I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. As I stated in my introduction, I am here to listen. I am only recently appointed and, after what I have heard, perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I hope my chairmanship of the Irish Sports Council will not solely involve dispute resolution because I would also like to enjoy my new position.
Having been involved in sports mediation and arbitration in the past, including the Cork situation to which Senator Buttimer referred, I can attest that sporting disputes are different to industrial ones. Personalities are not as important to industrial disputes as terms and conditions of employment, pay and other clearly understood disagreements. It is sometimes just a question of splitting the difference. In sports, the politics, culture and personalities of organisations feature far more in the intricacies of the resolution. To some degree, this has marred the recent cases in question. It is not appropriate for me to get into the details but it appears that relationship problems arose between the individuals concerned.
I will deal with the Mary Coghlan case first because it has been to the forefront of members' minds. I never met that lady and I do not know her, whether good, bad or indifferent. She corresponded with me after my appointment to wish me well and to ask me to address a number of issues, and I have replied to her to the effect that I would bring the issues to the attention of the council. I took the trouble to read the transcripts of the High Court proceedings, in the course of which I formed an opinion as to what happened. On the basis of what was said at the proceedings, I believe everybody involved has to look into his or her own soul and ask by whom and in what circumstances the difficulties were created. The strongest comment I can make is that we are not all without blemish in this regard because I am conscious that statements were made under oath during the High Court proceedings. I have difficulties in revisiting issues where hindsight is valuable in the sense that we may have taken a different approach had circumstances differed. It is often the case when letters are written or arguments made that one realises in hindsight it would have been preferable to put down the pen or hold the tongue. This dispute bears the hallmarks of such a case.
I appreciate what members have said in respect of it being too easy to walk away. The council and its executive must learn lessons and members have raised issues that we will have to address. We must revisit our relationship with the national governing bodies to decide whether we have a role in appointments and, if so, what it involves. The duty of care and responsibility required from governing bodies in return for the funding we provide will also have to be clarified.
Over the years, I have been mortified by the performance of certain Irish sporting bodies. We have, literally, been shamed by their activities. Such behaviour is not acceptable in organisations which are funded by the taxpayer. I do not want to rehearse the history of Athletics Ireland because I know nothing about it. I am aware of disputes not because I have a particular interest but from reading about them like any other citizen. That organisation has not covered itself with glory in respect of its appointments or the way it conducted its business. I say that with the best of intentions. Sporting organisations are a combination of professional administrators and a large number of volunteers, with the result that unusual and sometimes difficult relationships can develop. Those involved have the best of intentions, however.
One of the reasons I have not discussed the Mary Coghlan dispute in detail is because of a residual High Court case that is being put in train by Mr. Giblin on foot of evidence presented and documents discovered to the court. Mr. Giblin is asserting and alleging certain things. I have attended two legal meetings on this case, one of which took place yesterday, and the council, the executive and I plan to offer mediation. This issue should not go before a court of law but its resolution will require goodwill from both sides. There is goodwill on our side and I hope it will be reciprocated by the plaintiff.
In regard to matters pertaining to Mary Coghlan, I am conscious that the Minister decided on the basis of legal advice not to publish her reply on the Department's website. Mary Coghlan wrote in her letter that she also took legal advice. I am concerned that if I began another evaluation of this affair, we would be returning to dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean leí. For good or bad, these are areas in which there will never be agreement. If I attempted to write an independent report as chairman of the Irish Sports Council and as someone who was never involved with any party — I met John Treacy for the first time at my first Irish Sports Council meeting, although I have admired his athletic prowess over many years — I am sure it would end up in further litigation on the basis that I came down on one side or the other. When I met my colleague, Finbarr Flood, by chance yesterday, he wished me well and reminded me he was a mediator in the Mary Coghlan dispute. I told him that perhaps we would have a chat about the matter someday in the future. As a mediator, however, he is probably bound by privilege in regard to what transpired. I get worried when I read words like "lied". This was a High Court case where people gave evidence under oath. We must be careful about what we say, do or think. At the first meeting of the council I specifically asked the chief executive not to engage any legal advice on his own behalf into what was alleged because I did not want this to continue. Sometimes those of us in public office must take the good with the bad, and members know this more than I do. Where things are said or written in a newspaper and a person proceeds to take an action against them, that person could end up being on trial even if there is a firm belief that the person has been wronged. The committee members as public representatives and I as a chief executive of a public organisation know this more than most.
That is why I am slightly cautious. There was a High Court case and an outcome to it, although there was never a definitive judgment within it. The President of the High Court did not make any decision on the issues before him. It is a complex case of evidence involving people's understanding of meetings which took place, what people believed in good faith had taken place, who said what to whom in certain circumstances and what was meant by what was said. It is the ultimate Celtic spiral so where do we start and finish with it?
I take the point which has been made by members that as a council we must look at how we conduct our business and our relationship with the national governing bodies, what our relationship is with the national governing bodies with regard to appointments made and for what reason. Sometimes it is important to step back and sometimes it is important to have a duty of care. That is a difficult and delicate judgment. I read the transcripts from the High Court and if I were to have any observation, it is that I would have been concerned about the way appointments were made in that body.
It appeared to me that some of the normal procedures for appointments were not followed as I would understand them in a body funded by public funds. With regard to criteria to be used for transparency, individuals wrote to the council and Athletics Ireland, AAI, about the interview process taking place in the association. These were people with international reputations, with one person of national standing in our own country.
This is why I say to Deputies O'Mahony, Upton and members that perhaps we must set down criteria by which we understand funds will be applied. There should be a code of good practice with a checklist and they should get on with it. If a wrong decision is made, it is their problem rather than ours. It is up to the relevant body to address probation periods and the normal exigencies applying to good practice in employment or the termination of same. We might have to live with the consequences but it is better than being in the High Court every day of the week.
The autonomy of organisations is very important and I am very conscious of that with the parties I always deal with. If I ever dared to suggest how a trade union or employer organisation should conduct its business, I would be told very quickly that it is not my job. I am very conscious of the autonomy and the club rules. I am also very conscious that we have a capacity in this country to be extremely litigious. We go to court over everything and it surprises me that the courts at times indulge in this. There is a big profession which loves seeing fools for clients on occasion.
The organisations must ask these questions but I assure the committee that I will make every effort with the executive and the council to avoid litigation, which brings costs and reputational risk. We will see what can be done by dint of conviction and persuasion, although I do not see threats coming into the process.
I assure the members that as a council we must learn the lessons of what is, for want of a better term, the "Mary Coghlan" case. We must take that risk evaluation so that risk does not occur again because there is a strategic importance for us in our relationship with the public representatives and the Minister who funds us through the Exchequer. We are responsible, through our accounting and good practice, to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the appropriate way we spend our moneys. As chief executive of a State organisation, I have been conscious of that for the past 20 years. We will see what we can do with regard to Deputy Kennedy's matter.
