Letter from Ronan McCormack to CLRG Registrants (inside first reply) -- New England Irish Dancers

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

Subject: Letter from Ronan McCormack to CLRG Registrants (inside first reply)
Author: thank you, Ronan, for standing up	[ Next Thread \| Previous Thread \| Next Message \| Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10:28:01 12/15/22 Thu [ Next Thread \| Previous Thread \| Next Message \| Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Letter inside in order to save space on board front page:

Author:
OP
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:28:58 12/15/22 Thu

representative

noun:

one that represents another or others

adjective:

serving to represent

(Merriam-Webster dictionary)

My fellow CLRG Registrants,

It has become abundantly clear that many of our colleagues, those that we, the registrants of CLRG, elected to represent us, are failing to do so. I have tried to gather as much accurate information on the EGM as possible to share with you, my fellow registrants. I’m confident that if you ask your elected representatives to verify any of this information, it will become clear as to whether or not they are actually representing you. Likewise, if any of the people mentioned herein take issue with anything I state, they always have right of reply.

I believe that our elected representatives had a clear mandate from the registrants to vote in favour of ALL 4 motions proposed at the EGM. In the polls and survey conducted in October of this year, 884 registrants voted on Question 1: Do you think the current chairperson of CLRG should resign? 89.25% voted yes. Likewise, the petition calling for a hybrid meeting gathered 1133 signatures.

31 of the 56 members present at the EGM in Belfast on December 10th, 2022, are representatives, elected by the registrants, and yet, despite the overwhelming will of the registrants as expressed in the polls/survey from October of this year, only 19 of those present voted in favour of Motion 1: We request that the chairperson stands down immediately and that an interim chairperson be installed to conduct the business of that post, until such time as fresh elections can take place.

Below is a list of the members who attended. I have detailed whether they are elected representatives (by region), representatives of Conradh na Gaeilge or CLRG co-options. The suffix “EGM” denotes a member who signed the original call for the EGM. You will note that 26 of those who called for the EGM were present, however, only 19 of the 55 attendees who were eligible to vote on Motion 1 actually voted in favour of the motion. That would suggest that at least 7 of those who called for the EGM did not vote in favour of Motion 1; that said, it is possible that some of the other members present voted in favour of Motion 1 and even more than 7 of those who committed to calling for the EGM did not, in fact, represent the will of the registrants.

It should also be noted that the NAFC ceased operations in 2020. There should not be a representative of an organization that no longer exists attending a meeting of CLRG and, one assumes, voting on the motions considered.

Some of you may have received a “presentation” re Conradh na Gaeilge that all regions were asked to distribute to their registrants, but, once again, this has not happened. I have previously pointed out that half the members of An Buancoiste - those who made the decision to hold an in-person EGM - are representatives of Conradh na Gaeilge. These representatives are chosen by An Coiste Gnó (Executive Committee) of Conradh na Gaeilge, 2 members of which are also members of CLRG - Aedín Uí Mhaoileidigh

and Orfhlaith Ní Bhriain. As the Constitution of CLRG, section 53.2 states: “To become effective any proposed amendment agreed in accordance with 53.1 above must then receive the sanction of the Coiste Gnó (National Executive) of Conradh na Gaeilge who shall have authority to sanction, refuse or amend the proposal of An Coimisiún”, I reached out to Aedín and Orfhlaith and asked them to pass on my communication to the rest of the members of An Coiste Gnó. I asked what direction An Coiste Gnó had given their 24 representatives in regard to voting on the proposed motions at the EGM. Not surprisingly, I wasn’t afforded the courtesy of a reply.

I asked the General Secretary of Conradh na Gaeilge, Julian de Spáinn to clarify the following statement he made to The Irish Independent newspaper, published October 17th, 2022, “Although the CLRG has their own legal structures, Conradh na Gaeilge has maintained a longstanding connection with the CLRG and we have representatives who continue to promote the Irish Language in the organisation and the world of Irish Dancing”; I pointed out that only 1 of the 24 Conradh representatives currently seated as members of CLRG serves on Cúram na Gaeilge (the Irish Language committee), he replied with a list of the current Conradh representatives…

While I have endeavoured to shed some light on who was present at the EGM, the reality is that the meeting and any decisions made are null and void. As the meeting was conducted outside the state (Republic of Ireland), per Section 176 (3) of the Companies Act 2014, the Company is under a duty to make, at the company's expense, all necessary arrangements to ensure that members can by technological means participate in the meeting without leaving the state. Section 176 (4) authorises the use of technology that provides members, as a whole, with a reasonable opportunity to participate. In short, the Company - CLRG - has broken the law.

Although this was pointed out to both the Cathaoirleach (James McCutcheon) and Rúnaí (Gráinne Ní Conchubhair), they chose to ignore the law. Furthermore, the solicitor acting on behalf of CLRG provided a nonsensical reason for denying the hybrid format for the EGM, claiming that there is both CLRG - a company and An Coimisiún - a separate entity, and that the EGM did not concern “company affairs”. (please see full letter below). Some simple facts that will help with understanding all of this:

An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha is a Company Limited by Guarantee. (Reg. # 437963)
An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha is a Registered Charity. (RCN # 20065430) Type of Organisation: Association
There is only one financial entity - the Company Limited by Guarantee. (The comparison of figures submitted to both the Companies Registration Office and the Charities Regulator proves this. It should be noted that the signatures on these documents are those of James McCutcheon and Gráinne Ní Conchubhair.)
Registrants’ annual fees go to the Company Limited by Guarantee.
The Company Limited by Guarantee pays for the expenses of Members to attend meetings, etc.

It was and is quite clear that the people who attended the EGM are members of An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha - the Company Limited by Guarantee, and, as such, it was a Company Meeting; thus the provisions of the Companies Act 2014 and the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020 (extended to 31 December 2022) should have applied. Perhaps James or Gráinne will see fit to provide answers to the following for us, the registrants and primary financiers of CLRG:

If, as has been claimed, there is a second entity or “Association” that operates separately to the Company Limited by Guarantee:

What is the legal status of this Association?
Where/how is this Association registered?
What is the source of financing for this Association?
Does this Association have tax exemption status in the Republic of Ireland?
If so, what is the name of the Association as it is registered with the Charities Regulator? (To receive tax exemption status in Ireland, an entity must first be registered as a charity with the Charities Regulator.)
Are the Registrants and Members of CLRG affiliated with CLRG the Company Limited by Guarantee or CLRG the Association?

Given that James and Gráinne have not exactly been forthcoming with information to date, we may be left to wonder what, exactly, is going on; what is it they are trying to hide? There are processes under Irish Law to easily remedy a flagrant breach, such as this. I believe the Representative Members who are genuinely committed to representing the registrants that elected them have this in hand and I am sure we will hear more in due course. In the meantime, I will continue to share any information I can with you; especially when I receive it from one of the regions with which I’m registered and not from the other 2!

In conclusion, I would like to thank those members who respected the mandate of the registrants and voted accordingly - the elected representatives that have communicated with and listened to their regional members. As the American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox wrote, “To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men”.

Is mise le meas,

Ronan McCormack ADCRG BG

Members who attended the EGM

Connacht:

Noreen Duggan

Siobhán McDonnell EGM

Leinster:

Orla NicConuladh

Ulster:

Tracey Taaffe Metcalfe EGM

Munster:

Helan Greene EGM

Southern England:

Fiona Diggins EGM

Midlands UK:

None

England Northeast:

Anne Curran Thomas EGM

England Northwest:

Lennie Connell

Kieran Rogers EGM

Karen Gleeson Haliwell

Scotland:

Margaret Morgan

Michelle Greene

RCCEA:

Shane McAvinchey EGM

Eastern Canada:

Yvonne Kelly

Ryan Carol

Western Canada:

Mark O’Loughlin EGM

Linda Possak Anderson EGM

Mid-Atlantic:

James Early EGM

Karen Petri EGM

New England:

Liam Harney EGM

Thomas Bracken EGM

Mid America:

Maureen Dillon Yawger EGM

Southern US Region:

Judy McCafferty EGM

Bill Maple EGM

Western US Region:

Jim Mueller EGM

Robert Haley EGM

Pat Hall

IDTANA:

Allison Webber Erickson EGM

Lisa Petri EGM

Deirdre Penk O’Donnell EGM

Mary Kay Heneghan EGM

NAFC

Pat Short

Conradh na Gaeilge:

Aedín Uí Mhaoileidigh

Gráinne Ní Conchubhair

Máire Mhic Aogáin

Séamus Ó Sé

Dan Armstrong

Eileen Fagan

James McCutcheon

Mary Kelly

Nancy Troy O’Herlihy

Margaret McBride

Collette McAllister

Mary McElroy

John Cullinane

Orfhlaith Ní Bhriain

Francis Curley

John McEntegart

Marie Duffy

Owen McAuley EGM

Co-options:

Carol Leavy Joyce EGM

Helena McCarron EGM

Richard Griffin EGM

Anne Hall

Mary McGinty

Sharon Whelan McSweeney

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: I see that it was removed from the main board
Author: good job saving it! [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 13:03:26 12/15/22 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: I don’t understand why it was removed. It’s real, factual info which is better than most on that board.
Author: Odd [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 22:55:42 12/15/22 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: probably someone listed in the letter didn't like it
Author: the moderator is obviously a TC / AD [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 07:18:53 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Not sure we will ever know, but I certainly hope our (NER) EGM attendees voted YES on question 1.
Author: Curious [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 05:04:36 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: I agree with you. I respect secret ballots, but one can certainly hope that as REPRESENTATIVES, they did their due diligence in representing the will of their constituents and didn't just do what was best for their schools.
Author: ---- [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 05:56:39 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Clearly 2/3 of the reps who attended did not do their due diligence, or, more likely, are just as crooked as those who got us into this mess. It would be nice if the NE reps would post here how they voted. I happen to know they read the board.
Author: * [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 06:23:23 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: As one of them is now Vice Chair of CLRG
Author: I think we can take that as one vote against motion 1… [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 10:26:16 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Stepping into the void at top by possible agents of change, perhaps?
Author: ?????? [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 15:03:47 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Not necessarily
Author: ????? [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 15:06:34 12/16/22 Fri Leadership opening for an agent of change, perhaps? There are people at CLRG who are anxious for better structure, policies and procedure. Nothing changes if no one steps up….. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Given the state of ID, sadly it is easier to believe that non-votes for item 1 were rewarded with positions high in the organization.
Author: --- [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 19:04:29 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Sorry, are you saying one of them is now Vice Chair? Dare I ask which one?
Author: Can’t make this up! [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 20:06:39 12/16/22 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Mr. McCormack - can you explain the relationship b/t Conradh na Gailge ("democratic forum for irish speaking community"per their website) and CLRG? Why were they at the EGM in the first place? Their 17 votes against ousting Mccutcheon diluted the 2-to-1 majority FOR the measure from actual CLRG-related attendees.
Author: Smells bad [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 09:47:15 12/18/22 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ]