View
216
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Forensic exposition of the culture of blockage, prevarication and wasteful behaviour currently in vogue in a high-spending Irish Department of Environment in 2011. Ireland is bankrupt, yet waste and delay is the order of the day. This forensic "day in the life" case study follows the journey of a pooorly resourced voluntary group seeking to appeal a grant refusal and being frustrated at every turn.
Citation preview
FAO: Rita McNulty Assistant Secretary (Community) Department of the Environment July 26, 2011
Our REF:- rm1260711
Dear Rita,
I am writing to you on behalf of Parental Equality (a voluntary support group) to draw
your attention to and seek your leadership intervention in a "stuckness" which has
arisen in dealing with officials within your Department.
The difficulties issue from a Parental Equality Funding application, under the aegis of
"Funding scheme to Support National Organisations in the Community and Voluntary
Sector" lodged on January 24, 2011 by e-mail.
Sincerely
Liam Ggin
This situation to date:-
Following the receipt of a letter from your Department dated 7 June 2011 stating that
the application had been unsuccessful and stating that this decision could be appealed
within 28 days (from June 7) and in which no details, in terms of feedback assessment,
total marks or information about the appeals process itself, was provided, Parental
Equality set about reviewing its own application in order to decide whether to lodge an
appeal or not .
As the first and most obvious step, feedback on the evaluation of the application was
requested in phone conversations with Department official Ann Walsh. The quality and
the usefulness of the feedback when finally received by Parental Equality has proven to
be of negligible value.
Informed by Parental Equality's previous experiences going back a number of years of
dealings with statutory bodies, where either the denial or the culturally attuned "no
recollection" response has been used by officials to prevent certain facts from being
agreed, and mindful of the fundamental "digital-space" nature of the original application,
Parental Equality engaged in a flurry of digital correspondence with both Ann Walsh
(whose position was incorrectly interpreted by Parental Equality as being a principal
officer, albeit that Ann Walsh in either her correspondence or her description on the
environ.ie website at no stage made any attempt to clarify her organisational status) and
with Pat Boyle APO.
logText BoxThis Document contains embedded videos and is designed to be read on a computer, preferably with Adobe Reader. Printing it on paper and reading it loses a relevant dimension!
The fundamental purpose of this correspondence was for Parental Equality to procure
full and comprehensive feedback analysis, which Parental Equality argue should have
been readily made available, as a "best-practice" standard in any process which
involves the disbursement of public funds, in order that Parental Equality could firstly
review and reflect on the rationale, competency and/or fairness of the evaluation and
then if it decided to appeal the negative decision on the merits of its application and the
shortcomings of the evaluation, it would be in a position, as a result of having assessed
the full information, to make as professional an appeal as possible for a voluntary
group, given its extremely limited resources and the distraction that is caused to its coal-
face work with traumatised clients, by the time-consuming efforts in both making an
initial application and in prosecuting a competent appeal.
The experience of Parental Equality of having failed to elicit reasonable, professional
and direct answers to specific direct questions and the prevarication and obfuscation by
both previously named officials has exceeded "the frustration tolerance threshold" of
active volunteers who give of their time to help families in transition, only to be
disabused by an apparently unsanctionable very "uncivil disservice".
Decision to refer the matter to you:-
Over the period of last weekend I was approached by Joe Egan the new chairman of
Parental Equality (who has just recently been elected as the first chairman for the
Platform for European Fathers... The founding of the Platform for European Fathers
(PEF) was welcomed at the European fathers congress in the European Parliament
that was organised by the Greens/EFA on June 28, 2011 in support of paternity leave.).
Joe is representative of a younger, energised generation of fathers with young children,
who are essentially digital natives and are intent on building positive paternal models
and support channels informed by the legacy of the generation of voluntary activists
who have gone before them. He was bemused, shocked and frustrated at what appears
to be a culturally driven intent by civil servants to prevent voluntary groups (and by
extension all citizens) from not only getting access to information but also by being
proactively denied direct answers to direct questions by highly paid civil servants,
against the backdrop of the "transformation of the public service, post the Croke Park
agreement ".
In his naivet (and thankfully lack of cynicism) Joe had entered into this grant
application process believing that a "high quality competent and professional evaluation
process" would examine and determine applications based on their merits alone and
that in the event of an appeal, the cooperation of public service officials in providing
explanatory feedback would be readily available.
As a result of my historical and long experience as chairman of Parental Equality, and of
my availability due to my being now retired from the public service and also being
removed from the coal-face of dealing with a continuous stream of traumatised,
disadvantaged and isolated separated fathers, Joe requested that I assist Parental
Equality in trying to unblock this "stuckness" with officialdom.
At this point of my life, I am personally in the process of trying to recalibrate my sense of
humanity, after almost 20 years of being bathed in a cynical cesspool of trying to deal
with the Discriminatory Department of Social and Family Affairs and other statutory
agencies, with little expectation of their redemption as long as no one at a significant
leadership level took the necessary decisive steps to investigate properly, complaints of
misconduct, to implement tangible sanctions and so discourage such misconduct and
most importantly to lead, through personal example, their staff to perform their duties as
civil servants in a noble, accountable, transparent and professional manner.
Guided by synchronicity, I was heading towards Glenties last weekend to attend my first
MacGill school. In scanning through the report of the 2010 MacGill school I noted some
hard-hitting comments by Dr Eddie Molloy a management consultant in relation to public
service transformation. Some quotations from his presentation resonated with this
current ongoing experience of Parental Equality:-
"the failure of institutions to act, he says, when presented with indisputable facts and
sensible remedies is because they suffer from a condition felicitously named by a
former civil servant as implementation deficit disorder. Implementation deficit
disorder is, according to Dr Molloy, a deeply embedded impulse or reflex within the
culture of established institutions. This disorder leads to:-
Rationalisation, denial, obfuscation, resulting in the dismissal of compelling
evidence of failure and the need to change.
Disowning any responsibility for what went wrong, e.g., Lehmann's caused our
banking problems.
Protecting the interests of the most powerful stakeholders.
Suggesting that we put the past behind us and move on.
Proposing that "we are the best people to sort it out".
Molloy states "however, we are stuck. The old "wineskins" who have received the
reports that cite, directly or indirectly, their role in creating the crisis have so far shown
themselves to be culturally incapable of reform."
I accepted the chairman of Parental Equality's request for me to progress this matter on
behalf of Parental Equality based on the following three objectives:-
1. To assist Parental Equality to procure all relevant feedback assessment
information from the evaluation process, including the scoring matrix details as
identified by Parental Equality. This would include prosecuting an F.O.I.
application seeking this information and bringing it all the way through the
ombudsman and courts process if necessary. I will also seek to have recorded
and measured the sums of public monies that are wastefully expended on
achieving this ojective.
2. That my fundamental objective in expending my energy on this process, is to
perform an act of public service, by seeking to help create a benchmark of best
practice with regards to defining in plain English what exactly applicants for
grants for public monies are entitled to in terms of information about the
evaluations, feedback assessments, appeals processes, establishment of
criteria, competencies and details of the evaluation team members and anyone
involved in the appeals process. The outcome of establishing this "best-practice"
standard will be leveraged through prominent website publication on all
departments' websites and made available in conjunction with all application
forms in future. Furthermore, when this "best-practice" standard is established
and approved a formal process would be undertaken within the public service to
ensure that all public servants are culturally acclimatised to this clearly defined
standard.
3. To ensure a full investigation into the behaviours of the officials in this situation
and to challenge and expose the cultural conditioning which seems to turn
presumably decent, competent entrants into the public service, into essentially
wasters of public monies, impediments to progress who damage,frustrate and
negate the very worthwhile work of volunteers throughout the country.
In conjunction with the above three objectives my overarching consideration was that I
would record this process for online publication and distribution as a case study to
highlight this weakness and unprofessionalism in the Irish public service, in the hope
that it might underpin and feed the need for transformational change to be meaningful.
Before reviewing the correspondence between Parental Equality and the Department, I
reflected on the previous and similar process I had been involved in around the year
2004 during the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, where as then
chairman of Parental Equality, I had been involved in making an application for funding,
which was disabused and effectively buried, either as an active commission or omission
by Department officials or by an even larger incompetency by their computer systems. A
senior officer Heber McMahon, who I recently noticed in a televised Oireachtas
accounts committee, can be called upon to give his version of his departments
behaviour in this matter and explain how monies were made available on an ex-gratia
basis with the proviso that Parental Equality would refrain from progressing their
investigation further. Whilst the reality for Parental Equality at the time was one of very
limited resources, high ongoing demand at the coalface, particularly from separated
fathers who were experiencing major disadvantage, isolation and trauma and therefore
Parental Equality had to make the hard choice to take the meagre settlement and not
pursue departmental failings to their logical conclusion, I fully accept that our failure to
push then to conclusion, for a "best-practice" standard of professional behaviour by the
public servants involved, simply allowed such a culture to be reinforced and to
propagate, so that it should not surprise us to be revisited by its cancerous effect some
seven years later.
Over the last few days I have gathered from Parental Equality and collated this series of
digital correspondence between them and Department officials including a copy of the
original application and written correspondence from the Department officials. I am
aware that there may be other correspondence which due to their limited resources
Parental Equality may not have included and I emphasise my invitation to your
Department to append such material to the information I have collated for
completeness.
I have organised the information essentially in three sections:-
1. The first section covers the uncontentious e-mail correspondence from January
24, 2011 through June 9, 2011 (inclusive).
2. The second section covers correspondence by e-mail from July 1 to July 18
(inclusive) with Pat Boyle from the Department. These are numbered 1 to 25
3. The third section covers correspondence by e-mail from July 5 to July 18
(inclusive) with or about Ann Walsh from the Department. These are listed A to I.
The e-mails are hyperlinked in order to assist smoother navigation and any suggestions
which would improve this navigation experience is welcomed.
As an initial comment I wish to note the dismal failure in departmental written
correspondence to provide either a website address or e-mail addresses for the relevant
officials. It seems incredible that anybody purporting to be operating as an effective and
professional level in the year 2011 given the sum of public finances spent on online
facilities, could communicate or operate without providing this information. In the light of
one of the arguments being considered by Parental Equality that the core of their
application was based on "digital-space" service delivery to what is essentially going to
be a cohort of digital natives and very much in alignment with the EU digital agenda, the
absence of apparent competence and practice by departmental officials with these
"normal technologies" (including an apparent inability or at least unexplained incapacity
by Pat Boyle to competently attach two documents by e-mail ref: e-mail sent by Pat
Boyle 5 July 2011 14:59).
Furthermore, I was personally shocked to read in the customer services charter on your
Department's website, that in response to either an e-mail or snail mail that "we aim to
respond to your query in clear plain language within 15 working days". Firstly, to
equate snail mail and e-mail in terms of delivery and response times is both offensive
and technically ignorant. Secondly, with the understandable caveat that all
correspondence would merit due consideration before responding, the suggestion in a
digital age that 15 days (and working days at that) is an example of "best-practice"
performance is itself evidence of dinosaur thinking within your Department and if such
thinking is allowed to persist will ensure that the outcome of any transformation initiative
will simply lead to more of the same.
.
Analysis of contentious correspondence
The interaction between Parental Equality essentially involves three officials, Ann Walsh
(organisational status undefined by her), Pat Boyle APO and Don Sexton PO.
Ann Walsh
Ann Walsh was incorrectly presumed by Parental Equality to be the lead and senior
official in this arena as her name was the only one identified in this sector on the
departmental website. Joe Egan, chairman of Parental Equality maintains that in a
telephone conversation with her, Ann Walsh told him that Parental Equality would have
22 days from the date of receipt of feedback assessment in which to prepare an appeal.
Despite a clear request for Ann Walsh to either confirm or contradict Joe Egan's
statement, she has neither confirmed or denied his claim, rather choosing instead to
inexplicably to refer to an imaginary conversation with Paul Coleman, who has
confirmed he has never communicated with Ann Walsh and of whom there is no
mention on which she could base such an irrational statement. Furthermore, I note her
use of the cultural mantra within the public service of "I have no recollection". When
Ann Walsh was specifically asked to forward the contents of a complaint against her
professional misconduct to the relevant official she both neglected to confirm whether
she had done so or not and she failed to respond to a reasonable request made to her
that she forward details and/or links explaining the relevant complaints process. In
some either Freudian slippage or cynical wordplay she refers to "principle" and
"principal" instead of addressing the direct questions that had been put to her.
Action sought:-
Answers to the queries and requests and responses to the requests in correspondence
to Ann Walsh are still outstanding. I am formally requesting that you as assistant
secretary arrange to have these answers provided in order to ensure clarity and remove
any discrepancy.
Pat Boyle (APO)
It is accepted by Parental Equality that the e-mail to Pat Boyle (1 July 2011 15:50), was
too naive and loose, albeit written with an expectation of integrity, professional
competence, a capacity to interpret a request and the true spirit of public service that
one should expect from an assistant principal officer, who probably costs the taxpayer in
the region of 75 per hour to employ (if you have a more accurate figure I would gladly
reflect this and modify this document). His failure to provide a useful and clear response
led to Parental Equality following a forensic if necessarily pedantic approach in
correspondence with him, setting out nine specific clear questions in an e-mail to him (5
July 2011 13:45). Most importantly, there was a fundamental failure by Pat Boyle at this
point, to recognise and to acknowledge that there was a conflict-of-interest for him
insofar as his behaviour and performance in his role within the evaluation committee
was being challenged and that he was making an "interested" decision in relation to
releasing information which could be used to challenge his behaviour and/or
competence in this matter and that at this point he should have sought to remove
himself from the process as he was breaching one of the two basic rules of natural
justice "Nemo judex in causa sua".
In spite of him having to be reminded on a number of occasions to respond to e-mail
queries, Pat Boyle finally acknowledged that firstly he had received and successfully
opened the detailed nine-question document from Parental Equality. An examination of
e-mail correspondence shows that:-
He stated that he would respond in "due course".
He subsequently provided a response which failed to address the specific questions
directed to him.
He failed to seek clarification or query any of the questions therein (one must therefore
assume that he understood the content of these questions) and he subsequently
confirmed that his response contained in his e-mail of 7 July 2011 11:02 was a "full
note" response.
Finally in this e-mail, Pat Boyle having repeatedly prevaricated by failing to answer
direct, specific questions (and not having queried or sought clarification on any of these
questions) and not having sought to absent himself from a process in which he had a
material interest, then stated that he would not enter into a "discourse", thus displaying
his complete failure to understand that what was simply being sought from him was
clear and specific answers to specific questions and that any subsequent discourse or
dialogue that Parental Equality might enter into would by definition not be with him, as
he was compromised by being the leader of the evaluation committee.
In his e-mail of 20 July 2011 11:05 Pat Boyle states that he "would just like to add that
each applicant received feedback and details of their own marks." This statement
by Pat Boyle simply serves to increase the level of suspicion in relation to the overall
handling of this evaluation process. If what he says is accurate and correct, then
according to his own e-mail of 7 July 2011 11:02, each of the 149 applicants would have
received feedback as per that provided for Parental Equality. The question must be
asked as to whether such feedback was only granted after each applicant applied for
same, or whether it was sent automatically to each applicant, as part of the planned and
overall process. If that were so, then the question arises as to why Parental Equality
had to initiate a request for such feedback, which was not supplied along with the
notification of grant aid rejection, dated July 7, 2011. Any competent investigation into
this matter should require a complete and satisfactory explanation for the suspicions
commented on above.
In spite of the fact that Pat Boyle was requested in an e-mail from Parental Equality on 5
July 2011 15:21, for "contact details for the independent appeals office and or the
corresponding weblink", his answer in an e-mail on 5 July 2011 15:57, was "There is
no Appeals Office, the procedure is that appeals are handled by an officer from
outside this Division who had no role in the original applications process." Any
reasonable reviewer of this response by a senior official at APO level could only
conclude that this information is firstly of no value to the requester and is entirely
unhelpful and a further example of Pat Boyle's negative interference with Parental
Equality's attempts to prosecute a competent appeal. For example, Pat Boyle must
have had forwarding details of an appeals official to which to send whatever appeals
were lodged with him on July 5 last and that the very minimum this information should
have been provided to Parental Equality.
Action sought
That the complaints process and investigation be instigated to consider the allegation of
professional misconduct by Pat Boyle to be carried out by independent investigators,
from outside of civil service culture.
Don Sexton PO
It appears from correspondence that Don Sexton was the principal officer to whom both
Pat Boyle and Ann Walsh report. His involvement in any discussion around this
correspondence is unclear and rather shadowy. However there are at least four
references of e-mails from the Department to Parental Equality being copied to him, as
listed below:-
6 July 2011 09:39
7 July 2011 11:02
15 July 2011 08:43
18 July 2011 15:31
One must assume that as the supervisory official responsible for the behaviour and
performance of both Pat Boyle and Ann Walsh and given that he had been made aware
at a minimum with copied e-mails, it is reasonable to suggest that he would have or
should have queried as to the nature of the correspondence and sought to uncover
what, if any, difficulties existed. If he did not do so, it is submitted that he is guilty by
omission of failing to determine the nature of the problematic correspondence. One
must also assume that if he had performed his function and reviewed with his staff, their
approach to this issue and if he at no time made any recorded attempt to intervene to
try to resolve or move the situation forward, that he must, by virtue of his failure to direct
his staff to behave otherwise and/or his failure involve himself to resolve the issue,
himself agree in principle with the negative blocking tactics used by his staff.
Action sought
I submit that Don Sexton is compromised in terms of him having any future role to play
in progressing this issue.
Summary
I have been engaged by Parental Equality to assist them in procuring the necessary
information for them to prosecute a competent and coherent appeal. My advice to
Parental Equality, upon reviewing the correspondence between Parental Equality and
your officials is that each of the three named individuals are fundamentally
interdependently compromised in terms of future dealings with this issue. I have
recommended that the issue be brought to your attention, as you are, as I understand,
the most senior official in your Department dealing with Community.
I am formally requesting that you do the following:-
1. Provide, without delay, information and contact details for the appeals officials or
section, who will be dealing with the appeal process, or in the alternative set out
your rationale for not being able to, or deciding not to, provide this information.
2. Arrange urgently to have provided to Parental Equality the details and specific
answers to questions 1-9 of the word document e-mails to Pat Boyle on 5 July
2011 13:45, bearing in mind that the provision of clear, unequivocal and
unambiguous responses to these questions is necessary in order for Parental
Equality to complete their appeal documentation.
3. When you have examined the correspondence, I wish you to confirm that you
either support or condemn the culture and behaviour of officials in your
Department throughout this correspondence, particularly in light of the
transformation of public service process and the Croke Park agreement.
4. Undertake to instigate an independent investigation into the complaints and
allegations of professional misconduct to which I have drawn your attention in
this communication and ensure that the investigators are drawn from outside the
compromised culture which seems to be endemic in public service behaviour in
order that the independence of such an investigation can have no perception, in
the minds of the public, of being an "in-house" job.
5. Commit to working along with me to achieve, as a matter of public service, my
second objective as set out above for producing, publishing, distributing and
implementing quality best-practice standards for the provision of information to
applicants.
6. Finally, I formally request that you ensure that any communication with me in this
regard is carried out in a digital medium, in order to facilitate the online
publication and widespread availability of this material in the public interest.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Ggin
E-mail:- ogogainl@gmail.com
List of Supporting documents
Collation of Email Correspondence.
Parental Equality original grant application
Notice of failure of application (7 June 2011).
Feedback Assessment and cover letter (23 June 2011)
This set of e-mails between Parental Equality and the Department of
the Environment cover the period January 24, 2011 to June 9, 2011
inclusive
Click here to navigate to the more central and focused
correspondence in relation to this issue
AA Agb to BMCD & AW 24 January 2011 15:02
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to bmcdonagh@pobail.ie
cc awalsh@pobail.ie,
whitepaper@pobail.ie
bcc
date 24 January 2011 15:02
subject Parental Equality Funding
Application
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Ms McDonagh,
Please find attached Parental Equality Funding application under the
aegis of "Funding scheme to Support National Organisations in the
Community and Voluntary Sector". Included with the application are the
following documents:- Memorandum & Articles of Association, PE
Strategic plan 2006-, PE volunteers list by county, Revenue
Commissioners CHY Status, PE Accounts 2009. Please acknowledge
receipt of this application by return.
Regards
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Project Manager (Core funding)
+353877811218
AB BMCD to Agb 24 January 2011 16:43
from whitepaper
whitepap@pobail.ie
to Alan Beirne
date 24 January 2011 16:43
subject RE: Parental Equality Funding
Application
mailed-by pobail.ie
Thank you for your application form. The department will be in touch in due course.
Brd
AC Agb to AW 5 July 2011 16:43
from Alan Beirne agbeirne@gmail.com
to msgi.pmcf@gmail.com
bcc awalsh@pobail.ie,
date 9 June 2011 13:23
subject Parental Equality
mailed-
by
gmail.com
Ms Ann Walsh
The Department of Environment,
Community and Local Government,
Community & Voluntary Supports
Teeling Street,
Tubbercurry,
Co. Sligo
8th June 2011
Dear Ms Walsh,
Thank you for your letter dated 7th June 2011 (copy attached). As you can
imagine we are most disappointed that we did not qualify for the funding
under the Scheme to Support National Organisations in the Community and
Voluntary Sector.
Can you please forward at your earliest convenience
1. A copy of the assessment criteria and
2. The result or mark which we did receive and
3. The mark we would have needed in order to be recommended for this funding stream.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours faithfully
Alan Beirne
Project Manager (Core Funding)
Parental Equality
The sequence of e-mails below maps two threads of correspondence,
one between
Parental Equality and Pat Boyle and the other between Parental
Equality and Ann Walsh from the period July 1-18 inclusive
(the list below hyperlinks to each individual e-mail for ease of navigation with a link at
the end of each e-mail to bring the reader back to Top.)
TOP
1 Agb to PB 1 July 2011 15:50
2 Agb to PB 4 July 2011 20:16
3 Agb to AW 4 July 2011 22:10
4 AW to Agb 5 July 2011 08:49
5 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 09:34
6 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 13:45
7 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 14:02
8 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 14:59
9 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 15:21
10 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 15:57
11 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 16:15
12 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 16:23
13 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 16:59
14 PB to Agb 6 July 2011 09:39
15 PB to Agb 7 July 2011 11:02
16 PB to Agb 12 July 2011 10:38
17 Agb to PB 12 July 2011 17:01
18 PB to Agb 13 July 2011 10:57
19 Agb to PB 14 July 2011 16:59
20 PB to Agb 15 July 2011 08:43
21 Agb to PB 15 July 2011 16:57
22 Agb to PB 18 July 2011 14:00
23 PB to Agb 18 July 2011 15:31
24 Agb to PB 18 July 2011 17:24
25 PB to Agb 20 July 2011 11:05
A Agb to AW 5 July 2011 14:12
B AW to Agb 5 July 2011 14:17
C Agb to AW 5 July 2011 15:01
D Agb to AW 5 July 2011 16:22
E Agb to AW 12 July 2011 10:31
F Agb to AW 12 July 2011 12:57
G AW to Agb 12 July 2011 14:02
H Agb to PC 18 July 2011 15:10
I PC to Agb 18 July 2011 14:02
1 Agb to PB 1 July 2011 15:50
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to *pat.boyle@environ.ie
cc *PaulColeman
bcc
date *1 July 2011 15:50
subject *Parental Equality Funding
application appeal
mailed-by *gmail.com
Mr. Pat Boyle
Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
July 1st 2011
Dear Pat,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23rd June 2011. I have been mandated by the
new Chairman of Parental Equality, Joseph Egan, to follow up with you in this regard.
I note that nowhere in either this letter or the previous letter from Ann Walsh dated 7th June
2011 is there any indication of details of e-mails, web addresses or any digital means of
communication with whoever is involved in this funding application process. I notice for
your information and thus the essence of the Parental Equality application is founded on the
belief that Ireland, whatever about the present reality in the public service sector will only
survive by leveraging value for money in the digital space. Parental Equality feel insulted by
what appears to be an extremely amateurish, cursory, simplistic and dismissive assessment on
an application which was reviewed by others prior to being presented as being of a high quality
and professional standard even though it was produced with committed voluntary effort. The
objective in seeking feedback was to assist Parental Equality primarily in making an appeal and
secondly, in order for us to improve our presentation and approach for future applications
for funding.
What is provided by the Department is essentially useless in either of these regards. I note
also that Parental Equality are being placed under enormous pressure now to produce an
appeal before next Tuesday 5th July 2011, with an intervening weekend. I am formally
requesting that you engage in any correspondence with me on this matter through e-mail to
gbeirne@gmail.com in order to avoid any waste of time.
In order for Parental Equality to make an effective appeal we require the following information:-
A list of the names of those members of the evaluation committee that scored the funding
application process.
Details of the qualifications and skill sets of the members of the evaluation committee, which
would display their competency to evaluate a funding proposal describing an innovative process
in the digital space.
A copy of the scoring matrix which presumably was prepared by the evaluation committee
setting out the individual criteria and the score of each application against each of these criteria.
As this funding process concerns public monies, this information is presumably publicly
available.
A gender breakdown of the members of the evaluation committee.
A copy of whatever equality audit was applied to the outcome of the funding applications to
ensure gender equality in the distribution of public funds.
A statement of assurance on behalf of the Department that forms are available in the event of a
successful appeal.
A list of the "other groups working in the area of family breakdown" that are referred to in the
feedback assessment.
In order to assist you in providing timely, helpful and informative answers to the questions above
I attach for your information a copy of the original Parental Equality funding application and
recent
correspondence. Please acknowledge receipt of this email by the close of business today.
Yours sincerely
_____________________
Alan Beirne
Project Manager Core Funding
Go To TOP
2 Agb to PB 4 July 2011 20:16
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
REMINDER 1
to *pat.boyle@environ.ie
cc *PaulColeman
bcc
date *4 July 2011 20:16
subject *Re: Parental Equality Funding
application appeal
mailed-by *gmail.com
REMINDER 1
Dear Pat,
I emailed you on Friday last and have not heard or received an acknowledgement as requested. It is with
some concern that I write again seeking the detail requested last Friday. We cannot be expected to lodge
an official appeal if we haven't got the data and necessary information in order that we may proceed with
said appeal. Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Alan Beirne
Go To TOP
3 Agb to AW 4 July 2011 22:10
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to *ann.walsh@environ.ie
bcc
date *4 July 2011 22:10
subject *Re: Parental Equality Funding
application appeal
mailed-by *gmail.com
Dear Ann
For your information, please find below email sent to Pat Boyle last Friday and again today. Please
acknowledge receipt of this email.
Alan Beirne
Go To TOP
4 AW to Agb 5 July 2011 08:49
from *Ann Walsh
Ann.Walsh@environ.ie
to *Alan Beirne
date *5 July 2011 08:49
subject *RE: Parental Equality Funding
application appeal
mailed-by *environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
I acknowledge receipt of your email regarding your appeal.
Yours sincerely
Ann Walsh
Go To TOP
5 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 09:34
from *Pat Boyle Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to *Alan Beirne
cc *PaulColeman
,
Ann Walsh
date *5 July 2011 09:34
subject *RE: Parental Equality Funding application
appeal
mailed-by *environ.ie
Mr Beirne
The application process for this scheme was carried out by a team of four led by myself. All of
us have been working in the public service for a considerable number of years. I have been
responsible for the old scheme for the last two years and the other assessors have even more
exprerince in this area. There were two males and two females on the team.
The details of funding for the 63 successful groups has been press released and each group
was informed of their final mark. However I am unable to give you details of the marks attained
by other organisations.
On page 15 of your application you have listed a myriad of organisations that are working in the
area of family breakdown and that your organisation collarborates with.
Finally I must stress that today the 5th of July is the last day on which appeals can be
submitted.
Patrick Boyle
Assistant Principal ENDS Go To TOP
6 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 13:45
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to pat.boyle@environ.ie
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 5 July 2011 13:45
subject URGENT
mailed-by gmail.com
Please acknowledge receipt of this email and note the urgency of the content.
Alan G. Beirne
Word document attached
Mr. Pat Boyle
Assistant Principle Officer
Department of the Environment, Community & Local government
Community & Voluntary Supports
Pat.boyle@environ.ie
July 5th 2011
Dear Patrick,
I acknowledge your e-mail response to my 1st reminder of an e-mail sent last Friday, 1July
2011, in which I set out a number of specific questions on behalf of Parental Equality, which
are necessary for us to have clarification on, in order for us to prepare a comprehensive and
professional appeal. I note in your response e-mail, posted by you at 9:34 AM today, that you
stressed that Parental Equality have less than 8 hours before 5 PM today in which to submit an
appeal.
I have circulated your correspondence and I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the
group, with the following queries:-
1. Please confirm what is the basis of the date of 5th of July which you have set down as
the last date for appeal. Is this an arbitrary date? Is it a date specifically related to the
provision to the appellant of either (a) the decision to refuse to grant our application,
(b) feedback assessment on the unsuccessful application, or (c) a date set down in
legislation or some statutory process?
2. You stated in your e-mail that you are "unable to give details of the marks attained by
other organisations". Please clarify, by return, whether you are "unable" because of a
lack of access by you to the information requested, an inability on your side, technically
or otherwise, to transmit this data to us, or some statutorily based restriction which
precludes us from having this information.
3. For the purposes of clarification I would like to restate our application for a breakdown
of information in the form of a scoring matrix about the performance of our original
application. Our understanding of a scoring matrix is that it should lay out the different
marks received against each criteria where each of these individual marks would have
added up to a total of 48 marks in our case. Based on the presumption that the structure
of the scoring matrix if sorted on a top to bottom total score, this would record the
different applications by row. Please respond to each the three points below:-
4.
a. At the very minimum, there should be no query about providing Parental Equality
with the breakdown of scorers versus criteria for our own application. Will you
provide these details?
b. Another layer of information would be to provide the scoring matrix with all of the
other applicants' details being blanked out, but showing the relative positioning of
Parental Equality's performance with respect to the others. Will you provide these
details? If not, what is the basis for your refusal to do so?
c. A further layer of information would be to provide the scoring matrix with all
details of all applicants including their scorers against each element of criteria.
This information is being sought on the understanding of the meaning of
transparency in the use of and application for public monies? Will you provide
these details? If not, what is the basis for your refusal to do so?
5. In relation to our application for "Details of the qualifications and skill sets of the
members of the evaluation committee, which would display their competency to
evaluate a funding proposal describing an innovative process in the digital space", I
note your response explains that the four of you have a considerable number of years
of experience of the public service and are responsible for the "old scheme". I wish
to emphasise that on the basis of our experience to date with our dealings with your
section and the lack of web-based proactive communication from your department
and reflecting on the shallowness of the feedback assessment which we have been
provided with to date, which indicates a fundamental failure to grasp the innovative
and essentially, collaborative, digital/online nature of the application, our request for
confirmation of competencies requires clarification of the skill sets of the evaluation
participants which are in accordance with the guidelines for the digital EU agenda. Once
again I am requesting that you specifically set out the skill sets of each member of the
team led by yourself in relation to core competencies around digital, online, collaborative
processes in the digital space which would assert your credentials to competently
assess our application.
6. Please confirm whether you are familiar or not with the digital EU agenda (this link may
assist you http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/index_en.htm ).
7. You seem to have failed to either notice, or deal with the specific request for you to
provide "A copy of whatever equality audit was applied to the outcome of the funding
applications to ensure gender equality in the distribution of public funds." I am requesting
that you do so by return, or confirm that you either don't know about equality audits,
or that there is no process of doing an equality audit in the carrying out of dispersal of
public monies in this regard.
8. In the third paragraph of your e-mail this morning, you state that our application lists a
myriad of organisations working in the area of family breakdown that our organisation
collaborates with. This response further reinforces our belief that there has been a
fundamental misunderstanding of the thrust of and fundamental innovative value of
the Parental Equality application. Please confirm what other collaborative efforts to
pull together the combined skill sets and service delivery opportunities focused on
addressing the marginalisation of fathers and their children within Ireland and the Irish
Diaspora, have been or are being funded by either your department or other statutory
services, which either make our application redundant or unnecessary?
9. Please confirm if your superior is Ann Walsh, principal officer?
Finally I request a response by return to enable us to address your prohibitive deadline.
Alan Beirne
Go To TOP
7 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 14:02
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to pat.boyle@environ.ie
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 5 July 2011 14:02
subject APPEALS FORMAT
SPECIFICATION ---- URGENT
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Patrick,
Please forward to me by return details of any specific form of wording or any specific form that is
required in order for us to make an appeal against the decision to turn down the funding
application by Parental Equality.
Please forward to me details of the appeals process as set out in any statutory documentation,
or if not so set out, a reference to any documentation which forms the basis of the appeals
process. This information should include contact details of the appeals officials and all relevant
timelines.
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Go To TOP
8 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 14:59
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc PaulColeman
,
Ann Walsh
date 5 July 2011 14:59
subject RE: APPEALS FORMAT
SPECIFICATION ---- URGENT
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
I attach copies of corresspondence issued to your organisation on 7 June 2011 and 23 June
2011. From both of these it is clear that the final date for receipt of appeals is 5 July 2011. This
date allowed 28 days from the date of the original letter informing applicants of the result of their
applications.
All that is required is a letter stating the reason/basis for your appeal.
If you forward your appeal to either myself or Ann Walsh, we will forward the appeal to the
Appeals Officer for consideration.
Please note the appeal is handled by an Independent Appeals Officer and this section has no
further role in the appeals process.
Pat Boyle
Assistant Principal
Go To TOP
9 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 15:21
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 5 July 2011 15:21
subject Re: APPEALS FORMAT
SPECIFICATION ---- URGENT
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Patrick,
I refer to your e-mail response to me sent by you at 14.59 hours today.
You refer to copies of correspondence which you say you have attached. I apologise in advance
if the problem is at my end but I appear to have received a zipped file containing two documents
titled noname and noname_1. When I attempted to open them they are essentially illegible. I
would appreciate if you would confirm by immediate return what format these documents should
be accessed in.
Please provide me also by return contact details for the independent appeals office and or the
corresponding weblink.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Go To TOP
10 PB to Agb 5 July 2011 15:57
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to "agbeirne@gmail.com"
date 5 July 2011 15:57
subject FW: APPEALS FORMAT
SPECIFICATION ---- URGENT
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
The two documents in question were the correspondence giving details of the result of your
appluication and secodly the feedback letter.
I have copied out both to the bottom of this email.
There is no Appeals Office, the procedure is that appeals are handled by an officer from outside
this Division who had no role in the original applications process.
Regards
Pat Boyle
BOTH OF PAT BOYLES EMAILS FORWARDED TO L.OGOGAIN
Go To TOP
11 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 16:15
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 5 July 2011 16:15
subject Parental Equality appeal process
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Patrick
I sent you an e-mail at 13.45 today setting out a number of queries, the answer to which directly
impacts on our ability to make a full and professional appeal to the refusal of our grant
application. I note that you have chosen to answer a later e-mail from me but have failed yet to
either provide me with answers to the queries set out or even to acknowledge receipt of same.
As there is less than an hour to go before 5 PM I insist that you either respond to these queries
immediately or state your reasons for failing to do so. At the very minimum I request that you
immediately acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.
Yours sincerely
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Go To TOP
12 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 16:23
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc PaulColeman
date 5 July 2011 16:23
subject RE: Parental Equality appeal
process
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear
Mr Byrne, your email of 13.45 will be dealt with in due course but it will not be today.
Again I emphasise that today is the deadline for submission of appeals.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Go To TOP
13 Agb to PB 5 July 2011 16:59
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 5 July 2011 16:59
subject PE APPEAL
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Patrick,
I refer to the ongoing correspondence between ourselves in Parental Equality and both yourself
and your superior Ann Walsh (we presume this to be the case study you are failed despite our
request to clarify this matter) in relation to our unsuccessful application for funding.
Once again we have been shocked but unsurprised with the dismissive and discriminatory
treatment by statutory bodies such as yourselves, of those representing the needs of fathers
and their children in Irish society who have been putting in numerous hours over the year in a
voluntary capacity.
I've been asked by our chairman, Joe Egan, to lodge an appeal by Parental Equality against the
decision to reject our funding application. I wish to confirm that we have been given prohibitively
short time frames within which to prepare an appeal, and have been impeded at every stage
when seeking to procure useful, comprehensive and professional feedback in order for us to
reflect on the value, merits and shortcomings of our own application and to prepare a competent
and professional appeal.
Parental Equality are formally requesting the following:-
1. In order to ensure fairness of procedures PE seek a direction from the appeals officer to
instruct Pat Boyle to provide professional and comprehensive responses to the set of
queries which have been set out to him by Parental Equality, In particular since Friday, 1
July last, and that an extension of time be provided to Parental Equality to allow us to
consider the information when provided by Pat Boyle and or other relevant officials
within the Department, so that we can properly prosecute our appeal.
2. As a result of either the deliberate or incompetent actions on the part of Department
officials which have inhibited all reasonable efforts by our essentially voluntary group to
prepare a competent and professional appeal, Parental Equality have been denied
access to information which would enable us to make an effective appeal application.
For example, one of the arguments in our appeal will be that the application process
was for core funding and that we will want to look at the funding given to such large
organisations such as the GAA & Barnardos who actually would have core funding
already. We therefore require access to the scoring matrix information as requested in
order to complete our appeal.
3. In the light of the above points and the extremely negative experience by Parental
Equality of trying to have an open, transparent applications and feedback process with
integrity, we submit and request that this appeal should be processed as an oral appeal
with the provision of digital recording being provided by the appeals process as part of
the collation of a web-based reflection in the public domain about how this management
or mismanagement of public funds is being prosecuted.
Note: The direct and latest example of the frustrating departmental behaviour Is exemplified by
The following quote in an e-mail from Pat Boyle, send at 16.33 today....Mr Byrne, your email of
13.45 will be dealt with in due course but it will not be today. Again I emphasise that today is the
deadline for submission of appeals.
This information is and was necessary for Parental Equality to prepare a proper appeal and we
have been once again frustrated in our efforts and denied the opportunity to have the 22 day
period which already had been specified by the superior officer (as we presume) Ann Walsh.
I request that you confirm, by return, receipt of same as having been received before 5 PM
today
Yous Sincerely
Alan Beirne
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Go To TOP
14 PB to Agb 6 July 2011 09:39
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc PaulColeman
,
Don Sexton
,
Ann Walsh
date 6 July 2011 09:39
subject RE: PE APPEAL
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear
Mr Beirne, I wish to acknowledge receipt of this email. Your file will now be passed on to the
Appeals Officer.
As there are around 20 appeals, we expect the process to take a few weeks to be finalised.
The Principal Officer in this area is Don Sexton.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Assistant Principal
Go To TOP
15 PB to Agb 7 July 2011 11:02
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc Ann Walsh
,
Don Sexton
date 7 July 2011 11:02
subject RE: PE APPEAL
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
Below please find a detailled note on the application and selection process used on the Scheme
for National Organisations.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Assistant Principal
Note below was attached
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Note on the Assessment & Selection Process
The new three year funding scheme was announced in December 2010 and is scheduled to
commence by end June 2011. It attracted 149 applications of which 63 are recommended for
funding. As with the previous schemes, funding was prioritised to those organisations
representing the disadvantaged and who provide key services to such groups.
The subsections below describe:
How the scheme, and the basis on which the grants would be awarded, were
announced to prospective applicants by the Department;
The Departments identification of the eligible applicants from the applications received;
The Departments process to assess eligible applications to identify which applicants
should receive a grant; and,
How grants amounts would be calculated and disbursed by the Department.
Guidelines to the scheme were prepared and published on the website of the Department.
These guidelines indicated that funding would be provided for core operating costs comprising
staffing costs, administration costs and ongoing running costs and that priority would be given to
organisations providing key services to the disadvantage. It was noted that maximum funding of
120,000 would be provided per annum. The guidelines expressly state that funding would not
be available for training costs.
The assessment criteria for funds were clearly outlined comprising the following five selection
criteria:
The extent to which the organisation provides services to the disadvantaged;
The level of added value within the sector;
The deliverables and impact of the funding;
The viability, value for money and governance of the organisation; and
The level of cooperation/integration/consolidation with similar/allied organisations;
The financial requirements and tax clearance procedures for applicants were also clearly
stipulated. Funds would be drawn down on a six monthly basis and successful applicants would
be required to submit financial accounts for the immediate preceding six months and projections
of income and expenditure for the following six months. Additionally, they would be required to
have an independent firm of auditors and fully audited and certified accounts would be
submitted annually by the organisation. Further, organisations must be registered for tax and in
possession of a tax clearance certificate, for funding over 10,000, with the exception of those
that have a charity number.
The application form was also made available online and sought information under the following
three headings:
Details of Organisation;
Details of existing grants/contributors;
Details of funding sought.
Summary of Applications
A total of 149 applications were received from a variety of organisations, of which 63 were
successful in obtaining funding. The results of the Departments screening and assessment are
summarised in Table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1: Summary of Applications______________________________________
Grant Applications
Number of Applications
Applications rejected as being ineligible for the scheme before merits
of project were considered 37
Applications found to be ineligible during the scoring process 4
Applications scoring too low to be recommended
for funding 45
Successful applications 63
Total applications 149
Eligibility Check
Organisations were deemed eligible for the scheme if they were a national organisation, had
nationwide membership, met the financial and tax requirements and were seeking funds for
core costs. Ineligible applications were identified early in the assessment process and were
informed in writing for the reason of ineligibility and their right to appeal. Applicants who choose
to appeal had their subsequent assessment undertaken by a person not involved in the initial
assessment process.
Assessment of Eligible Applications
Eligible applications were assessed on the five selection criteria outlined above. Each
application was assessed individually by an official within the C&V Supports Division and then
reviewed by an assessment team of four. Following consultations with the assessors,
applications could have their overall score increased or decreased.
The following weightings were applied to the selection criteria
Extent to which proposal focuses on Disadvantage 20/100
Deliverables and Impact of the Funding 25/100
Level of Added Value within the sector 20/100
Viability, value for money and governance 20/100
Level of cooperation/consolidation with similar/allied 15/100
organisations
Allocation of Grants
Successful organisations will receive funding on an annual contract basis for a three year period
from July2011, however funding in 2012 and 2013 is subject to available resources. Payment in
2011 will be for 6 months only. Initial payment will be distributed subject to satisfying financial
and tax requirements and producing an agreed work plan consistent with the proposal
contained in their application. Ongoing payments of funds will be subject to regular progress
reports against the agreed work plan and the submission of financial reports.
ENDS Go To TOP
16 Agb to PB 12 July 2011 10:38
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 12 July 2011 10:38
subject Parental Equality appeals process
mailed-by gmail.com
July 12th 2011
Dear Pat,
I confirm receipt of your e-mail to me sent on 7 July at 11.02 last. In order for us to understand
the context of the material you supplied, I require you to confirm by return, that you were able to
successfully open the word document sent to you in my e-mail dated 5 July 2011 at 13.45,
which set out a range of numbered and specific queries.
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
17 Agb to PB 12 July 2011 17:01
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 12 July 2011 17:01
subject Re: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by gmail.com
REMINDER 1
Please acknowledge receipt of my email sent to you today at 10:38.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
18 PB to Agb 13 July 2011 10:57
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc Ann Walsh
date 13 July 2011 10:57
subject RE: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by environ.ie
Mr Beirne
Emails of 10.38 and 17.02 of 12 July received.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Go To TOP
19 Agb to PB 14 July 2011 16:59
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 14 July 2011 16:59
subject Re: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Pat,
Thank you for acknowledging, yesterday, receipt of my e-mails sent to you 12th July. I note that
your response is brief and succinct and that it would have occupied very little of your time to do.
I would therefore ask you to reply with a simple yes or no to the closed question asked of you in
the e-mail of July 12, 2011 which you have acknowledged that you had received. I trust that as
with your acknowledgement you will provide this answer by return.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
20 PB to Agb 15 July 2011 08:43
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc Ann Walsh
,
Don Sexton
date 15 July 2011 08:43
subject RE: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by environ.ie
Mr Beirne
Attachment was successfully opened.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Go To TOP
21 Agb to PB 15 July 2011 16:57
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 15 July 2011 16:57
subject Parental Equality appeal process
mailed-by gmail.com
July 15th 2011
Dear Pat,
Now that you have confirmed that you were able to successfully open the word document sent
to you in my e-mail dated 5 July 2011 at 13.45, which set out a range of numbered and specific
queries, I request that you clarify whether or not your e-mail sent to me and copied by you to
Don Sexton was intended to be your considered response (please note that you specifically
declined to respond to those range of pertinent questions in a time frame which would have
been before the deadline restated to us by you on 5 July 2011, stating that you would do this in
"due course") to the specific and individual questions that you had been asked to address
therein.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
22 Agb to PB 18 July 2011 14:00
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 18 July 2011 14:00
subject Re: Parental Equality appeal
process
mailed-by gmail.com
REMINDER 1
Dear Pat,
Please acknowledge receipt of my email of Friday last sent to you at 16:57.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
23 PB to Agb 18 July 2011 15:31
from Pat Boyle
Pat.Boyle@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
cc Don Sexton
,
Ann Walsh
date 18 July 2011 15:31
subject RE: Parental Equality appeal
process
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
Email of Friday 16.57 successfully received.
Yours
Pat Boyle
Go To TOP
24 Agb to PB 18 July 2011 17:24
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Pat Boyle
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 18 July 2011 17:24
subject Re: Parental Equality appeal
process
mailed-by gmail.com
July 18th 2011
Dear Pat
I note that you have confirmed by e-mail to me today at 15.51, after yet another reminder for
you to do so, that you received my e-mail sent to you with the specific query last Friday. Please
confirm, by return, your response to the closed question set out in that e-mail of Friday July
15th.
Please also confirm, by return that you have opened this e-mail.
I wish to put on record our frustration at your incessant prevarication and avoidance of
answering reasonable questions in what appears to be a proactive attempt to delay and
frustrate our efforts to seek information which should be readily available to us, or in the
alternative that there should be sensible logical and well referenced reasons for us not to have
this information.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
25 PB to Agb 20 July 2011 11:05
to Alan Beirne
,
Don Sexton
,
Ann Walsh
date 20 July 2011 11:05
subject RE: Parental Equality
appeal process
mailed-
by
environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
My coorespondence to you of 7 July 2011 gave a very full note on the assessment and
selection process for the new scheme.
In addition I would just like to add that each applicant received feedback and details of their own
marks. I do not intend releasing this information to any third party.
I also will not enter into discourse on the skills sets or qualifications of the staff who marked the
applications.
Finally I would like to point out that all organisations were given 28 days notice of the appeal
date. This certainly is at the upper limits that anyone would expect.
Regards
Pat Boyle
Go To TOP
A Agb to AW 5 July 2011 14:12
B AW to Agb 5 July 2011 14:17
C Agb to AW 5 July 2011 15:01
D Agb to AW 5 July 2011 16:22
E Agb to AW 12 July 2011 10:31
F Agb to AW 12 July 2011 12:57
G AW to Agb 12 July 2011 14:02
H Agb tp PC 18 July 2011 15:10
I PC to Agb 18 July 2011 23:58
A Agb to AW 5 July 2011 14:12
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to *ann.walsh@environ.ie
cc *PaulColeman
bcc
date *5 July 2011 14:12
subject *Closing date for PE appeal
clarifaction sought
mailed-by *gmail.com
Dear Ann,
I have been informed by our Chairman Joe Egan, that he had been verbally assured by you that
Parental Equality would have 22 days from the receipt of the feedback assessment from your
department (which was only sent to us on 23 June last), to lodge an appeal against the refusal
to fund our application. Please confirm that this is the case and that you have confirmed that
detail with Pat Boyle, who is stressing that we submit our appeal by 5 PM today 5 July
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Project Coordinator
Parental Equality
Go To TOP
B AW to Agb 5 July 2011 14:17
from *Ann Walsh
Ann.Walsh@environ.ie
to *Alan Beirne
date *5 July 2011 14:17
subject *RE: Closing date for PE appeal
clarifaction sought
mailed-by *environ.ie
The closing date for appeals is 5 July as stated in letter of 23 June.
Regards
Ann
Go To TOP
C Agb to AW 5 July 2011 15:01
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to *Ann Walsh
cc *PaulColeman
bcc
date *5 July 2011 15:01
subject *Re: Closing date for PE appeal
clarifaction sought
mailed-by *gmail.com
Dear Anne,
For the purposes of clarification I have cross checked with our chairman Joe Egan and he has
reassured me that you did in fact during a recent phone call with him tell him that Parental
Equality would have 22 days from the date of receipt of feedback from your department to make
our appeal. As the information was only received by us around 25 June last, this should give us
approximately until Sunday, 17 July to make our appeal. Please confirm that you did in fact
state this information to Joe Egan in your phone conversation.
Alan Beirne
Go To TOP
D Agb to AW 5 July 2011 16:22
from *Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to *Ann Walsh
cc *PaulColeman
bcc
date *5 July 2011 16:22
subject *Re: Closing date for PE appeal
clarifaction sought
mailed-by *gmail.com
Dear Ann,
I would be grateful if you would bring the information below to the attention of the relevant
complaints personnel associated with your department.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
In attempting to prepare a comprehensive appeal and to clarify the length of time which would
be made available to Parental Equality to do so, I have sought clarification from Ann Walsh,
principal officer, to confirm that he had she had verbally told our chairman Joe Egan that we
would have 22 days from the receipt of the feedback on assessment, in which to prepare and
make an appeal. Despite repeated calls for her to clarify this matter, she has failed to take the
opportunity to do so, thus making our preparation of an appeal more difficult. Parental Equality
wish to process a complaint against this unprofessional misconduct by Ann Walsh.
--
_____________
Alan G. Beirne
Go To TOP
E Agb to AW 12 July 2011 10:31
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to Ann Walsh
cc PaulColeman
bcc
date 12 July 2011 10:31
subject Parental Equality appeals process
mailed-by gmail.com
July 12th 2011
Dear Anne,
I refer to my e-mail sent to you on 5 July 2011 last at 16.22. Please confirm your receipt of
same.
Please confirm, by return, whether or not you have acted on the request therein to "bring the
information below to the attention of the relevant complaints personnel associated with your
department."
If you have brought the information to the attention of the relevant personnel, please forward to
me your correspondence to such person or persons in that regard (I am making the reasonable
presumption that this correspondence is in electronic format and that therefore you can forward
this to me immediately by e-mail).
Acknowledging your senior position as Principal Officer, I am requesting that you forward to me
a link to an online source setting out the complaints process that applies to your section and/or
your department.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
F Agb to AW 12 July 2011 12:57
from Alan Beirne agbeirne@gmail.com
to Ann Walsh
cc PaulColeman
cc
date 12 July 2011 12:57
subject Re: Parental Equality appeals process
mailed-
by
gmail.com
July 12th 2011
Dear Anne,
I refer to my two e-mails sent to you on July 5, 2011 last, first at 14.12, followed by a further
request for clarification send at 15.01. In spite of the stress to Parental Equality caused by the
prohibitively limiting deadline of the same day which was being set for us in Parental Equality to
lodge an appeal, you failed to respond to those e-mails, confirming or denying that you had in
an earlier phone conversation with our chairman Joe Egan stated "that Parental Equality would
have 22 days from the date of receipt of feedback from your department to make our appeal."
Given that the question asked of you is such that it would be reasonable to submit that you have
the answer to that question directly at your own disposal, I submit that there is no reasonable
explanation for your failure to respond confirming or denying the statement, I must assume,
unless you confirm by return e-mail otherwise, that you accept that the recollection of our
chairman Joe Egan is accurate.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beirne
Project Coordinator
Go To TOP
G AW to Agb 12 July 2011 14:02
from Ann Walsh
Ann.Walsh@environ.ie
to Alan Beirne
date 12 July 2011 14:02
subject RE: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by environ.ie
Dear Mr Beirne
I wish to confirm that I have no recollection of speaking to Paul Coleman and telling him that he
would have 22 days from the date of receipt of feedback from your department to make our
appeal. However, I can confirm that two communications issued to your organisation stating
that the final date for receipt of appeals was 5th July 2011. Secondly, I am not a Principle
Officer and if you wish to make a complaint to the Principal Officer you can email him at
Don.Sexton@environ.ie.
Yours sincerely
Ann Walsh Go To TOP
H Agb to PC 18 July 2011 15:10
from Alan Beirne
agbeirne@gmail.com
to PaulColeman
cc Ann Walsh
date 18 July 2011 15:10
subject Fwd: Parental Equality appeals
process
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Paul,
Please note the email from Ann Walsh below. I appreciate that you were on holidays
last week. Can you please claify details of any conversation that you may have had with
Ann Walsh as referred to by her in the email.
Best Regards
Alan Go To TOP
I PC to Agb 18 July 2011 23:58
from secretary@parentalequality.ie
to Alan Beirne
date 18 July 2011 23:58
subject RE: Parental Equality appeals
process
Dear Alan,
I acknowledge receipt of your email, however I am confused regarding its contents. I did not have any
conversation with Ann Walsh.
Regards
Paul
Go To TOP
Parental Equality original grant application
Contents Page
Application Form
Appendix 1 Memo & Arts
Appendix 2 Parental Equality Strategic Plan 2006-?
Appendix 3 Names & Emails of Volunteer groups
Appendix 4 Revenue Commissioners CHY Status
Appendix 5 Parental Equality 2009 Accounts
2
Funding Scheme to Support National Organisations
in the Community and Voluntary Sector
Please read the guidelines before completing this application form It is important that you fully answer ALL questions Please use BLOCK CAPITALS for handwritten applications Two copies of your application should be submitted Additional information may be included on a separate sheet or by extending the form if
using the electronic version
Part 1 Details of your Organisation
Name of Organisation:
ParentalEquality.ie Limited
Address: 15a Clanbrassil Street Dundalk County Louth
Phone: 042-9333163 Fax: E-mail Address: parental.equality@gmail.com Contact name and number:
Alan Beirne (Project Manager Core Funding) 087-7811218
2. Please indicate your Organisations legal structure e.g. Company Limited by Guarantee;
Co-op; Constitution; Trust, etc. Parental Equality.ie is a company limited by guarantee and in accordance with company law must submit an annual return to the Companies Registration Office. Parental Equality has a constitution and charitable status, (see point 3 below for details). There are four directors. A copy of the memorandum and articles of association is attached, (see appendix 1). 3. Please state your Tax Reference Number or
Charitable Status (CHY) Number?
C H Y 1 1 0 7 4 4. When was your Organisation established? 1992 5. Describe the Structure of your Organisation Applicants should provide evidence of national status by indicating the nationwide structure The Parental Equality service helps to overcome some of the barriers to Fathers seeking assistance during family breakdown. Our service is confidential. Parental Equality offers a safe, supportive environment where service users can explore options that are available to them. Parental Equality offers a number of support services including:
a national phone line, linking of clients to locally based volunteers in the national network for information and
personal support in locations around the country, online forum (to discuss service user issues and develop best practice response) and an email support service.
3
Parental Equality has a board of four directors, which direct the group activities nationally. Our head office is based in Dundalk where there is a full time mens health and support worker (resourced by a FS Job Initiative Scheme). The plan is to roll this out nationally, and have a mens health and support worker in every county. Reporting to the board is a number of active volunteers who are geographically interspersed throughout Ireland. Volunteers are essentially service users who over time become committed and dedicate their time to the work of the organisation. Communications and operational meetings are held using conferencing (e.g. Skype and VoIP) and mobile phone call conferencing. The PE web site is at the core with Google groups, Google docs along with a cloud based digital file sharing repository as collaborative tools for information sharing. This structure removes the geographical disadvantage for volunteers and service users located in remote areas of the country. On average, there are 30 active online connected volunteers nationally at any time. Due to the nature of family dynamics volunteers circumstances can change and therefore their ability to commit can also vary. However, the online group collaborative process directed by the board is constant and focused. There are a number of web content creators among the volunteers who serve to update and build up the web support content. There is an outer layer of volunteers. Typically these are parents and grandparents whose children are now raised and who offer mentoring and listening support via face to face, online forum chat and over the phone. Service users initial contact with Parental Equality comes from:
Email to parental.equality@gmail.com following online search via a search engine or referrals from friends, family, CIC offices, MABS, solicitors, doctors, counselling, psychotherapists, mediators, health service employees, Garda, community workers and teachers.
Phone calls to national helpline at 042-9333163 following referrals from friends, family,
CIC offices, MABS, solicitors, doctors, counselling, psychotherapists, mediators, health
4
service employees, Garda, community workers, teachers, and located in emergency helpline section in phone book.
It is proposed to roll out an online chat forum which has been in beta trial during 2010
It is our aim to respond to new service users within 48 hours, whether by email, by phone or to our website. Service users are contacted back and information leaflets may be posted out (free of charge- postage is a cost to the organisation, particularly to service those disadvantaged service users that do not have Internet access). Through the use of modern technology an increasing amount of service user queries are addressed by emailing information to them. New service users are offered the opportunity of availing of personal locally based support from among the national network of volunteers. Service users may then easily meet up with volunteers which facilitates the development of one to one support relationships. Emerging issues are discussed and reflected on in online group conferences between volunteers where best practice is applied and developed. This operating structure makes it viable to maintain a service user support relationship irrespective of the service users location. It provides 24/7/365 access, information and contact details for service users. This allows for value for money to be optimised, as there is country wide access at minimal costs in terms of offices, travel and communications. Service users are therefore not burdened with travel costs. Communication costs are kept to a minimum by utilising free call packages from various networks, such as free calls within your network or free evening calls, VoIP and Skype calls. A free group text alert system has been set up to provide continuity and keeps all volunteers and service users up to date. Additionally, we are currently developing Facebook and Twitter processes. In order to protect volunteers and service users, new service users information is relayed to the volunteers who then typically initiate contact via a phone call or email. When a relationship is developed the volunteer may choose to disclose their private phone details to the new service user.
Proposed online chat forum. Having completed the pilot phase of our online chat forum service over 2010, Parental Equality intends in 2011 to launch this service nationwide through our network of volunteers. Below we've answered some of the most common questions we've had about the new service. How does it work? During our pilot phase, it has been observed that many service users expressed anxiety about disclosing their personal family circumstances in an open public meeting environment. The online chat forum service will work in the same way as our weekly support group / self help meetings throughout the country. This give service users (attendees) a safe space where they can talk through their specific concerns, learn coping skills from others and explore the options available to them with total anonymity. Each session opens at a specified time, is facilitated by a trained Parental Equality facilitator and is attended by up to 10 service users. Typical issues for discussion are maintenance, parenting and isolation. We note that the new advertising campaign by Aware emphasises the online chat forum facility as an innovative use of the internet for service delivery (Awares online chat forum service.) Their research backs up the results from our pilot phase for the Parental Equality online chat forum. Is it confidential? Yes. The new service will be entirely confidential.
5
6. Please state the process by which membership of your Organisation is achieved and the membership fee payable per annum. The nature of Parental Equality as a support group for those affected by relationship breakdown, means that the definition of membership has been different than the traditional club or group. Parental Equality is essentially a community of interests! In so far as many of the service users and volunteers may never meet face to face due to the geographical separation and yet have through the use of technology developed strong support relationships and friendships. Membership is free to both service users and volunteers and established by virtue of a person becoming active as a volunteer when one joins peers in determining the priorities and directions of the organisation. Face to face meetings and networking are encouraged at seminars and conferences that are held around the country at regular intervals. Extent to which proposal focuses on disadvantage:
Service users who come to Parental Equality are usually in dire financial straits. Parental Equality addresses this disadvantage by being free at the point of use. Often service users begin contact via a text message, an email or a short phone call to the emergency helpline requesting to be called back due to the fact that they do not have any phone credit.
The objective is to maintain this proven model of a free service supporting financially
strapped and emotionally isolated service users, many of whom are struggling to maintain a relationship with their children and who are often living in remote areas of the country.
Service users quickly become part of a community of inter
Recommended