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