Comments on: Your Country, Your Call; Further Questions, Parliamentary and Otherwise http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/ A companion to Tuppenceworth.ie, this is also interested in art, opinion and ideas Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:38:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: YourCountryYourCall: Ideas galore, but not without controversey | Talkin' bout a revolution http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148332 YourCountryYourCall: Ideas galore, but not without controversey | Talkin' bout a revolution Tue, 11 May 2010 23:32:17 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148332 [...] Simon McGarr and others have raised questions regarding the how the funding for the competition has been raised. In response, Padraig McKeon – outlined some of the funding sources for An Smaoineamh Mór Ltd, which is the company running the competition. A cash fund of just under €2m has been accumulated via donations from 13 parties (companies and individuals) which has been lodged in the accounts of the company, An Smaoineamh Mor, which is a registered charity… There is no government or political involvement in either setting up or operating the competition. However YCYC is not merely ’suggesting’ it has Government support. The project explicitly has that support. Specifically, the promoters formally presented the project to government late last summer and asked for support in three ways – a contribution to the fund referred above, a request that the competition would have access if it needed it to the services of the state enterprise agencies in the evaluation process (if such help were required) and a commitment that government would engage with the process of developing the two winning proposals, particularly with reference to any legislative issues that might need to be addressed. [...] [...] Simon McGarr and others have raised questions regarding the how the funding for the competition has been raised. In response, Padraig McKeon – outlined some of the funding sources for An Smaoineamh Mór Ltd, which is the company running the competition. A cash fund of just under €2m has been accumulated via donations from 13 parties (companies and individuals) which has been lodged in the accounts of the company, An Smaoineamh Mor, which is a registered charity… There is no government or political involvement in either setting up or operating the competition. However YCYC is not merely ’suggesting’ it has Government support. The project explicitly has that support. Specifically, the promoters formally presented the project to government late last summer and asked for support in three ways – a contribution to the fund referred above, a request that the competition would have access if it needed it to the services of the state enterprise agencies in the evaluation process (if such help were required) and a commitment that government would engage with the process of developing the two winning proposals, particularly with reference to any legislative issues that might need to be addressed. [...]

]]> By: steve white http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148143 steve white Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:53:00 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148143 i particularly like the effort from mr drury to suggest ciaran lynch is responsible for the how non-committal the answer is, black is white mr drury black is white. i particularly like the effort from mr drury to suggest ciaran lynch is responsible for the how non-committal the answer is, black is white mr drury black is white.

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148140 uberVU - social comments Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:20:12 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148140 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tupp_Ed: A new Tuppenceworth blog post: : Your Country, Your Call; Further Questions, Parliamentary and Otherwise http://bit.ly/cyEkvK... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tupp_Ed: A new Tuppenceworth blog post: : Your Country, Your Call; Further Questions, Parliamentary and Otherwise http://bit.ly/cyEkvK...

]]> By: Daragh O Brien http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148137 Daragh O Brien Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:17:51 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148137 I've read and reread the Minister's answer and Mr McKeon's statement and parsed it 6 ways from Sunday. No amount of linguistic gymnastics on my part can make a response which states that a proposal is being examined ("...my Department is currently examining a proposal to provide funding of up to €300,000...") equate to an assertion that the funding is actually being provided (which is the only possible interpretation of Mr McKeon's statement of 6th March referenced above - he states that the request for funding was accepted and specifies a precise amount). So, I'm left brain addled and confusted as I attempt to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements into a form which are not incompatible. One is a bald assertion of positive fact. The other isn't. If the Dept. is only considering a request to provide funding on a spectrum between €0 and €300k, the funding cannot have been given and the request cannot have been agreed to last summer. Sanction to provide funding is a bit like pregnancy. You can no more be a little bit pregnant than you can have a little bit of agreement to provide funding - either it's there or it isn't. There is no question to be read in here, other than (as I see it) the question of whether it is Mr McKeon or the Minister who has been misinformed about the status of the requested funding and the amount being considered. If the Minister has been misinformed, then every effort should be made to correct the Dáil record at the earliest opportunity. Given the diligence with which responses to PQs are prepared in Civil Service Departments, I am sure that the dichotomy between the answer and Mr McKeon's view of the situation stems from an otherwise avoidable and unfortunate oversight on the part of the various civil servants who would have prepared the answer for the Minister. I’ve read and reread the Minister’s answer and Mr McKeon’s statement and parsed it 6 ways from Sunday. No amount of linguistic gymnastics on my part can make a response which states that a proposal is being examined (“…my Department is currently examining a proposal to provide funding of up to €300,000…”) equate to an assertion that the funding is actually being provided (which is the only possible interpretation of Mr McKeon’s statement of 6th March referenced above – he states that the request for funding was accepted and specifies a precise amount).

So, I’m left brain addled and confusted as I attempt to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements into a form which are not incompatible. One is a bald assertion of positive fact. The other isn’t.

If the Dept. is only considering a request to provide funding on a spectrum between €0 and €300k, the funding cannot have been given and the request cannot have been agreed to last summer.

Sanction to provide funding is a bit like pregnancy. You can no more be a little bit pregnant than you can have a little bit of agreement to provide funding – either it’s there or it isn’t.

There is no question to be read in here, other than (as I see it) the question of whether it is Mr McKeon or the Minister who has been misinformed about the status of the requested funding and the amount being considered.

If the Minister has been misinformed, then every effort should be made to correct the Dáil record at the earliest opportunity.

Given the diligence with which responses to PQs are prepared in Civil Service Departments, I am sure that the dichotomy between the answer and Mr McKeon’s view of the situation stems from an otherwise avoidable and unfortunate oversight on the part of the various civil servants who would have prepared the answer for the Minister.

]]> By: Rossa McMahon http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148136 Rossa McMahon Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:16:41 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148136 It is somewhat unusual that neither the Government nor the organisers of YCYC are willing to answer questions about the use of public funds until such funds have been expended. I am aware that the YCYC team have answered questions in comments elsewhere so this may have been covered, but it remains unclear to me from the YCYC website what becomes of any funds generated from the winning proposals, if developed profitably. The website states that the company is a registered charity, but the charitable aims are not stated (to my knowledge). Charitable status is provided only for charitable purposes and the organisation in receipt of such status must have specific charitable objectives. On the assumption that tax benefits will accrue to ASM as a result of charitable status, the State is making a further contibrution to the competition by providing such status. Perhaps these are more properly questions for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Skills than ASM, but the former does not appear willing to answer such questions. It is somewhat unusual that neither the Government nor the organisers of YCYC are willing to answer questions about the use of public funds until such funds have been expended.

I am aware that the YCYC team have answered questions in comments elsewhere so this may have been covered, but it remains unclear to me from the YCYC website what becomes of any funds generated from the winning proposals, if developed profitably.

The website states that the company is a registered charity, but the charitable aims are not stated (to my knowledge).

Charitable status is provided only for charitable purposes and the organisation in receipt of such status must have specific charitable objectives.

On the assumption that tax benefits will accrue to ASM as a result of charitable status, the State is making a further contibrution to the competition by providing such status.

Perhaps these are more properly questions for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Skills than ASM, but the former does not appear willing to answer such questions.

]]> By: Tweets that mention Tuppenceworth.ie blog » Your Country, Your Call; Further Questions, Parliamentary and Otherwise -- Topsy.com http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148135 Tweets that mention Tuppenceworth.ie blog » Your Country, Your Call; Further Questions, Parliamentary and Otherwise -- Topsy.com Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:29:26 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148135 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Simon McGarr, Simon McGarr, Ruaidhrí , Tim Nelligan, Rossa McMahon and others. Rossa McMahon said: More questions about YCYC and its backers. http://bit.ly/cyEkvK [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Simon McGarr, Simon McGarr, Ruaidhrí , Tim Nelligan, Rossa McMahon and others. Rossa McMahon said: More questions about YCYC and its backers. http://bit.ly/cyEkvK [...]

]]> By: Padraig McKeon http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2010/03/24/your-country-your-call-further-questions-parliamentary-and-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-148134 Padraig McKeon Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:03:16 +0000 http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/?p=837#comment-148134 Simon, Fair question to ask. While one can dissect the words and read questions into them when words are considered in isolation, I have no concern over the content of the post to Diarmuid's site which is not at all incompatible with the answer to Deputy Lynch's question. As to the status of the account today, we will not be publishing that detail during the competition. You can be assured however that ASM is set up with the ability that "the necessary financial procedures [will be] followed and that mechanisms are put in place to ensure appropriate management and accountability of public funds" To that end I also said on that blogpost of Diarmuid's to which you refer that "The compnay [sic] will be lodging and publishing books of account when the competition has been wrapped up". Thanks Simon,

Fair question to ask. While one can dissect the words and read questions into them when words are considered in isolation, I have no concern over the content of the post to Diarmuid’s site which is not at all incompatible with the answer to Deputy Lynch’s question.

As to the status of the account today, we will not be publishing that detail during the competition. You can be assured however that ASM is set up with the ability that “the necessary financial procedures [will be] followed and that mechanisms are put in place to ensure appropriate management and accountability of public funds” To that end I also said on that blogpost of Diarmuid’s to which you refer that “The compnay [sic] will be lodging and publishing books of account when the competition has been wrapped up”. Thanks

]]>