large number of committees over a 20 year period -- that would cause some considerable difficulty publicising them HOWEVER to have them reviewed in independent audit is a different thing altogether
I am a bit lost here-- who do you suggest should set the terms of the audit. This was discussed at the Croke park meeting with the motion put forward by the Save the IMO campaign
The terms of reference were put forward by the Current IMO Council (who were not part of the remuneration committee OR not involved in negotiating former CEO conditions) so in my feeling nothing that group have to hide
In addition the terms they put forward EXTENDED what the Save group were looking for and went far deeper apart from the publicising bit. They are going to be looking at more documents in more areas
This will be done by an independent group who will have to submit a tender for the work
Elections should have been held for an oversight committee of IMO members themselves who would have set the terms of the investigation ie they would have acted in the interests of the membership. I am not saying that the current body of the IMO is corrupt, I am saying they are too close to the former body members for any impartial evaluation : They will not do anything that will compromise their associates. The IMO has been run as an old boys club for years: that is what allowed this lunatic settlement, that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:
1: IMO body releases statement praising McNiece
2: Does not inform members of settlement - settlement info has to be leaked by people outraged at their actions
3: Belatedly offers token details of settlement - which is still completely opaque, bits are leaked in dribs and drabs and full disclose still not happened
4: Convenes a meeting to explain themselves when they realise the peons are upset now that they know when where their money is going
5: Refuse to let members vote at the meeting
6: Force members to call EGM on the subject
7: Blame everything on a single decreased former president
All these actions are opposition to the interests of the members of the IMO. They are willing to pay off McNiece (with our money) and get rid of him, then continue on business as usual. Note:
They havent fired him !!?? He is still at "work" in the IMO. The very first action when he demanded a 40 times his salary pension settlement (twice the entire worth of the IMO) told them to sell the buildings, sacrifice the entire organisation for his own personal gain would have been to dismiss him. This would also keep him from being able to cover things up from the inside. Let him sue for dismissal, thats when they could have dug up dirt on him and his actions etc, set a legal basis for potential malfeasance
As jmcdrmd excellent post pointed out: All payments should have been frozen pending an investigation. Long story short: The actions of the IMO to date on this subject have had one theme - payoff McNiece, obfuscate delay and water down the investigation, prevent any inquiry that might dig up other potential scandals. Their actions show clearly that they do not act in members best interests and as such show they cannot be trusted to run the inquiry.0 -
Mc Niece did and the auditors who audited the IMO accounts every year did as well as those involved in negotiation as well as those they discussed it with. At a time of dwindling membership the IMO body consciously chose again and again to keep membership costs high despite it being the second biggest bone of contention the members had with the IMO. Can you please tell me why the membership costs were about a third higher than needed to be all these years?
I was reffering to the case regarding working hours. The first limitations of working hours in this country came into force with the 1997 Organisation and Working time act. The IMO ignored it. It was 13 years before it finally took a case to the high court regarding working hours. In 2010 it secured a ruling that the HSE was in breech of the EWTD. The IMO then made a "deal" with the HSE to ignore it's own victory - effectively allowing them to carry on the status quo to the present day. It was in this internecine period that I lost two of my clasmates. When the 2 year legal moratorium ran out: did the IMO bring the HSE back to court ? Did it hell. Why spend 5 million euro of reserves on legal action to try and safe guard the working conditions of its members when you can give all that money to the muppet at the top ? Even without the McNiece scandal those actions are unforgivable. Irish doctors are the only group of workers in the country for whom health and safety legislation is sidelined and undermined by their own union.
What piece of work was he working on that was worth 100,000+ euro of our money just to keep him hanging around not working on it ? Was there an open tender for the job or was it old boys club rules ? Who hired him? Who agreed his obscene retainer ? Why is an IMO insider the new interim CEO instead of some-one impartial outside of the organisation ?
Elections should have been held for an oversight committee of IMO members themselves who would have set the terms of the investigation ie they would have acted in the interests of the membership. I am not saying that the current body of the IMO is corrupt, I am saying they are too close to the former body members for any impartial evaluation : They will not do anything that will compromise their associates. The IMO has been run as an old boys club for years: that is what allowed this lunatic settlement, that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:
1: IMO body releases statement praising McNiece
2: Does not inform members of settlement - settlement info has to be leaked by people outraged at their actions
3: Belatedly offers token details of settlement - which is still completely opaque, bits are leaked in dribs and drabs and full disclose still not happened
4: Convenes a meeting to explain themselves when they realise the peons are upset now that they know when where their money is going
5: Refuse to let members vote at the meeting
6: Force members to call EGM on the subject
7: Blame everything on a single decreased former president
All these actions are opposition to the interests of the members of the IMO. They are willing to pay off McNiece (with our money) and get rid of him, then continue on business as usual. Note:
They havent fired him !!?? He is still at "work" in the IMO. The very first action when he demanded a 40 times his salary pension settlement (twice the entire worth of the IMO) told them to sell the buildings, sacrifice the entire organisation for his own personal gain would have been to dismiss him. This would also keep him from being able to cover things up from the inside. Let him sue for dismissal, thats when they could have dug up dirt on him and his actions etc, set a legal basis for potential malfeasance
As jmcdrmd excellent post pointed out: All payments should have been frozen pending an investigation. Long story short: The actions of the IMO to date on this subject have had one theme - payoff McNiece, obfuscate delay and water down the investigation, prevent any inquiry that might dig up other potential scandals. Their actions show clearly that they do not act in members best interests and as such show they cannot be trusted to run the inquiry.
have to agree with this.....the facts of the confidential pension and settlement speak for themselves. I also think it is almost impossible to prove that subscriptions were raised for this purpose, irrespective of the optics.
As a recent member, I would have been happy to pay an extra fund to fight this out in court. The current blind acceptance, on the basis of 'legal advice' really grates0 -
Mc Niece did and the auditors who audited the IMO accounts every year did as well as those involved in negotiation as well as those they discussed it with. At a time of dwindling membership the IMO body consciously chose again and again to keep membership costs high despite it being the second biggest bone of contention the members had with the IMO. Can you please tell me why the membership costs were about a third higher than needed to be all these years?
Will try and reply with what I know from the meetings and documents seen but am not fully conversant with all details obviously
Former CEO obviously knew his salary, auditors should have THOUGH that section in the accounts doesnt break down who got paid what, I would have expected them to ask questions about pension funds and that would relate to his salary
I cant tell you why membership fees are higher than they need to be, as i dont know what figure they need to be at all, that depends on numbers of members in various grades and work plan for the year, plus salaries of employees
I dont have that case document I have the 2009 one, if you have could you post pleaseI was reffering to the case regarding working hours.
Incorrect, when introduced it exempted NCHDs from its effects, IMO committee at time looked at what parts did relate to NCHDs and then used them, hence the introduction of premium pay for Sunday hours for 1st time in 1998The first limitations of working hours in this country came into force with the 1997 Organisation and Working time act. The IMO ignored it.
In addition IMO forced DOHC at time to fund study of working hours to find NCHDs worked 77 hours on average in 1999 when studied over 13 hospitals for a two week periodIt was 13 years before it finally took a case to the high court regarding working hours.
The law only became applicable in 2004 and then on graduated basis so factually your statement is incorrectIn 2010 it secured a ruling that the HSE was in breech of the EWTD. The IMO then made a "deal" with the HSE to ignore it's own victory - effectively allowing them to carry on the status quo to the present day.
Dont have that settlement could you provide, couldnt find onlineWhat piece of work was he working on that was worth 100,000+ euro of our money just to keep him hanging around not working on it ? Was there an open tender for the job or was it old boys club rules ? Who hired him? Who agreed his obscene retainer ? Why is an IMO insider the new interim CEO instead of some-one impartial outside of the organisation ?
I suppose retainer was a bad choice of word if I used it I apologise, from the Croke park meeting I understand his symbio company had been contracted to do a review of internal workings of committees and structures and membership to come up with ways of getting people more engaged, members with imo and committees with members etc
I didnt hear if there was a tender for that or not. As far as I am aware he is not an insider it was mentioned at one of the meetings that when he worked for Irish life he gave advice on pension sets ups for a CEO and apparently the advice he gave was not acted upon.
I would think the people involved in day to day management of IMO want to get a permanent solution to the CEO position and this is a stop gap arrangementElections should have been held for an oversight committee of IMO members themselves who would have set the terms of the investigation ie they would have acted in the interests of the membership. I am not saying that the current body of the IMO is corrupt, I am saying they are too close to the former body members for any impartial evaluation : They will not do anything that will compromise their associates.
I dont agree I think the Council does act in interest and so do the trustees. If you were at the meetings you would have seen the terms of the investigation which go way further than what the SAVE group initially put forward. One of the big Accountancy firms will get this tender in all likelihood and they will have a field day with what they find I have no doubt. From what i heard at the meetings this will be unpalatable but it is not being prevented or sugar coated.
Some did ask in Croke park why bother if this investigation is expected to cost another few hundred thousands and will possibly not result in any recoveries of money-- thus is it worth it. I feel it is then up to membership to decide what to do afterward
Agree with 1st part of sentence but not the second, the time frames were explained at the meetingsThe IMO has been run as an old boys club for years: that is what allowed this lunatic settlement,
Someone mentioned earlier reckless trading, I dont know the ins and outs of what constitutes that BUT the thrust of the point seemed to be he had to go before January 2013
[/QUOTE]
that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:
didnt see that can you reference1: IMO body releases statement praising McNiece
I got an email of settlement, I am a member did you not get this in December2: Does not inform members of settlement - settlement info has to be leaked by people outraged at their actions
See above I got email, also mor detail in the accounts for this year which i have just read3: Belatedly offers token details of settlement - which is still completely opaque, bits are leaked in dribs and drabs and full disclose still not happened4: Convenes a meeting to explain themselves when they realise the peons are upset now that they know when where their money is going
That would seem to be the best way to inform people and offer chance to ask questions
If this was the initial meeting in Mullingar it was an information meeting, there was no motion to vote on5: Refuse to let members vote at the meeting
That is a choice of any member who feels aggrieved at something and gets the 120 signatures, ultimately the Council of IMO called the EGM6: Force members to call EGM on the subject
We will have to wait the outcome of the investigation on that one, I am sure we have not been told the full story on this part yet7: Blame everything on a single decreased former presidentAll these actions are opposition to the interests of the members of the IMO. They are willing to pay off McNiece (with our money) and get rid of him, then continue on business as usual. Note:
They havent fired him !!?? He is still at "work" in the IMO. The very first action when he demanded a 40 times his salary pension settlement (twice the entire worth of the IMO) told them to sell the buildings, sacrifice the entire organisation for his own personal gain would have been to dismiss him. This would also keep him from being able to cover things up from the inside. Let him sue for dismissal, thats when they could have dug up dirt on him and his actions etc, set a legal basis for potential malfeasance
As jmcdrmd excellent post pointed out: All payments should have been frozen pending an investigation. Long story short: The actions of the IMO to date on this subject have had one theme - payoff McNiece, obfuscate delay and water down the investigation, prevent any inquiry that might dig up other potential scandals. Their actions show clearly that they do not act in members best interests and as such show they cannot be trusted to run the inquiry.
My understanding from the meetings again is if he remained an employee his salary would go up further in January 2013
Regarding dismissal I didnt hear that presented as an option, that is an interesting point, I need to see if I can make Killarney to ask that question
Investigation is not being watered down as far as i can see BUT payments are being made, I am not a legal person and dont know on what grounds they could be withheld
The IMO management group are not running the inquiry that will be an external agency such as Price Waterhouse/Coopers etc
Believe me I am frustrated I was around when they had to pay off the previous CEO and I didnt think they would eve let this happen again0 -
Will try and reply with what I know from the meetings and documents seen but am not fully conversant with all details obviously
Former CEO obviously knew his salary, auditors should have THOUGH that section in the accounts doesnt break down who got paid what, I would have expected them to ask questions about pension funds and that would relate to his salary
I cant tell you why membership fees are higher than they need to be, as i dont know what figure they need to be at all, that depends on numbers of members in various grades and work plan for the year, plus salaries of employees
If you are building up funds in the millions while members are leaving due to high fee's then they are too high. End of story. This craziness carried on all the way to this scandal and beyond until mass resignations forced them to lower the fees. They are still too high.
http://www.imt.ie/news/industrial-relations/2010/01/nchd-case-is-settled.htmlI dont have that case document I have the 2009 one, if you have could you post please
This is the case. Not a great report on it, long story short the IMO took the HSE to the high court for breech of the EWTD. The judge ruled in the IMOs favour, the IMO then made a deal whereby the IMO could not take the HSE back to the high court for two years in exchange for ? something ?. Possibly magic beans, im not sure. Our new president said at the last meeting that the agreement was the HSE wouldnt unilaterally renegotiate the contract in exchange for the IMO allowing them to ignore the EWTD for two more years. The details are opaque as our wonderful union does not like to talk about such things, despite the fact they massively effect the working conditions of every NCHD in the country.Incorrect, when introduced it exempted NCHDs from its effects, IMO committee at time looked at what parts did relate to NCHDs and then used them, hence the introduction of premium pay for Sunday hours for 1st time in 1998
In addition IMO forced DOHC at time to fund study of working hours to find NCHDs worked 77 hours on average in 1999 when studied over 13 hospitals for a two week period
The law only became applicable in 2004 and then on graduated basis so factually your statement is incorrect
You're correct there, my original info on that was incorrect. The 1997 act excludes trainee doctors. The 2004 EWTD does not. The Irish government did not negotiate an exemption. It was 6 years they did diddly for, not 13I suppose retainer was a bad choice of word if I used it I apologise, from the Croke park meeting I understand his symbio company had been contracted to do a review of internal workings of committees and structures and membership to come up with ways of getting people more engaged, members with imo and committees with members etc
I didnt hear if there was a tender for that or not. As far as I am aware he is not an insider it was mentioned at one of the meetings that when he worked for Irish life he gave advice on pension sets ups for a CEO and apparently the advice he gave was not acted upon.
Was the work he did worth his retainer ? Was it that essential he had to be paid such a huge amount ? Was reorganising a committee (something that could have been done by an unpaid intern ) so vital to the organisation that he was paid a salary 3x the average industrial wage just in case they needed him again ? Note: he was paid for the work - the 100,000+ was just a sweetener. Did he by any chance point out that having incredibly high fee's while ignoring the horrific working conditions of the rank and file members might have had something to do with the dis-engagement of the members? That throwing crazy money at outside contracters and the ceo was helping alienate people ? I doubt it somehow.
I dont agree I think the Council does act in interest and so do the trustees. If you were at the meetings you would have seen the terms of the investigation which go way further than what the SAVE group initially put forward. One of the big Accountancy firms will get this tender in all likelihood and they will have a field day with what they find I have no doubt. From what i heard at the meetings this will be unpalatable but it is not being prevented or sugar coated.
Some did ask in Croke park why bother if this investigation is expected to cost another few hundred thousands and will possibly not result in any recoveries of money-- thus is it worth it. I feel it is then up to membership to decide what to do afterward
Agree with 1st part of sentence but not the second, the time frames were explained at the meetings
Someone mentioned earlier reckless trading, I dont know the ins and outs of what constitutes that BUT the thrust of the point seemed to be he had to go before January 2013
Wide and shallow is classic obfuscation method. Narrow and deep is the way to get to the rot. I agree, the whole basic of the investigation should be to prevent any of the members money going to that muppet and rooting out those that allowed it to happen.that is what will hinder any investigation. Just look at how it has been handled so far:
didnt see that can you reference
I got an email of settlement, I am a member did you not get this in December
See above I got email, also mor detail in the accounts for this year which i have just read
The time scale goes like this:
IMO puts statement that Mc Niece is retiring on its website, praising his work. That statement is reported to the IMT:
http://www.imt.ie/news/latest-news/2012/12/breaking-news-imo-announces-retirement-plans-for-ceo-george-mcneice.html
The next day the story and details of the settlement are leaked to the Irish Times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-medical-organisation-chief-to-retire-with-1-5m-pension-lump-sum-1.4193
IMO rush into damage control hiring expensive PR firm to spin the settlement (with more of members cash - not reported widely but we even paid to be lead around like fools ). Many people resign from IMO : IMO finally realises the plebs are annoyed. Statement is belatedly released on the subject. Instead of calling an EGM a general purpose meeting is called. It is convened in Mullingar ( because thats apparently where all Irish roads lead and most doctors work ). It goes on for 6 hours, IMO waffle no one is happy, vote is denied as not EGM. Pisssed off GP ( well done sir) forces EGM IMO would never have agreed to otherwise. IMO convenes its own review : Old boys club reviewing the actions of the older boys club.
Full financial disclosure still awaited. It took another leak to the media to find out the IMO financial services wing was also throwing money into McNiece pocket : its accounts desperately need a magnifying glass or two.
It wont happen again. Of course ! You can only take ALL THE MONEY once. This guy took more money this year from the IMO than the presidents of most of western europe combined! The body of the IMO let it happen, they hired spin doctors to cover it up, they fobbed off the membership, now they control the review. Vorsprung was worried that there might be legal action as a result of this. I will offer odds 50/1 no one will ever be legally indited and McNiece will walk away with every cent.
Also I believe yesterday was Mc Nieces last day on the job. On his way out he has demanded a painting from the IMO and that the IMO pay his families private health insurance. I assume he will take the light bulbs too.0 -
That's not necessary. The purpose of financial statements is to inform those who engage with an entity, and especially its owners, of its financial standing. There is strong prima facie evidence that the financial statements of the IMO have been grossly misrepresenting its financial position for some years. In that case the subscriptions have effectively been collected under false pretences. There is no further burden of proof other than the financial statements were grossly misleading. One hopes that the Independent Review would have no difficulty reaching that conclusion.I also think it is almost impossible to prove that subscriptions were raised for this purpose, irrespective of the optics.0 -
Sunday Business Post today
George McNeice chartered private jets on IMO business!!!
He went on courses to Harvard University & trips to Australia, South America and South Africa all on IMO business! Accompanied by senior IMO figures!
This just gets better.......0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Sunday Business Post today
George McNeice chartered private jets on IMO business!!!
He went on courses to Harvard University & trips to Australia, South America and South Africa all on IMO business! Accompanied by senior IMO figures!
This just gets better.......
"Occasional" rather than routine.
That's alright then.
Join the IMO. Engage for change.0 -
-
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/imo-investigating-flights-taken-on-private-planes-by-mcneice-29166133.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-medical-organisation-chartered-private-aircraft-on-three-occasions-1.1344881
"A spokesman for the organisation said the trips and the aircraft charters were financed by “associated companies” and the money did not come from members’ funds." - WHAT ASSOCIATED COMPANIES?? AND HOW DID THESE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES GENERATE INCOME IF NOT FROM MEMBERS' FUNDS?? WAS THE PURPOSE OF THESE COMPANIES TO FUND PRIVATE TRAVEL FOR MCNEICE AND HIS CRONIES??
"Sources said Mr McNeice did not request use of air taxis and that such air taxis were booked by the organisation. "- IF MCNEICE DIDN'T REQUEST OR BOOK THESE 'AIR TAXIS' - WHO IN THE ORGANISATION DID???
AND WHO WERE THE OTHER SENIOR FIGURES THAT AVAILED OF THESE FLIGHTS?0 -
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/imo-investigating-flights-taken-on-private-planes-by-mcneice-29166133.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-medical-organisation-chartered-private-aircraft-on-three-occasions-1.1344881
"A spokesman for the organisation said the trips and the aircraft charters were financed by “associated companies” and the money did not come from members’ funds." - WHAT ASSOCIATED COMPANIES?? AND HOW DID THESE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES GENERATE INCOME IF NOT FROM MEMBERS' FUNDS?? WAS THE PURPOSE OF THESE COMPANIES TO FUND PRIVATE TRAVEL FOR MCNEICE AND HIS CRONIES??
"Sources said Mr McNeice did not request use of air taxis and that such air taxis were booked by the organisation. "- IF MCNEICE DIDN'T REQUEST OR BOOK THESE 'AIR TAXIS' - WHO IN THE ORGANISATION DID???
AND WHO WERE THE OTHER SENIOR FIGURES THAT AVAILED OF THESE FLIGHTS?
Reilly most likely. And saying that he didn't request the use of these taxis specifically doesn't mean he didn't ask the secretary to book them. Using wordplay to tell the truth.0 -
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/imo-investigating-flights-taken-on-private-planes-by-mcneice-29166133.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-medical-organisation-chartered-private-aircraft-on-three-occasions-1.1344881
"A spokesman for the organisation said the trips and the aircraft charters were financed by “associated companies” and the money did not come from members’ funds." - WHAT ASSOCIATED COMPANIES?? AND HOW DID THESE ASSOCIATED COMPANIES GENERATE INCOME IF NOT FROM MEMBERS' FUNDS?? WAS THE PURPOSE OF THESE COMPANIES TO FUND PRIVATE TRAVEL FOR MCNEICE AND HIS CRONIES??
"Sources said Mr McNeice did not request use of air taxis and that such air taxis were booked by the organisation. "- IF MCNEICE DIDN'T REQUEST OR BOOK THESE 'AIR TAXIS' - WHO IN THE ORGANISATION DID???
AND WHO WERE THE OTHER SENIOR FIGURES THAT AVAILED OF THESE FLIGHTS?
It was an air taxi dontchano.
I was a bit puzzled by the "didn't come out of members funds" bit as well.
Where else would it come from.
The euphemisms to describe this stuff are keeping me entertained though.0 -
Presumably the "organisations" (which i guess includes IMOFS) were set up as profit making endeavours, possibly those profits used to fund the air taxis?0
-
Advertisement
-
his_dudeness wrote: »Presumably the "organisations" (which i guess includes IMOFS) were set up as profit making endeavours, possibly those profits used to fund the air taxis?
good way to keep this sort of stuff off the IMO accounts....0 -
So it looks like the IMO allowed it to circulate that the late Dr MacNamara signed Geroge McNeice's contract when it wasn't him at all??
Link to Fergal Bowers on Morning Ireland this morning - go to IMO conference beings in Killarney
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_morningireland.xml
Also article in the Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/pay-deal-of-imo-ex-chief-george-mcneice-was-not-a-secret-1.13480810 -
Am absolutely astonished that Joe Barry did indeed sign-off on McNeice's contract. Being Chairperson of the/a Remuneration Committee of The IMO/any organisation, does not confer carte blanche. There are responsibilities. McKeown claiming the signing was a “procedural matter”, the ramifications of which were not appreciated is a whitewash. Who here would sign those figures? Who here signs documents they don't fully understand, for millions on behalf or thousands of members? Who here takes positions on Remuneration Committees without qualification/appreciation of its implications? Joe Barry has been on numerous committees, this guy is meticulous.
0 -
<snip>
Mod note please post the same reply in one thread only, posting the same reply in multiple threads is spamming and is against boards rules0 -
How Can Fergal Bowers Report on George McNeice in an impartial way when they are drinking buddies, I have seen them drinking together many times in O'Dwyers Pub in Kilmacud.
Typical RTE reporting. not Impartial at all in my opinion.
Is that what we are paying our TV licence fee for ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry - I posted the same post on 2 threads that were discussing Doctor issues and IMO issues.
I'm just questioning the IMO's continued lack of transparency.
The IMO are refusing to reveal Niall Saul, the interim CEO's salary.
More revelations re €75,000 spent on the former CEO's visits to Harvard University, and most worryingly concerns around €2m in state funding given to the IMO for a website mygp.ie
And also questions around bullying in the organisation?
RTE 1 yesterday lunch time
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20183738%3A72%3A07%2D04%2D2013%3A
Today's Independent
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/imo-faces-new-controversy-over-2m-spent-on-failed-website-29180003.html0 -
The HSE want to lift the confidentiality restrictions around the €2.3m given to the IMO for myGP.ie but the IMO are refusing to.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/imo-wont-release-details-of-23m-spend-29185728.html
The IMO must be hiding something.
Members must insist that information is revealed immediately and not be fobbed off with this 'external audit', which will take months.
So much for the new 'open and transparent' IMO.0 -
More lies from the IMO......
Dr Paul McKeown said only 77 people left the IMO since the MacNiece controversy (Independend 24th march) but IMN got their hands on confidential data stating that year to date 623 have left!!! Big difference there! 309 resigned and 323 lapsed their membership.
But it's ok, because the IMO have round up nearly 500 student members to cover this!
How much is student membership - FREE! It's easy to round people up when they don't have to pay the extortionate subs!
http://www.imn.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5236:student-numbers-boost-flagging-imo-membership&catid=61:news&Itemid=280 -
Yesterdays Sunday Business Post
New row erupts at IMO over former boss's pension
02:58, 21 April 2013 by Susan Mitchell
Another row over pensions has erupted at the beleaguered Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), with a former chief executive claiming the organisation did not honour his pension entitlements.
Michael McCann, who left the IMO in 1992, said: "I would greatly prefer to sit down across the table and resolve this internally. But if the IMO does not address my concerns satisfactorily, I will have no option but to go down a different route. That includes the legal route."
McCann, who left the organisation before he was due to retire, said he received a letter in 1996 from his successor, George McNeice, which said there were difficulties with the scheme.
"I accepted it because I understood the IMO had done away with all the schemes due to a funding shortfall. I was prepared to suffer like all the rest, but when I saw the pension my successor had arranged for himself I was enraged," McCann said.
In December, it emerged McNeice had claimed entitlement to a €20 million pension pot.
McNeice left the organisation last December on an overall pension package worth about €9.7 million, which the IMO said was agreed upon to avoid legal action.
McCann said he had written two letters to the IMO after reviewing his own documentation. The IMO received both letters. He said he was extremely frustrated at the way in which his concerns had been dealt with to date.
The IMO said: "Twenty years ago, in 1992, Mr McCann took voluntary redundancy from the IMO on agreed terms. Those terms have been honoured in full by the IMO and no further issues arise."
The revelations about McNeice's pension caused consternation at the doctors' union. Doctors in senior positions at the IMO denied knowing anything about the arrangement.
The IMO Council has promised members a retrospective review into how the organisation was run and into its current governance structures.0 -
Another interesting article - why is Fianna Fail TD Billy Kelleher so interested in the IMO and mygp.ie?
What does he know that we don't??
http://www.imt.ie/news/latest-news/2013/04/call-for-imo-rethink-on-mygp-ie-costs.html
“It is important the public be reassured that this money was spent by the IMO in an appropriate way, that proper procurement procedures were followed in all cases and that there was no conflict of interest in the appointment of suppliers.
“Dr Matthew Sadlier has an important opportunity to demonstrate it is not going to be a case of ‘business as usual’ at the IMO. He should seize that opportunity by lifting the gagging order that was put on the HSE in relation to the mygp.ie investigation immediately and let the public be reassured that the money involved was spent in an appropriate way.”
He doesn't sound convinced that this money was spent in an appropriate way??0 -
Another interesting article - why is Fianna Fail TD Billy Kelleher so interested in the IMO and mygp.ie?
What does he know that we don't??
http://www.imt.ie/news/latest-news/2013/04/call-for-imo-rethink-on-mygp-ie-costs.html
“It is important the public be reassured that this money was spent by the IMO in an appropriate way, that proper procurement procedures were followed in all cases and that there was no conflict of interest in the appointment of suppliers.
“Dr Matthew Sadlier has an important opportunity to demonstrate it is not going to be a case of ‘business as usual’ at the IMO. He should seize that opportunity by lifting the gagging order that was put on the HSE in relation to the mygp.ie investigation immediately and let the public be reassured that the money involved was spent in an appropriate way.”
He doesn't sound convinced that this money was spent in an appropriate way??
Just reading over the weekend that there's a blame game going on between McNeice and the current crowd. Him saying everyone knew what he was getting. They flat out denying it. They continuing to to lay the responsibility with the doctor who passed away a few years ago. And now they effectively trying to say "let's move on"even though what they are trying to stuff under the carpet stinks to high heaven.0 -
take everything wrote: »Just reading over the weekend that there's a blame game going on between McNeice and the current crowd. Him saying everyone knew what he was getting. They flat out denying it. They continuing to to lay the responsibility with the doctor who passed away a few years ago. And now they effectively trying to say "let's move on"even though what they are trying to stuff under the carpet stinks to high heaven.
And worse than avoiding simply stopping the obscene payments which have cleaned out the IMO's bank accounts
- they refuse to disclose the current replacement CEO's salary *still*
- the refuse to disclose how they blew 2.3 million on a website0 -
There are two separate issues here. The money that went on the pension is IMO money and so is a matter for the IMO and its members.
The money that went to mygp.ie was taxpayers money and so is a matter for all of us. How it was spent, who got the contracts and what they did for the money CANNOT be kept a secret. It isn't up to the IMO to decide if they should tell the public about it. It was the HSE who gave them the money. It was the HSE who investigated how the money was spent and so know where it went. It is the HSE who should be telling the us. A public representative should not be asking a private organisation to tell us. He should be asking the HSE and the Minister for Health. If everything was above board why not tell us?0 -
A lot of unions( and officials) seemed to be getting paid by the employers during the celtic tiger era - I wonder was there ever a conflict of interest , being paid by both the employer and the union members??0
-
A lot of unions( and officials) seemed to be getting paid by the employers during the celtic tiger era - I wonder was there ever a conflict of interest , being paid by both the employer and the union members??
Well current policy is to drastically reduce working conditions to encourage doctors to leave the country. The policies were put in place (including the effective bankrupting of the doctors' union by agreeing McNiece's contract and strong stance against pursuing employment contract breaches by "dealing with things on a national level") by the current Minister for Health, when he used to run the doctors' union.
With 20 million in the bank and a union leader committed to basic employment rights, the government would be unable to shut down many hospitals and reduce public service committment in the health services.0 -
Advertisement
-
The IMO received €25k from SIPTU's state funding
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doctors-union-gets-25k-from-siptu-training-fund-29233592.html
But the IMO still refuse to disclose how they spent the €2.3m state funding they received for mygp.ie? As echo beach pointed out, this was taxpayers money and so is a matter for us all.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 11110
The IMO received €25k from SIPTU's state funding
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doctors-union-gets-25k-from-siptu-training-fund-29233592.html
But the IMO still refuse to disclose how they spent the €2.3m state funding they received for mygp.ie? As echo beach pointed out, this was taxpayers money and so is a matter for us all.
No great secret, the money was wasted on a needless and rubbish website back in the day when we all behaved like headless chickens who had endless reserves of cash burning a hole in our pockets.........0 -
No great secret, the money was wasted on a needless and rubbish website back in the day when we all behaved like headless chickens who had endless reserves of cash burning a hole in our pockets.........
The IMO are being very secretive for something that's no great secret! If its as simple as that, why wont the IMO release the information?
In the report about about the SIPTU fund, it says that union officials and public servants went on over 70 foreign trips paid for by the fund. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar went on in the IMO.... private jets etc...0 -
No great secret, the money was wasted on a needless and rubbish website back in the day when we all behaved like headless chickens who had endless reserves of cash burning a hole in our pockets.........
Every euro that is wasted ends up in somebody's pocket, and what I would like to know is whose pocket?
If it was reputable web designers and IT specialists paid at the going rate for their work that is fine and I can accept the money was wasted, but it happened in an honest manner. I waste money every day buying things I don't need or never use but I still know where it went.
If tax payers' money was spent on 'research trips' or ' IT consultants' who didn't actually do any work that is a different matter. If it is no big secret show us the invoices and receipts for the work done. The report has been done and it is being kept secret, or rather 'confidential'. I want to know why a report on the spending of taxpayers' money isn't made public. I would like to see some of the transparency I hear so much about.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 11110
DubDocx and echo beach, i was being a bit of a smart ar*e and sorry.
Fully agree the full details of what this money was spent on should be in th epublic domain.
I recall that site well and it was poor quality, poor design and rarely updated.
How it cost so much I simply do not know!!0 -
Article in yesterday's Business Post - nothing new, but highlights, again, the ludicrous behaviour of the IMO more or less reviewing themselves - more 'jobs for the boys' and continued failure to disclose CEO's salary - have they learnt anything?
Senior IMO figure co-owns firm reviewing doctors' union review carried out by firm co-owned by senior IMO figure
02:58, 16 June 2013 by Susan Mitchell
The internal review into the beleaguered Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) is being carried out by an organisation co-owned by the IMO's interim executive director, Niall Saul.
The IMO declined to say how much it was paying the firm, called Symbio Business Solutions, which has already carried out considerable consultancy work for the IMO.
The doctors' union hit the headlines after it emerged that its former chief executive, George McNeice, left the organisation with a €9.7 million severance package in December 2012. The revelation outraged many IMO members.
Saul, who sits on the executive committee, has worked on a consultancy basis for the IMO for more than a decade.
He is a shareholder and executive chairman of Symbio Business Solutions, which describes itself as a firm involved in management and human-resources consultancy. The IMO has refused to disclose how much it is paying Saul for his role as interim executive at the union at present, despite the furore over McNeice's pension and salary.
McNeice was earning almost €500,000 a year before he left.
A spokesman for the IMO said that the organisation was evaluating completed tenders for a separate retrospective review from the review being carried out by Symbio.
The spokesman added that the number of companies expressing an interest was "in double figures".
In a statement, the IMO said the corporate governance review being carried out by Symbio had begun late last year.
"The EGM, earlier this year, agreed that the review already begun by Symbio should continue on and a review committee be appointed to review and amend/extend the scope of the review if deemed necessary," it said.
Following the revelation about McNeice's salary, more than 120 members tried to convene an emergency general meeting (EGM), but were prevented from doing so by senior figures in the organisation.
Doctors leading the drive for an EGM proposed that an interim chief executive, who had no previous connection with the IMO, be appointed.
More than 300 members resigned in the first three months of the year, and a further 300 let their membership lapse, according to a recent report in the Irish Medical News.
However, membership figures have been boosted by a large increase in the number of non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) joining.0 -
Read that yesterday as well.
LMAO.0 -
take everything wrote: »Read that yesterday as well.
LMAO.
LMAO is exactly what i didnt do. this is the same group who agreed to the new cuts in pay on the basis that the government 'agree' to 'discuss' measures to retain staff. now that is LMAO territory0 -
"THE Revenue Commissioners have launched an inquiry into the Irish Medical Organisation, amid growing controversy over its financial affairs." - who can blame them!
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revenue-audits-doctors-union-over-tax-affairs-29365595.html
Why are the IMO still refusing to lift the confidentiality clause around €2.3m of TAXPAYERS funds? How can they do that?
"The new president of the IMO, Dr Matt Sadlier, promised greater transparency in the organisation." - yeah right Dr Sadlier!0 -
Advertisement
-
Just read in today's Sunday's Business Post that the IMO are not progressing with the external review of this scandal.
They've "parked" it citing financial reasons.
Jesus wept.0
Advertisement