FÁS Executive Expenses & Payoffs

Irish Independent

Quote:

---

FAS spent almost €643,000 on travel to the US for Rody Molloy his wife, key executives and FAS guests in just four years.

The vast majority of the cost was for business class flights for the top brass. Club Travel was paid a total of $229,957 for flights to the US between 2003 to 2007. Donnybrook Travel was paid €176,318 over the same period, with Regency Travel billing for €236,138.

Greg Craig had a visa card, paid by FAS, with a credit limit of a staggering €76,000.

---

The last expense needed.

http://yellowj.files.wordpress.com/2.../kick-butt.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Irish Independent

---

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=1064614&postcount=171

Quote:

---

Greg Craig had a visa card, paid by FAS, with a credit limit of a staggering €76,000.

---

Went to school with Greg and knocked around with him for a few years after leaving.

He got involved in politics and was IIRC seconded to Dublin Corporation, as it was then in 1982/83, as a FF Councillor

Can't beat a good Ballyfermot education all the same:D

RTE News

Quote:

---

Mr Molloy said FÁS does have a very serious checking process for expenses and that people only get what they are entitled to.

---

I presume this means lavish entertainment is standard practice. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

He also defended taking his wife on some trips, saying she accompanied him when it was appropriate.

He said he was entitled to travel first class but traded down to business class when his wife travelled with him.

---

No accountable company would send wives on business class seats.

Quote:

---

Fianna Fáil Senator Labhrás O'Murchú said that while the expenses at FÁS should be dealt with in a professional manner, any investigation should not be allowed to distract from the 'wonderful' work the agency was doing.

---

Classic muddy the waters tactic. As if the top management ripping off the state on expenses has anything to do with the rest of the organisation.

Interestingly there are 4 Trade union & 4 IBEC reps on the board. No wonder they have been so quiet. In any accountable organisation anyone approving such expenses would be kick out the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I presume this means lavish entertainment is standard practice.

---

Yeah, that's right the whole way down :rolleyes: Sure the normal public servant has strict expenses - our place cuts me for a mile each trip as they won't count the mile I live outside the village. Ministers and TD's have the best Travel & Subsistence out of anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Classic muddy the waters tactic. As if the top management ripping off the state on expenses has anything to do with the rest of the organisation.

---

But it is being used to add in to the general bashing of the whole Public Service. As I'm sitting here typing I'm listening to them making out that the NASA trips and the procurement issues around advertising show this type of stuff is widespread in FAS - they both relate to the same section within the same division!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Interestingly there are 4 Trade union & 4 IBEC reps on the board. No wonder they have been so quiet. In any accountable organisation anyone approving such expenses would be kick out the door.

---

Sure why would they in the type of climate that the leader of the country nominates people to state boards because they're his friends (not because they gave him money, honest), and the type of climate that allows one of those said friends stay as chairman of a state company when liquidators are applying that he be barred from holding directorships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Interestingly there are 4 Trade union & 4 IBEC reps on the board. No wonder they have been so quiet. In any accountable organisation anyone approving such expenses would be kick out the door.

---

David Begg was on Q&A on Monday night and Jack O'Connor was on Vincent Brown last night - I was appalled by the performance of both - they fudged and refused to condemn anything that went on there. Probably because the 3rd of the trinity, Peter McLoone, was on one of the trips.
It made me realise that the unions' membership is probably* predominantly from the public sector now, so they were only standing up for their constituency (albeit in a very misguided way, imo).
It made me wonder how they now link with Labour Party after years of cosying up to Bertie. (Macy, interested in your views here as you would appear to know more about the public sector, unions and the Labour Party than me.)

I've worked in some companies that were very extravagent when it came to expenses and only the very, very top brass flew first class; none of these "expenses" would have been allowable.

Finally, this will be a good test of the Keenan and Buckley reports - the ones that gave massive pay hikes to top public servants because that's what they could get in the private sector; will Rody get a 250k pa job in the private sector?

* I wonder what the stats are, public vs private union membership

I used to work in the civil service, and one of the sections I worked in specifically dealt with expense accounts for overseas visits etc. There's absolutely no way the FAS guy would've got away with anything in the civil service. Breakfast isn't allowed in hotel stays, never mind PPV films. And that goes right to ministerial level.

Scandalous abuse of money. And as usual, its front line public servants who will feel the brunt of any media driven "backlash" despite the overwhelming majority of them not receiving expenses of any kind

As far as I understand it it depends on where you have to travel to with the Civil Service, you get x amount depending on what city/country and if you go over that its at your own expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

David Begg was on Q&A on Monday night and Jack O'Connor was on Vincent Brown last night - I was appalled by the performance of both - they fudged and refused to condemn anything that went on there. Probably because the 3rd of the trinity, Peter McLoone, was on one of the trips.

---

I don't watch Q&A as Bowman can't be arsed to chair it properly anymore, but saw O'Connor on Brawn last night. My read was that he wouldn't say much until he saw all the evidence, which is fair enough imo. The DG of FAS resigning probably took the sting out of it. He was right to argue that it shouldn't be taken as the general carry on throughout the public service - it might be at the top, but it certainly doesn't filter down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

It made me realise that the unions' membership is probably* predominantly from the public sector now, so they were only standing up for their constituency (albeit in a very misguided way, imo).

* I wonder what the stats are, public vs private union membership

---

Density is certainly higher in the public sector, but afaik there's still more members in the Private sector than Public. In my own union, SIPTU, that is certainly the case (and they've certainly done their public service members no favours with the recent wage agreements - concessions have been by the Public Sector members for the Private Sector members working rights).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

It made me wonder how they now link with Labour Party after years of cosying up to Bertie. (Macy, interested in your views here as you would appear to know more about the public sector, unions and the Labour Party than me.)

---

I think I've said it here before many times, the link between Labour and the Trade Unions is over played (unfortunately). Both sides are guilty. The Unions have cosied up to FF through the national wage agreements which have propped up those Governments. Labour have moved more towards the centre away from their roots. IMO both the Unions and Labour need to get back to their roots politically.

The financial connection is over played by the right too - it's around €60k a year out of €2million the Labour Party raises, and the political fund contribution in SIPTU is 63 cent per annum per member (and is very easy to opt out of).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

I've worked in some companies that were very extravagent when it came to expenses and only the very, very top brass flew first class; none of these "expenses" would have been allowable.

---

I don't know about that - I know people in the Private Sector who are (or were) regularly taken on jollies on the company.

Quote:

---

I don't know about that - I know people in the Private Sector who are (or were) regularly taken on jollies on the company.

---

So do I. Indeed I have been that camper. But companies have very strict rules about what is allowed and what is not allowed. PPV movies (except if someone is on a long-term secondment), nailbars, hairdos would never be allowed (indeed revenue will audit expenses with a toothcomb if they think BIK fraud is going on). Fewer and fewer companies allow First Class for even their top execs anymore (I've never been in First Class but there's a world of difference between First and Business, and Business is already very luxurious and ridiculously priced),

Quote:

---

As far as I understand it it depends on where you have to travel to with the Civil Service, you get x amount depending on what city/country and if you go over that its at your own expense.

---

Basically, but flights and hotels would be separate, and absolutely no hotel extras would be covered. As I said, even breakfast isn't covered. If breakfast is included in the room rate, 10% of rate is paid for by staff. There are strict ceilings on the maximum amount allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

Fewer and fewer companies allow First Class for even their top execs anymore (I've never been in First Class but there's a world of difference between First and Business, and Business is already very luxurious and ridiculously priced),

---

I would suspect it isn't common in FAS either. It appears to me to be the one basket case section. The issues over procurement of advertising and advertising agencies, and the NASA project all appear to be the same section when you actually look at the details.

My wife who is a public servant drove (for personal reasons) to Galway for a meeting , did her mileage calculation but it was such a large amount (can't remember offhand, but around €350 I think) she decided it wasnt right and just submitted for the price of a return train ticket. Also, the higher cc her car the higher mileage rate she gets.

But for foreign travel what Dodge and Centre-mid say is afaik correct for her - the rates and rules are very clear.

Civil service mileage rates

I'd presume public servants the same (or very similar)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'd presume public servants the same (or very similar)

---

Public Servants Travel & Subsistence rates and regulations are the same, as per Department of Finance circulars.

As for the mileage (or should that be kilometerage?) it's supposed to include wear and tear as well as fuel. If there is a public transport option you're supposed to use it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I presume this means lavish entertainment is standard practice.

---

I was talking about FAS Executives. Not meant as spur on FAS or the public/civil service. The guy in question felt yesterday he had not done anything wrong (i.e. charging lavish entertainment was ok) so by that logic he has been charging & approving those expenses for years.

IMO the flights & accommodation is a different issue if someone traveling on legitimate business. Business class fares might be justifiable depending on options & flexable fares. The charging of first class flights was completely unjustifiable as is charging business class fare for wife. Then again he was a politician so I am sure he saw this as standard practice.

As they say business class is for people someone else is paying for & first class is for people who pay for themselves. I believe first class is almost unheard of business travel unless upgraded.

Seems to me looking from the outside that big different between civil service regulation & other state bodies. Seems some state bodies given a budget & no accountability of the top management. Controller & Auditor General report on Bord na Gon found fraud in maintenance contracts from years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Seems to me looking from the outside that big different between civil service regulation & other state bodies. Seems some state bodies given a budget & no accountability of the top management. Controller & Auditor General report on Bord na Gon found fraud in maintenance contracts from years ago.

---

The Regulations are generally the same. Only probably difference is the Minister would sign directly a Sec Generals expenses I assume, whereas in a semi-state it would be the Minister appointed chairman/ board. The board of these organisations are tired directly to the Minister - the last chairman of FAS was married to the Minister responsible Enterprise, Trade & Employment who are the FAS parent department (incidentally the company in which he is now involved represents both HIQA & various private health companies, whilst she's over the Department of Health).

Molloys P Flynn moment in the Pat Kenny Interview

Quote:

---

When the issue of spouses' flights being paid for by Fás was raised with Molloy by Kenny on Tuesday, the public service executive responded: "It wasn't first-class travel, it was business-class travel. Yes, it is hellishly expensive, but any time that a spouse travelled it was because there was reason for a spouse to travel to do with the activities that were involved. One that comes to my mind . . . an [event] that involved President McAleese and her husband . . . I mean listen, all I can say to you on that is that when a spouse travels in Fás they do so at no additional expense to the organisation unless there is a very specific reason for it. There are occasions when it is appropriate. In my own case when my spouse would be with me . . . any time she has been with me there was no additional expense to Fás because I traded down my travel entitlement to allow her to travel . . . so it comes in at less expense to the organisation."

"I'm entitled to travel first class," Molloy said. Asked to confirm that he had traded down his first-class ticket for two business-class tickets, he responded: "In one instance that's what happened, yeah."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

"I'm entitled to travel first class," Molloy said. Asked to confirm that he had traded down his first-class ticket for two business-class tickets, he responded: "In one instance that's what happened, yeah."

---

I've done that too.

Back in the days when I was a public servant I was being sent to Paris on work related business. It was over a weekend which also included St Patrick's Day.

I was booked business class on Aer Lingus and when the tickets arrived I trotted the short distance up O'Connell St to the AL offices and changed them for two "normal seats".

The company also received a small rebate as the cost of the two standard tickets was less than one business class.

AFAIK, it's a regular practice both in public and private industry.

Whatever about downgrading to bring a partner and still saving money (against the rules of most private companies now for insurance reasons) travelling First Class is ridiculous.

Business Class is comfortable enough to arrive at your destination well rested.

While I concur with ORA, if the contract allows the employee to travel via first class (as in to say that it is a visible perk of the job) then I don't take issue with that individual downgrading to enable a second person to travel if the overall cost is less or equal to the amount they would be entitled to under their contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soccerc

AFAIK, it's a regular practice both in public and private industry.

---

I think the practice would be to downgrade a business class seat to two economy seats. Very few businesses pay for first class seats & certainly not a state company whose primary remit is to train unemployed people.

When they played the golf and went to the health spa does anyone know if they were only there themselves or were they entertaining their contacts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

a state company whose primary remit is to train unemployed people.

---

Training for the unemployed is only part of their remit.

If Mary Harney spent even some of the $400 on beauty treatment she should ask for her money back :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

While I concur with ORA, if the contract allows the employee to travel via first class (as in to say that it is a visible perk of the job) then I don't take issue with that individual downgrading to enable a second person to travel if the overall cost is less or equal to the amount they would be entitled to under their contract.

---

Two points:
1) No airlines that fly from Ireland offer First Class (that I'm aware of anyway)
2) He was the Head of FAS and was ultimately responsible for the travel policy and permitting First Class travel is inappropriate when the vast majority of companies in Ireland don't permit it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newryrep

If Mary Harney spent even some of the $400 on beauty treatment she should ask for her money back :)

---

It was actually only $200, but she needed two chairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newryrep

If Mary Harney spent even some of the $400 on beauty treatment she should ask for her money back :)

---

Indeed :D (Are we sure it wasn't her lunch bill ?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

He was the Head of FAS and was ultimately responsible for the travel policy and permitting First Class travel is inappropriate when the vast majority of companies in Ireland don't permit it

---

TheI think we're arguing over a very small point. If, when he was hired to the position, he was told he would have the powers to set such a policy then surely his implementing such a policy would enable him to downgrade for two lower priced business class seats.

The point may well be moot if you're right about there being no first class seats out of Ireland, I genuinely haven't a clue in that regard, but the real issue I'm trying to get to is whether this was misuse of power, abuse of power, or over reactions. I would lean towards the first of those options largely.

This looks one of those slow burner stories as more info is drip feed. Will be interesting to see Molloy comes to the PAC without court order.

Apparently FAS cancelled the first class seats as they got "a lift" on the government jet. Of course these were fully refundable tickets whch they received a rebate or credit not but apparently they still showing as an expense on the FAS accounts. Where did the 40k refund go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Whatever about downgrading to bring a partner and still saving money (against the rules of most private companies now for insurance reasons) travelling First Class is ridiculous.

Business Class is comfortable enough to arrive at your destination well rested.

---

sweet mother!!!if business class was good enough for him when he was with his wife,why did he not travel this class all the time....according to todays paper's a new toyota has now gone missing..they should try under the compost heap in fas....heard it huge from all the flowers they bought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzer

a new toyota has now gone missing..

---

Was it blue?

Last seen outside Vicar Street :D

Molloy at PAC

Quote:

---

Former Fás director general Rody Molloy has apologised to the Dáil Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for failing to appear before it last week, saying "no disrespect was intended".

Mr Molloy, who stepped down last week after revelations that Fás officials spent €643,000 over four years on transatlantic travel, is due to answer questions about expenditure at the state agency.

PAC chairman Bernard Allen last week attacked Mr Molloy for failing to appear before the inquiry, claiming it was unacceptable for highly paid public servants to think they could "ride away into the sunset".

Mr Molloy apologised today, explaining that he had fail to show up because he had resigned and was no longer accounting officer at Fás. He added that he believed he had not been invited to attend.

Mr Molloy said he knew his position at Fás was untenable after his "ill-judged" interview with RTÉ's Pat Kenny in which he defended spending by Fás executives and being "entitled" to first class travel to the US.

The following days were "traumatic" and his home was "besieged" by certain elements of the media, he said today.

---

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress...est-violin.jpg

FAS spent 100k on Croke Park entertainment

Quote:

---

FÁS SPENT in excess of €100,000 on matches, concerts and associated entertainment in Croke Park over the past two years.

The State training authority spent in excess of €40,000 on four 10-year premium seat tickets at the stadium that give access to all GAA matches up to and including All-Ireland finals.

At a hearing of the Dáil Public Accounts Committee on December 4th, Mr Molloy said assistant director general Christy Cooney had no role in the decision to move the event to Croke Park.

"I make it clear that the decision to move to Croke Park from the RDS did not involve Mr Cooney," he said. "It was a decision that I took, or I initiated the change."

Mr Cooney is president elect of the GAA, having won the vote on the position earlier this year.

---

I would there is more to follow on this as clearly lavish spending not just for foreign trips.

Apparently FAS moving the job fair was nothing to do with FAS senior executive Christy Cooney being a senior GAA official and running for President. It was because....wait for it...concerns that the Merrion Rd outside the RDS was too dangerous for job fair attendees to cross.

Priceless.

Any sign of that missing Toyota?

Apparently those FAS Job Fairs at Croke the single biggest expense on FAS books.

The FAS Annual 2 Day Board Meeting (as distinct from the monthly Meeting) was held at Mount Juliet

Quote:

---

Despite two separate ongoing Garda investigations into the irregular use of Fás funds and a complete investigation of all spending ordered by enterprise minister Mary Coughlan, the Fás board chose the four-star estate to host what it said was an "ordinary board meeting and annual strategic review".

Rooms in Mount Juliet cost over €400 a night.

Meanwhile, Fás confirmed that its director of corporate affairs, Greg Craig, whose handling of a €10m advertising and PR budget sparked the first investigation into Fás spending, is still on sick leave.

---

Do the FAS Board think their remit is support sports bodies throughout the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Apparently FAS moving the job fair was nothing to do with FAS senior executive Christy Cooney being a senior GAA official and running for President. It was because....wait for it...concerns that the Merrion Rd outside the RDS was too dangerous for job fair attendees to cross.

Priceless.

Any sign of that missing Toyota?

---

They also moved the Cork fair from the city centre to a suburban GAA club. Dangerous roads in Cork too. :confused:

It took the Brit paper the Mail to go after the GAA angle to the story, which they did several weeks ago. The GAA are the last great untouchable in Ireland - the Irish media are scared to say boo to them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

They also moved the Cork fair from the city centre to a suburban GAA club. Dangerous roads in Cork too. :confused:

---

Nemo Rangers supposed to have very good facilities but not exactly the most accessible location. In Dublin terms it would be like having in Tolka Park.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0219/fas.pdf

Anybody wondering why the this country has a chaotic banana republic approach to corporate governance need look no further that the Public Accounts Committee Report on FAS, issued today.


Firstly, the PAC is restricted from "...the direct attribution of personal blame.." arising from a Supreme Court decision concerning events at Abbeylara. I presume this statement is true but why any responsible government would allow this restriction to remain in place for over 7 years is stunning. This is either complete governmment ineptitude or a complete lack of interest in creating an accountability based system


Secondly, the 5 findings in the executive summary are damning and as they are written in legal friendly "corporate speak" presumably mask the true findings. Maddeningly, the PAC go on to say that "..the key accountability issues are to establish...weaknesses in systems....". This is a cop out - individuals allowed this to happen - individuals wasted money - individuals failed in their jobs and in their duties and hiding behind "system weaknesses" allows those individuals to evade true accountability.

Let's call a spade a spade - people in FAS were cavalier with public money at best - there may be fraud and other illegality


Thirdly, the PAC's first recommendation is that "All staff involved in procurement...should be familiar with the risks that arise when...guidelines are ignored". No; - staff involved in procurement should be aware that there are serious personal individual consequences for treating public money with the contempt hinted by this report. The substantive other recommendation is that the Comptroller and Auditor Generals Office should investigate the area of foreign travel - so what precisely was the PAC doing ?

Pathetic cop out - the constant focus on systems and procedures again is deliberate becasue they do not have the cojones to say "Mick was derelict in his duty" (notwithstanding the legal issue above)

This creation of multiple layers of review, audit, waiting for Mick or Joe to report is deliberate - it is why the tribunals take so long i.e. after the next election - it is why the stardust families only hear an answer 25 years after the tragedy - I don't care if Cowen knows the 10 Anglo names, I am sure he does but I care about the fact that he and successive governments do not care about creating an accountability based body politic.


Finally, there is a tantalising statement in Appendix 3 - apparently "The Chairman received an anonymous letter from the office of the Minister for Enterprise...in October 2004" Why the Minister for Enterprise is sending anybody anonymous letters, let alone making it clear that they have been sent from his office remains unanswered.

Corruption will always be with us, it always has and it always will - but what we desperately need is a zero tolerance attitude to this stuff - create a robust set of legislative provisions and ruthlessy go after people who are cavalier and who treat your money with distain.

Charlatans - total charlatans