Meetings of the Joint Committee on Commercial State Sponsored Bodies rarely generate a full attendance but it is safe to say that there will be a full turnout of members and audience for today's meeting on Bord na Mona. The meeting will not be the event that it should have been thanks to Dr O'Connor's (surprising and disappointing) decision not to attend. Given the accusations that Dr O'Connor has scattered around, one would have thought that he would welcome the opportunity to put his side of the story to this formidable body.
Dr O'Connor says that he will not be attending because, as of last weekend, he is no longer an employee of the company. This is arrant, childish nonsense. Dr O'Connor owes it to the committee, to the taxpayers and to the employees of Bord na Mona to explain his accusations and stand over his record and he won't find a better forum in which to do it. Mr Brendan Halligan has no problem appearing and he ceased to be chairman last year.
Mr Halligan will have some explaining to do. The arrangements agreed by him for Dr O'Connor's remuneration were in part, inexact and undocumented they also fell foul of the Revenue Commissioners. Such arrangements should not be tolerated in the private sector and must not be deployed in the public sector. Some of the expenses claimed by Dr O Connor seem inappropriate for the exercise of his functions Mr Halligan should explain why he approved them and why he felt that significant additional expenses could be paid each year with no details provided, never mind receipts. Lastly, Mr Halligan might explain why he felt it necessary to keep Dr O Connor's package a secret from the board.
Was he afraid that details would leak to, the staff or did he feel that it was none of the board's business?
It is hoped that some of the other Bord na Mona directors will come before the committee. It would appear that the board sanctioned Mr Halligan to agree a remuneration package with Dr O Connor's. It would also appear that not a single director ever inquired subsequently into the size of the package, or else the board accepted they had no right to inquire into it which ever it was, it represented a remarkable dereliction of duty by people with unequivocal fiduciary responsibilities. That some of them should run off to the Minister, pleading that they knew nothing about the package would be risible if it wasn't so serious. In this respect the shareholders of Bord na Mona the taxpayers have been badly served by the board. Resignations have been sought for less.
The Minister, Mr Michael Lowry, has been accused of "gross incompetence" over the affair. Mr Lowry has a talent for dropping balls but in this instance it seems quite clear that he didn't want to grasp this particular ball in the first place. What was happening in Bord na Mona was, in large part, a monumental clash of two personalities. It is understandable (though not excusable) that the Minister should be reluctant to get involved but at least his intervention when it came was decisive. Mr Lowry, however, had better convince the committee that he had no part to play in the systematic leaking of information, clearly designed to undermine Dr O'Connor.
The committee must also explore Dr O'Connor's allegation that there was a "hidden agenda" behind his removal or, to put it bluntly, that the Department of Energy wanted him out because he had ambitious diversification plans for the company. This is a serious accusation. Bord na Mona needs to diversify. Dr O'Connors successor had better have diversification plans too and make it clear to the Department that the board is responsible for strategic direction. Of course, attracting the right calibre of person to take up the job will be much more difficult after the debacle of the last two months.