Pensions in CRC

Conan

Registered User
Messages
1,653
From reading reports today in relation to the pension benefits paid to the former CEO, the numbers quoted seem a little odd:
- the total salary paid to the former CEO was circa €227,000
- I think it was stated that his pension would be 36/80ths
- but the above calculation would be more than the €90,000 pension also reported
- under normal Public Sector pension arrangements he would also be entitled to a max lump sum of 150% of salary ( circa €340,000)
- but it was stated today that he received €200,000 tax free plus a further €270,000 which is taxable
- but that equates to a total retirement lump sum of circa €470,000 ( some €130,000 more than the normal pension lump sum)
- so did he also get some termination payment in addition, just for retiring early?

The whole arrangement stinks, another Bertie "keep the boys happy" arrangement. The fact that the Directors thought that it was ok to agree such a structure and build in a confidentiality agreement is just typical of the Bertie mafia.
 
From reading reports today in relation to the pension benefits paid to the former CEO, the numbers quoted seem a little odd:
- the total salary paid to the former CEO was circa €227,000
- I think it was stated that his pension would be 36/80ths
- but the above calculation would be more than the €90,000 pension also reported
- under normal Public Sector pension arrangements he would also be entitled to a max lump sum of 150% of salary ( circa €340,000)
- but it was stated today that he received €200,000 tax free plus a further €270,000 which is taxable
- but that equates to a total retirement lump sum of circa €470,000 ( some €130,000 more than the normal pension lump sum)
- so did he also get some termination payment in addition, just for retiring early?

The whole arrangement stinks, another Bertie "keep the boys happy" arrangement. The fact that the Directors thought that it was ok to agree such a structure and build in a confidentiality agreement is just typical of the Bertie mafia.
Conan, possibly off topic but did you know that what happened at the Irish Medical Organisation was about 5 times worse. That guy secretly negotiated a pension deal worth €20M whilst only disclosing €4M in the Accounts; over years a surplus was built up from exhorbitant fees to members. Even so, when it came to retirement the IMO hadn't anything near €20M so the retiring CEO magnanimously settled for €9M. There is zilch corporate enforcement in the 26 counties.

Back on topic. My read is that the CRC guy disclosed to the committee that he got a 200K tax free lump sum. Technically true as the other 500K was not tax free. But isn't there something about "the whole truth...". These Oireachtas committees seem to be totally toothless, merely stage opportunities for the likes of Shane Ross.
 
Duke, I agree in relation to the IMO, but at least that was merely a waste of contributions made by their members. In the CRC case it was a waste of taxpayers (or as Vincent Browne insists - citizens) money and those who gave generously as charity donations.
My annoyance at these revelations is tempered somewhat by the fact that it gives the likes of Shane Ross another opportunity to grandstand and gather up material for his Sindo articles. If only he was as diligent in investigating the goings-on by the former owners (sorry, significant shareholders) of IN&M. But perhaps it is unreasonably to expect such a paragon of virtue to criticise his paymasters (or even Michael Fingleton whom he regularly praised in his columns).
 
Conan, we can argue whether taxpayers or doctors are more deserving of our sympathy as victims. The point I am making is that CEOs know that secret deals that break every corporate governance standard in the book will stick if they have been careful enough to make them legally binding.

In the IMO case it is clear to me that it should admit false extraction of fees over 5 years or more, admit that it owes these fees back, go bankrupt and then the CEO can sing for his secret deal, lining up as a creditor with the members who were levied under false pretences.
 
In the IMO case it is clear to me that it should admit false extraction of fees over 5 years or more, admit that it owes these fees back, go bankrupt and then the CEO can sing for his secret deal, lining up as a creditor with the members who were levied under false pretences.

Class! Maybe even offer him a David McWilliam's "Debt for Equity special" :D
 
Amazing the similarities between CRCgate and IMOgate. This morning we hear the then chairman of CRC on national radio crowing about how he saved €1.4M with his negotiation of that package. The IMO similarly claimed that they negotiated their CEO down from €20M to €9M (not mentioning that they didn't have any more in the coffers). We are being asked to believe that a combination of magnaminity on the part of the CEO and hard negotiation on the part of the Board are at play in both situations when instead we should be calling in corporate enforcement and the gardai as the Minister promises.

Ask yourself, if you owned a company and were told by your trusted chairman of the Board that your trusted CEO has wangled a €20M secret deal against your company, would you say "go see how much you can get him down to". No way, you would instead throw every possible spanner in the works to prevent him getting anything.

The IMO, under pressure at an EGM, promised to have an independent report on their "gate". When the heat had died down a little they announced that an independent report would cost over a million and so they thought it best to let the past be the past and move on. I wonder whether when the heat dies down on CRCgate will the Minister also backtrack on the fine threats he is currently making.
 
I think the heading on this post is too weak, it should read CRC - BOARD A DISGRACE.

How can charity donations that are given by the public on the understanding that the monies are to be spent on the provision of services for , and this makes it even more disgusting, caring for people who suffer, not from any fault of theirs, from disablities either physical or mental, be hived off to pay a pension? It has to be illegal or I'm a duthman!! Surely it should be in writing in the articles of association that monies raised from the public are for services only.

As for that chairman, and I have not heard the interview yet, but reading the minutes from the meeting they had it would appear they did not want the CEO to leave at all. And then they had to include a confidentiality clause.

They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but its saddening to say it does not surprise me and there is a posting on another board that lists all the shocking cases of ...

here is a bit from indo november 2012
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ahern-associate-wont-reveal-pay-as-charity-ceo-28894709.html

and fair play to the IT at least it used the word OBSCENE and that sums up irish politics nicely.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...ain-its-obscene-behaviour-to-my-son-1.1659620

We are suckers and have been for centuries.

there is a song with the line "same as it ever was" and that sums it up .
 
I joined the Bank of Ireland circa 1970 and left in circa 1986. I was in a non contributory pension scheme. For 16 years a pension was put aside for me. I have asked for this to be paid to me and I have been refused countless times as have many others. Because I left the bank you will not get it I was told, legally I am not entitled to it apparently. I have seen many highly paid executives leave the Bank of Ireland over the years with huge pension pots who have worked less years than I did is hard to swallow. My pension paid theirs.
 
Just a small query regarding the CRC pension situation.

Does the ordinary public servant not receive a pension equal to 2/3 of their salary.

Say 2/3 of €40,000, thats €26,000.

Does this pension come with index linking, and surviving spouse provision.

Is the annuity rate for this about 3.5%. That comes to what? just over €760,000

So does the average nurse physio etc in the public sector not get a pension pot a little larger than Mr Kiely's.

Do I have my figures wrong, surely all this fuss isn't about someone getting a smaller than average pension
 
cremeegg

It was a top-up; you are comparing the full package of an ordinary public servant with this guy's top-up.

My understanding of the facts is that his official salary was €106K. For an "ordinary" public servant that would entitle them to a pension of €53K (50%) plus a lump sum of €159K (1.5 times salary). This guy is getting a pension of €96K and a lump sum of €470K - a combined package about twice the "normal" entitlement for someone on that grade in the civil service.

But I agree, this latest aspect of the €740K, of which c.€270k actually went into the pension fund is being overplayed. The main scandal is the extra €136K top up salary coming from donations, this latest twist merely reflects that this top up salary seems to have been pensionable.
 
Why is the CRC a charity, why is it not part of the HSE?

I'm also wondering about a story I read about it taking a year to get a suitable wheelchair and it being the fault of the CRC, but isn't it the rules of the HSE that prevented the child getting the wheelchair on time. I find that more of a scandal then the shenanigans on the board. As for Goulding's defense, tosh. And the ex chairman is ill from the stress of it all, ill that he's been found out more like.

Are all charities in Ireland run this way?
 
The Chairman approved this package and the minutes record a gushing thanks for the wonderful contribution of the CEO. Now the Chairman says the CEO should pay back some of the package which he fully endorsed. With friends like that...:(
 
Why is the CRC a charity, why is it not part of the HSE?

I'm also wondering about a story I read about it taking a year to get a suitable wheelchair and it being the fault of the CRC, but isn't it the rules of the HSE that prevented the child getting the wheelchair on time. I find that more of a scandal then the shenanigans on the board. As for Goulding's defense, tosh. And the ex chairman is ill from the stress of it all, ill that he's been found out more like.

Are all charities in Ireland run this way?

But virtually all hospitals in the State (if not all) are owned and run by private institutions (usually associated with religious orders and/or universities) with virtually all their funding coming directly from the HSE.

It's a systemic problem that has never been addressed and that leads to situations like this and ethic boards deciding whether or not to obey the law of the land.
 
Just a small query regarding the CRC pension situation.

Does the ordinary public servant not receive a pension equal to 2/3 of their salary.

Say 2/3 of €40,000, thats €26,000.

Does this pension come with index linking, and surviving spouse provision.

Is the annuity rate for this about 3.5%. That comes to what? just over €760,000

So does the average nurse physio etc in the public sector not get a pension pot a little larger than Mr Kiely's.

Do I have my figures wrong, surely all this fuss isn't about someone getting a smaller than average pension

PS pensions are 40/80 of wages.
 
Why is the CRC a charity, why is it not part of the HSE?

Lots of public services are owned and run by charities/church in Ireland.

Practically all primary education, most secondary education, lots of hospitals, a lot of social care.
 
Why is the CRC a charity, why is it not part of the HSE?

You're asking the right question, but heading in the wrong direction.

The real question is whether the CRC, and many other large service providers like Rehab, Brothers of Charity, Sisters of Charity, St Michael's House are really charities at all? These are very large businesses, and in many cases, they provide excellent services. There is nothing wrong with the HSE commissioning services from large businesses.

The problem arises when these large businesses masquerade as charities on the side, and put the hand out for extras from the public. There should be a division between service providers and disability lobbying or representative organisations.

If you want to be a service provider, you're a business. If you want to collect money, then by all means be a charity, collect money, commission whatever extra services you can, and publish your accounts openly and comply with the new charity Governance code.

But stop confusing the two.
 
The problem arises when these businesses masquerade as charities on the side, and put the hand out for extras from the public.
Our local private primary school, whose pupils are the children of only the wealthiest people in the area who are able to afford the fees, recently had a 'bag packing session' in Tesco's!

This private school also a registered charity although for the life of me, I can't think why. I certainly didn't donate and am scrutinizing every collector on the street or in the supermarkets before I give them anything.
 
You're asking the right question, but heading in the wrong direction.

.

OK I'll accept that, they should be a business (as service provider). So why then are they charities. To avoid tax? And why does the HSE have anything to do with how much the employees are paid? How can they dictate that, if it's a business or a charity what is it to the HSE how much people are paid.

Separately, if you are a charity, and therefor enjoy certain tax priviliges, then I guess the pay of the board etc should be open to public scrutiny as a result of the tax status. In any case if you receive public donations, people should be entitled to know how the money is being spent.
 
Back
Top