Latest

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    The RHA and Sandra Hu:

    Tradition betrayed by poor governance By Michael Smith Founded in 1823 in Dublin, the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts (RHA) was born from the ambition of 30 Irish artists who petitioned the Crown for a charter of incorporation.  Early leaders were landscape painter William Ashford and architect Francis Johnston. By the end of the 19th century, the RHA stood as Ireland’s pre-eminent institution for promoting visual art.   Over time, the Academy gained a reputation for conservatism, particularly in the early Free State years when it embraced a nationalist realism. It was in reaction to this that the Irish Exhibition of Living Art emerged in 1943 to champion modernism. The RHA’s original premises on Abbey St burnt in 1916 and it demolished its splendid replacement headquarters on Ely Place in the 1960s.  A utilitarian new space was created there in the 1970s with financing from developer Matt Gallagher  and a final design by Arthur Gibney RHA, friend of Charlie Haughey. Finally, after years of debt stress,  in 2009 that space was upgraded to meet the RHA’s  royal aspirations,  and to include a well-regarded School.  It would be difficult to say it has made for an institution that is integral to the cultural life of Ireland.    The RHA is helmed for the moment by Abigail O’Brien, its first female President who was recognised with an honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts in 2019, and was the recipient of a “Woman of the Year” award in the Arts from Irish Tatler; and by Patrick T Murphy, who remembers breaking into the gallery in the early 1980s when the building was a concrete hulk “just to look at the spaces inside because they were so great”. who has served as Director for 28 years. Murphy spent the early part of his career lecturing in the National College of Art and Design, returning to Dublin in 1998 after a decade at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia and has long been due to retire in the autumn. O’Brien, whose brother is one of Ireland’s richest men, Denis O’Brien, has announced she will go around the same time. This article explains how relationships between these senior officers and the RHA’s board have collapsed as the protagonists make for the departure lounge.      How it is supposed to work, and how it works in practice   The Academy is a charity that receives core Arts Council funding and operates under a spiffy Royal  Charter which was expensively rewritten a few years ago “for effect” but, according to insiders, without taking aim at deep structural problems.       Formally, the Assembly — comprising the membership — meets four times a year and retains ultimate authority. In practice, the Council, meeting monthly with roughly 8–10 members (several have resigned in recent weeks), functions as the board under company law. The President, Treasurer, Secretary and Keeper sit on Council ex officio, as its officers. They are Dr Abigail O’Brien PRHA, Andrew Folan RHA, Sinéad Ní Mhaonaigh RHA and Rachel Joynt RHA respectively.  Without RHA after your name you will not go far in this berobed world.      Several Council members and officers are now complaining that short tenures, blurred lines of accountability and a culture of informality have crystallised as dysfunction and stasis. Staff report no clear whistleblower route. Fundamental norms of good governance such as care with employment contracts, disciplinary processes and officers not employing staff, have not always been observed. The officers are not always responsive to their Council. There is inadequate guidance from the antique RHA’s bye-laws.      Concentrated power    The RHA now features  an unusually concentrated executive: Patrick Murphy is not only CEO/Director but also in effect Curator which gives him leverage over the RHA’s ever-aspiring artist membership. Admirers describe him as dynamic and artist-focused, with teaching experience and a reputation for ‘looking after’ the staff of roughly twelve. Critics characterise him as a poor manager with lax procurement and informal hiring (“jobs for friends”) practices, and a demonstrated partial aversion to paperwork — he has himself, it is said, no standard employment contract, though he will have inferred rights by law, and little systematic expense oversight. He draws a notable salary of around €120,000. He refused to inform one stakeholder of the salaries of the employees of the RHA as he said he was taking care of that himself. He has grown arrogant and territorial over the years. Artists and employees alike are reluctant to challenge such a powerful  CEO.   Murphy’s long-standing alliance with President O’Brien figures frequently in dispatches. Sources say O’Brien has taken a leading hand in discussions about Murphy’s retirement package and a mooted “RHA West” role in Ballina, proposals some Council members considered to make insufficient logistical sense.      Enter Sandra Hu   Into this culture stepped Sandra Hu, who “sashayed” into the organisation via training in Beijing, New York, Cheltenham Ladies’ College and Trinity College Dublin as ‘front-of-house’ without job advertisement or interview like many before her. Her title and responsibilities shifted — part-time at front-of-house, then — with the benefit of contracts — development co-ordinator, front of house manager and head of sales to front of house manager and head of commerce.  Through no fault of Hu’s, these roles sometimes overlapped with roles held by others, including the poor official Curator, whose job responsibility included sales. In a short period and without elementary process, Hu was catapulted from an entry level position to a prominent position with far-reaching responsibilities which, by all accounts, she discharged well.  She was charismatic, ebullient and gregarious and she generated a stir and perhaps some jealousy.    Colleagues describe her as efficient and hardworking, but increasingly critical of slippage in standards such as some RHA staff’s notoriously deficient starting hours. Hu felt she was not being rewarded for working overtime. She was pointedly excluded from several meetings and sidelined socially. There was an incident where Murphy publicly castigated Hu for bringing coffees to a Council  meeting centring on whether O’Brien had paid for them as President.  One  curator formerly

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    FFilthy Lucre

    How it started:  A Fianna Fáil TD appearing on the national platform as low-key, unimpressive to the point of being insipid, and just a bit greasy.  Yet this TD has the good fortune to own a residential property in Dublin City – that he himself doesn’t use, despite working in Dublin as a TD and Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.  He opts for other arrangements, perhaps commuting from his constituency of Longford-Westmeath, or availing of hotel accommodation within Oireachtas expenses provisions for elected members.   This apartment is occupied by a tenant, therefore providing Robert Troy rental income, Case V, for tax purposes.  Perhaps to assist with a mortgage payment, as Leo Varadkar himself might assume. The circumstances still make this TD and Minister of State the owner of an investment property for MARP / Mortgage lending regulations and enforcement, and a landlord requiring registration  – and therefore regulation by the State through its Residential Tenancies Board. In addition to this rental asset, Troy has a separate business of property development, which is currently developing the site where this rental asset is located into new build residential units that have already been sold ‘off plans’ as it were. This makes residential property for investment a commercial activity for Troy alongside his day job as a TD, which is boosted by being appointed a Minister of State in the 32nd Government of Ireland. I’m sure you can see that Troy has not your everyday Form 11 return, and has interests to declare as a condition of him being a member of the Oireachtas. Here I add that Troy acquired a residential property from the Criminal Assets Bureau.  The CAB themselves are required to ensure they sell off assets seized by High Court order to purchasers whose affairs are in order.  Comprehensive due diligence would be required as to the source of the funds being used, to avoid money laundering: was it earned legitimately, for example, and is it tax compliant?   The CAB may also require Garda Vetting before engaging in a material transaction with an individual.  If it doesn’t, let’s now suggest that they should.  Here’s why : what if the purchaser of an asset being disposed of by CAB has unpaid fines, or is the subject of a bench warrant? Both the CAB solicitors and those representing Troy would also be obliged to confirm the buyer was 100% compliant with all forms of AML and Tax and Rates regulations before proceeding to complete the conveyancing and close the sale. Even more so in this case, as this property was subsequently sold for a profit by Troy back to another wing of the State for the use of social housing – a wing of the state where he was in a governance position, immediately presenting a risk of influence.  As the property was to be used as social housing, it needed to be inspected by housing officers to ensure the property was suitable, as well as surveyed and independently valued.  The regulatory framework for Social Housing also requires that housing officers confirm that there is a need for that particular type of property in the area.  All this is prepared as a type of purchase order request that gets submitted to the Housing Agency for approval to then acquire the property for the local housing department in Westmeath County Council – who, as it happens, must also complete an independent valuation. For the sale to proceed, council finance staff would be required to complete standard diligence checking before being set up as an approved supplier to the Local Council, typically the provision of a valid TC1 and that his source of funds were legitimately earned, perhaps ID confirming residential address, and a simple credit check to ensure he has no outstanding bills with the Council; refuse charges, for example. As Troy was a councillor serving in this local Council chamber, additional checks and balances would be required before entering into a commercial arrangement with an elected member of its Governance Level.  Was it good value for taxpayer money?  What oversight did the Finance Committee of the Council have, likewise the Housing and Budgetary Committees, and what approval process did the County Manager complete to ensure  proper procedures were observed at all times? Standard checks and balances. With this level of activity in property trading, and very successful trading, it most certainly meets the definition of trading.  Therefore subject to Income Tax and not a matter of Capital Gains Tax on the occasional one off / windfall events. When an official accepts a nomination to run for election and submits their candidacy to the appointed Returning Officer, they immediately commit to fitness and probity regime with their signature.  That is a promise that gets underpinned with their Declarations to SIPO.  There can be no errors. Otherwise applying that signature is worth nothing, and has the same reliability as a forgery. Applying his own signature brings with it a promise of integrity, and to uphold the best interests of his constituents and the State, over his own at all times.  That’s governance. Errors and lapses in memory must come with significant sanctions, the type that make banks weep. Troy should have conducted due diligence on himself before accepting the role of Minister of State from his party leader, Taoiseach Micheal Martin, as he promised he was a person of exceptional ethical standards and watertight compliance.  He can never be trusted to sign any Government document or legislation because he has put his own seal in doubt. He has no excuse.  Neither do all the regulated lines of defence for the taxpayer all along the way from his first day as a local councillor. Which makes the questions we now pose, in response to the latest Ditch report on that failed transaction between Troy and his business and Westmeath County Council for four additional residential units for the purposes of social housing, all the more cynical.

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Dublin City Council and Moore Street

    Dublin City Council (DCC) has numerous functions: from housing; cleaning and maintaining our streets; and authorising urban developments. One of their most important functions is planning enforcement – this means that they it has a duty to police  our planning laws effectively.   DCC has a mixed record on planning enforcement but, when it comes to Moore Street, it has allowed Hammerson to break numerous laws.  Complaints have been made, received and never properly dealt with by DCC.   This curious inaction has led one business owner on Moore Street to question either  the competence or motivation of DCC’s enforcement department in failing to take any action against the commercial property developer.   More than 50 valid complaints were lodged in relation to Hammerson-owned properties around Moore Street, and still DCC has taken little action. Since the planning enforcement process is long and drawn-out, by the time many of these complaints are determined, events will have overtaken them and the issue will have come to a resolution by itself. Even then, that does not mean that Hammerson should not be punished for any offences they might have committed.   If we just take No. 10 Moore Street as an example. No. 10 is a matter of mere weeks away from becoming a protected structure thanks to Councillor John Lyons motion, which he proposed seven years ago. While this process is nearing completion, we have learned that the party wall between No.10 and 11 has been knocked down within the last two weeks. Hammerson did not even bother to apply for planning permission let alone receive it.   Hammerson, the owners of No. 10, acknowledge that the building is an integral part of the battlefield site where the men and women of 1916, (including five of the seven signatories of the Proclamation), spent the final day of the 1916 Rising.  No 10 is highly significant historically. Scandalously, this potential national monument has been seriously damaged, under the watch of the planning enforcement department of DCC despite being notified of damage at the time.   Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, who has consistently challenged ongoing dodgy practices by DCC in relation to Moore Street, said: “When you look at the actions of Dublin City Council and the Department of Heritage over the last few years, it has not been working towards the best interest of the people of Dublin but the best interest of the shareholders of Hammerson. Moore Street has been run down under the control of these two state bodies and Hammerson. I cannot and will not allow that to continue as the area has huge potential which needs to be fulfilled”   Ó Snodaigh’s statement is supported by the fact that DCC has authorised a concentration of 21 second-hand phone shops in Hammerson-owned buildings on Moore Street, yet on Grafton Street they would not allow even a second ice cream shop as it would supposedly detract from the area. Such are the double standards in the planning enforcement system.   DCC has a number of powers at its disposal under the Planning and Development Act 2000, (as amended) and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, (as amended). These allow for fines of up to €10 million for breaches of the acts and provide for the possibility of a jail sentences for those found guilty of offences under the acts – should DCC report such individuals to the Garda.   However, DCC shows no interest in investigating any unlawful damage done to historic buildings on Moore Street and ignores the mounting evidence that Hammerson’s actions could potentially be considered as offences under the law.   Why has DCC  been so slow to act?  

    Loading

    Read more