More questions to be answered in the Bord na Mona sage

THE Bord na Mona saga just keeps on going. Last night after yet another inconclusive board meeting there were different interpretations of the state of play.

A statement from the chairman, Mr Pat Dineen, made it clear that he felt there were still a lot of questions to be answered, while managing director, Dr Eddie O'Connor, said that former chairman, Mr Brendan Halligan's confirmation that he had agreed his controversial remuneration package was a vindication.

It will be up to the board to decide next Wednesday what to do now. Mr Dineen's statement gave an indication of the direction that the board may he heading. The focus of next week's meeting, he said, would be to see whether Dr O'Connor's package conformed with governing legislation on Bord na Mona, with the terms of Dr O'Connor's letters of appointment, with Government policy on pay and with tax law.

It would appear that Dr O'Connor's pay exceeded Government guidelines and that he agreed a package with Mr Halligan which was in excess of his basic terms. So Mr Dineen's statement indicates that the pressure on Dr O'Connor is being maintained.

However, Dr O'Connor will argue that Government guidelines are being regularly breached in paying senior semi state executives many of whom are now on contracts and that all elements of his package were fully agreed with the former chairman, Mr Halligan.

If the board decides that Dr O'Connor's package did exceed the guidelines, it must then decide what to do about the managing director's position. It would be up to the board to decide whether there should be a motion of confidence and a subsequent recommendation to the main shareholder, the Government.

The decision by the directors to seek an indemnity from litigation arising out of the affair follows a letter to them from Dr O'Connor.

In it he set out his case and warned the directors about their potential personal liability. It gives a strong indication that many involved feel the issue will almost certainly end up in the courts.

All along Dr O'Connor has maintained forcefully that he agreed his package with Mr Halligan. What transpired in the meeting between Mr Dineen and Mr Halligan yesterday described in the time worn cliche as "frank" by the current chairman is not completely clear. Mr Halligan confirmed that he had agreed "the package", according to a statement from Mr Dineen. However Mr Dineen went on to say that Mr Halligan was not asked to approve individual expenses claims made by Dr O'Connor.

The issue of Dr O'Connor's expenses particularly over £66,000 in unvouchcd expenses over nine years has been the most contentious aspect of his package.

The managing director is understood to be annoyed by this interpretation or Mr Halligan's comments. However, Mr Halligan will have a chance to explain the picture to the full board next week. He was not available last night to clarify the position.

Mr Halligan has confirmed that he felt Dr O'Connor should be given a package above and beyond the basic terms. What he must tell the board is whether he approved the level of unvouched expenses claimed by the managing director.

Dr O'Connor argues that these expenses were merely to reimburse him for the cost of running his office and for the kind of corporate entertainment appropriate to the role.

Dr O'Connor may continue to refuse to meet accountants Price Waterhouse which he claims have gone beyond their terms of reference. It appears that the accountants have been adjusting some of the items in the second draft report, but Dr O'Connor will argue they have no clear operating terms.