General

By Michael Smith and Ruadhán Mac Eoin The heroic but failed champion of Tara is leading the campaign against a motorway near Newgrange Vincent Salafia is back with a “Save Newgrange” campaign. A man with a panache for publicity, the populace associates the 43-year old with the Tara/ M3 and Carrickmines Castle campaigns. Now he is to address plans for a Slane bypass within a half kilometre of the boundaries of the World Heritage Site at Newgrange. Given the history of 22 road fatalities in Slane – caused primarily by articulated lorries – there are good reasons why Slane’s residents want trucks to bypass their town. The NRA’s costly plan effectively delivers a motorway parallel to the M1, at one point only four miles distant, while causing significant environmental impacts once again in the Boyne Valley, making this the third motorway in the valley. It cuts between Slane and the Brú na Bóinne complex of Knowth, Dowth – and closest of all to Newgrange, Ireland’s most famous pre-historic site. There appear to be serious questions about Salafia’s suitability to front this campaign. He has a history of falling out with campaigns over the years. As far back as 2004 Phoenix Magazine commented that he “seems to foment trouble in his own camp wherever he gets involved”. It also noted that in 2003 “Salafia was accused by then An Taisce press spokesman, [Ruadhán] Mac Eoin (one of the co-authors of this piece), of censoring An Taisce press releases from the Carrickminescastle.org discussion forum, of which Salafia was the moderator”. Endless self-referential and often abusive emails were exchanged between assorted environmentalists pleading with Salafia to co-operate with mainstream heritage groups, and Salafia and a small group of his cohorts. Salafia, for example, was accused of subverting an attempted alliance called the Friends of Carrickmines. Now in 2010, Salafia has another campaign. Once again cyberspace reverberates with personalised environmental vituperation and Salafia is being accused afresh of censorship, removing comments and distorting information. Meanwhile Salafia himself has just issued a press release, implicating others in cyber-attacks, stating “a complaint has been filed with the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation’s Computer Crime Investigation Unit, and Facebook Ireland, on behalf of the Save Newgrange campaign, alleging harassment, intimidation and cyber-stalking by the Bypass Slane Campaign”. It also complains “there has been a coordinated smear campaign against the Save Newgrange group” and that “attacks are increasing in intensity and malice”, before calling for “an investigation into the conspiracy, including links to the Fianna Fail party”. Salafia for his part says that, “the website is for supporters of the campaign only…we directed people to go to Boards [website boards.ie] and have those discussions” and that it is not a discussion forum. As far back as 2001, the Sunday Business Post had carried a report titled “Hacker destroys Brehon Law research website”, detailing how Salafia had made a complaint to the Garda computer crime division that his website had mysteriously been attacked. How then does this heritage hero get so enmired in bitterness and fractiousness, having apparently split or been ejected from four high-profile environmental campaigns – “Carrickminders”, “Save Tara Skryne Valley”, “Campaign to Save Tara”, and most recently, “Shell 2 Sea”? He told Village “the thing is, in every single campaign in Ireland, there are always disputes: that’s just the nature of campaigns. It was the nature of the revolution in this country”. Vincent Salafia first came to prominence in September 2002, as an occupation began at the Carrickmines Castle archaeological complex in county Dublin. At this stage Salafia was intermittently using the name “Michael O’Toole” (his birth name; he also passes as Ó Tuathal). At the outset of the Carrickmines campaign, Salafia had bravely indicated he would be the plaintiff in the proposed High Court action. He indicated he was a lawyer. Yet ultimately these cases were taken by fellow heritage activists Dominic Dunne and Gordon Lucas – with a subsequent case taken by Michael Mulcreevy. While he had legal training in Florida, Village understands that although he applied many years ago to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, he has yet to gain full qualification. Very early on at Carrickmines differences emerged between the campaigners. Around this time the first of multiple reports emerge of Salafia leaving behind debts, particularly to well-meaning environmentalists for rent. An unconscionable inability to work with others was gaining traction and there was a strong element of fractiousness in his relations with his fellow campaigners, with the proceeds from a benefit gig providing a source of acrimony here; a borrowed generator going missing there; and unapproved statements proving divisive thither. According to Phoenix Magazine in 2004, Salafia was “booted out as a spokesman by the rest of the Carrickminders after several solo runs to the media”. In December 2003, while court action was underway, a press advisory was issued by Carrickmines plaintiff Dominic Dunne and others, stating Salafia “had no consent to either act on our behalf or imply any approval to do the same”. It also claimed “certain statements by him [Salafia] alluding to speak on behalf of others have been unreliable and misinformed”. Three years later in 2006, in the last of the three Carrickmines court cases, Salafia was once again turning up outside the Supreme Court, briefing the media. Once again a contradictory advisory was issued by Dominic Dunne. Salafia told Village that Carrickminders voted “democratically” for his continued involvement in the campaign, but others dispute this. One of the more remarkable rows regarding Salafia took place in May 2004, involving the “Save the Tara-Skreen Valley Campaign”. Again campaigners issued a “please do not publish” press advisory, stating Salafia did not have either “consent or authority” to make press statements on behalf of the campaign or its individual members. As was reported in Phoenix, any committee members who voted for such action “got a solicitor’s letters from Salafia”. As at Carrickmines, Salafia had held himself out as the litigant for a legal action – while also

Many Irish are hypocritical, intolerant, and ignorant, especially about social welfare

Public-sector alternatives to the infrastructure market and Public Private Partnerships in Ireland, the US and worldwide Dexter Whitfield In my book, Global Auction of Public Assets I examine Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)  in Ireland and 11 other countries.  The continuing fiscal crisis and flood damage could see the government further expand the role of PPPs.  However, this will only compound the negative impact of this flawed model of infrastructure investment.  Public infrastructure in the 21st century is confronted with new challenges: climate change, the economic, energy, water and transportation needs of megacities in Asia, megaregions in North America, European city regions, and older industrial areas.  Yet Public Private Partnerships and the global infrastructure market, financed by investment and pension funds, are fuelling a new era of public asset sales.  The key findings of this first critical, global analysis of these developments are: 1. Public Private Partnerships are not an alternative to public investment, nor do they reduce public debt. Ultimately, PPPs are entirely financed by government and/or user charges, fares and tolls – private debt ratcheted up in PPPs is in practice public debt embodied in long-term contractual obligations which must be paid off through public sector revenue accounts.  There is no quick fix or a cheap, low tax solution.  Despite these structural flaws, PPPs continue to be embedded in the public sector. 2. Public Private Partnerships have similar structural flaws to the causes of the current global financial crisis. Public Private Partnerships are designed with special purpose companies, off-balance sheet accounting, limited accountability and transparency, securitisation, outsourcing and offshoring, secondary market refinancing and shrouded in commercial confidentiality – precisely the policies and practices that led to the global crisis. 3. There is a new threat of privatisation and asset monetization as governments and cities confront continuing needs with plummeting resources. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and several states plan to sell off existing assets; Russia and Poland have recently announced privatisation plans; whilst in Britain new PPP models are being developed. 4. A global infrastructure market has emerged, fuelled by pension funds, mutual funds and insurance company investment, which account for 82% of global investment assets. However, new power brokers such as sovereign wealth funds and private equity funds are powerful investors in the global economy and have a key role in the acquisition of infrastructure assets. 5. Schools, hospitals, roads and prisons are being traded as commodities. Britain has the most developed PPP market that now has a secondary market in which share equity in PPP projects is bought and sold.  Several hundred PPP projects, with a total value of £2.8bn, have been sold to new investors in the last decade.  65 PPP projects alone were sold at a profit of £257m.  Several secondary market funds, established to own and operate PPP projects, have been sold to other companies.  Some PPP projects are now operated from offshore tax havens. 6. There are many failed Public Private Partnerships and privatisation projects. Globally, nearly 1,000 PPP projects, valued at over US$500bn, have been terminated or radically reduced.  This includes 58 water projects, many covering entire regions and countries.  Many other projects never got off the drawing board, and were abandoned.  The claim that infrastructure PPPs can be ‘pro-poor’ by achieving significant political and economic change is unfounded. 7. Democracy and accountability are undermined. Most PPP projects have little democratic control or transparency.  They are costly, poor value and lack innovation. 8. Value for money methods are contrived and flawed. The evaluation of PPP projects through Public Sector Comparator or value for money assessments is contrived and fundamentally flawed because of the narrow scope of the criteria and the failure to compare like with like. 9. PPPs and privatisation frequently result in job losses, cuts in terms and conditions including pensions and more fragmented trade union organisation. 10. Reform of the Public Private Partnerships model will achieve little. Powerful vested interests, including banks, construction companies, lawyers and consultants, will ensure any re-assessment will be focused on the minutiae of PPP finance and risk transfer.  They have no intention of challenging the model, preferring to massage contractual matters to ensure the flow of deals continues. 11. New public investment priorities are needed. I propose radical changes in global financial markets, abandonment of PPPs, new controls on existing PPPs, new public sector contracts, and public management reform. 12. Stronger and broader alliances between civic, community and trade union organisations need to be built, with blueprints and alternative plans to detail infrastructure needs and strategic intervention in the planning and procurement process. Public infrastructure supports economic development, increases productivity, generates employment, creates opportunities for production and supply chains in construction, manufacturing, services, and improves community well-being.  It meets basic human needs – homes, water, energy, transport, hospitals, schools, sports and cultural facilities, communications networks, courts, prisons, civic and governmental buildings. Dexter Whitfield is Director of European Services Strategy Unit and Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide.

Shoddy governance, low staff morale and a rash of inexplicable resignations at the Red Cross mean it’s time for a change. by Michael Smith The venerable irish Red Cross (IRC) is controlled by four or five people who serve on what is called the Executive Committee (EC) – a governance structure comprising only volunteers.  The professionally-paid staff, including the Secretary General, who is essentially an administrative officer for the EC, have little real autonomy.  As a result, sources have told Village, the IRC, like many other NGOs, is controlled by people who are not full time professionals and this is reflected in many aspects of the organisation’s operations. Remarkably however, there is no maximum term of office for those who serve on the EC, so members can in effect serve for life. Furthermore, 14 members of the IRC central council to which the EC reports are appointed by the Minister for Defence. Currently, the members who control the IRC have served between 12 and 20 years each without a break, on the EC. Sources told Village that their ongoing presence and control have seriously prejudiced the professionalisation, growth, and development of the organisation.  A significant outstanding question is why the government knowingly appointed respected Fianna Fáil grandee, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, David Andrews, to a fourth consecutive 3-year term as Chairman in April this year, bringing his total tenure to 12 years in 2012, something which flies in the face of good governance.  The Minister for Defence, Willie O’Dea, says that “the general view, except for one or two people, is that he has been a very good chairman”. But it does seem that the reappointments owe something to simple political patronage for an eminent member of the well-got Andrews family.  A Chairman serving for 12 years cannot legitimately oversee a governance reform process where the biggest issue may be getting long-serving members and, in particular, officers, to step aside. This last imperative was directly acknowledged in a report commissioned by the IRC from Tom Finlay, a consultant.  Non-rotation is also contrary to best practice recommendations of the International Federation of the Red Cross of which the Irish branch is a component. The EC members who control the organisation are predominantly interested in one aspect of IRC work, namely ambulances and first aid, to the detriment of activities characteristic of the IRC in other jurisdictions.  The Vice-Chairman, Tony Lawlor, and Des Kavanagh, former Treasurer for 15 years (still an EC member), are seen, Village was told, as conservatives. They have continually been very “hands-on” in the day-to-day management and decision-making, up to and including staff hiring, staff firing and in particular, the selection of major suppliers. According to Brian O’Shea, TD, speaking in the Dáil, five Secretaries General in a row have been dismissed, although the reasons given have tended to relate to ‘family’, ‘better opportunities’ etc. and the IRC strongly denies they were pushed.  All of these Secretaries General have, in their own way, eventually challenged the key EC members and looked to reform governance in the run up to their acrimonious departures.  In the case of the last resignation in May 2007, a letter from eighteen staff, which has been seen by Village, describes the manner of the departure as “shocking, despicable and an utter disgrace”.  Typically, according to sources in the IRC, the EC endorses the reform up to the point where a plan is to be put in place and then pressure mounts to pull punches, including over the issue of the lengthy tenure of EC members themselves. Then there is vigorous opposition to term limits on EC membership.  Next, the Secretary General moves on and a new process begins.  The public always loses interest once the Sisyphean reform process gets underway again. Currently, we are 15 months into a reform process and a report is due in November. The current Secretary General, John Roycroft, is said to be a capable and intelligent, if cautious, career civil servant on a three-year loan from the Department of Justice.  Staff are eagerly, if sceptically, awaiting his report.  Media reports in recent months; letters to the Minister of Defence, Willie O’ Dea, from Jennifer Bulbulia, who resigned in despair accusing the board of “white-washing” the minutes of meetings where criticisms were raised; and numerous parliamentary questions raised by Labour TD, Brian O’Shea; have forced both the IRC and the Minister to assert on public record that a report will be subject to discussion between the Departments of the Taoiseach, Foreign Affairs and Defence; and the IRC Society and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.  Mr O’Shea was particularly concerned at allegations that chairman, David Andrews’  “reappointment was not greeted internally with any great enthusiasm”. He noted that, “the Minister also appoints 14 members to the council of the society… these people and the chairman are political appointees to an independent organisation”.  There has been surprisingly little media attention to the running of this well-respected organisation.  Staff morale has been poor for much of the last twenty years. As long ago as 1999, nine of the staff came together on RTÉ News to call on the Government to set up an investigation into the running of the charity.  And as recently as 2007, eighteen members of staff outlined “outstanding” concerns including “bullying, harassment, intimidation of staff by certain Executive members…which has its roots within certain quarters of the EC…[and] has now become a very real health and safety issue for employees” and “the overall culture and governance/management”. At least four expensive consultants were employed to investigate some of these issues. One employee told Village that there is a culture of fear, with no-one in the central council – to which the EC reports twice yearly – prepared to ask hard questions.  Currently IRC staff are on pay freezes and some face redundancy while huge sums of money continue to be spent on perhaps unnecessary new ambulances and other vehicles. Outside of key EC members, there