The allegations made about Adi Roche and her administration of the Chernobyl Children's Project broadly fall into four categories. The first concerns her management style, which has been variously described by different members of the group opposing her as "Stalinist", "bullying", "volatile" and "insulting".
Roche's opponents have so far offered few specifics to back up these descriptions. The principal piece of evidence is a memo written by Roche which is highly critical of "manipulative or lazy" employees who abuse their employers.
"My message to you is stop listening to the moans and groans and throw a few shapes!!" it continues. She recommends that a particular piece of work be given to a FAS worker as "it's not exactly a job for a brain-surgeon".
According to Fergus Finlay of the Labour Party, Roche's joint campaign manager, the "Stalinist" jibes which have been applied to Roche are "just insults". "I haven't heard anything to back them up. If there is, who has been sent to the Gulag? Who's locked up in the Lubyanka?"
Finlay says the memo was an internal document which was printed off from Roche's computer in "somewhat dubious circumstances". "There's something very dodgy about the way it came into people's hands."
The memo prompted the resignation of a number of staff of supporters, but reports of 13 resignations from the organisation appear to overstate the situation. Two headquarters staff, both of them FAS workers, left in what Finlay describes as a "parting of the ways".
According to Finlay, the Project is 99 per cent staffed by volunteers. Two years ago, when the organisation started putting itself on a professional footing, many of the local committees which had sprung up were given the option of going it alone, and several of them did "without rancour". More than 500 people have been involved with the Project as volunteers, staff, child-minders or fund-raisers since it began.
A second category of allegations refers to the aims of the organisation, and the manner in which it carries out its work. Why bring children from Chernobyl to Ireland, when they could be brought to unpolluted parts of their own country which would be less traumatic for them, it has been asked.
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with bringing children to Ireland, I can't see how this can be construed as a personal criticism of Adi Roche," responds Finlay. "The policy of the organisation is that the children benefit enormously by their stay in Ireland, and you can't argue with that."
But perhaps the most serious allegation levelled at the Project is that it operates inadequate procedures for assessing families who take sick or orphaned children coming from Chernobyl. Although most children come for short visits of about one month, some stay longer and have special linguistic and medical needs.
A spokesman for the Roche camp told the Sunday Tribune that the procedures the Project put in place are "to the satisfaction" of the health boards. However, both the Southern and the Eastern Health Boards said yesterday they did not assess Chernobyl children. They declined to say more than that they were "aware" of the procedures operated by the Project.
Finlay says the procedures, as set out in a manual, are "detailed and thorough".
So who is ultimately responsible for the welfare of the Chernobyl children? And who would take the blame, for example, if a child were abused?
According to Kieran McGrath, editor of Irish Social Worker, responsibility for fostered children lies with the health boards, no matter where the children come from. "The board may delegate this work to another organisation, but they have to maintain standards."
A final category of allegation relates to the financial support provided for foster parents. However, Finlay says this appears to refer to complaints made by a single family. In this case, a trust fund was set up to support a sick child from Chernobyl who has been in Ireland for 18 months. Almost £2,700 out the total fund of £11,161 was spent on counselling, child-minding and on attendance by the family at a brittle bone conference in the UK.
According to Finlay, the family want the balance of the trust fund paid over, but the Project is precluded by law from doing so. The money is to be disbursed as costs arise, he says.
The disaffected Project members say they were surprised by the level of media attention and have not had time to fully substantiate their allegations against Ms Roche. A fuller statement will be issued later in the week, they have promised.
