Ex-IFA man stands by ‘democratic deficit’ accusation
Mr Dillon failed to mention the clear conflict of interest in the collection of the IFA's meat factory levy, which was recognised by the national council of which he was part when it decided to change that method of collection in the aftermath of the meat factory blockade of January 2000.
My four years as Longford IFA county chairman gave me an inside-track knowledge of the workings of the organisation's upper echelons.
Contrary to Mr Dillon's assertion, I was not at all satisfied with accountability within the organisation.
I was especially dissatisfied with the non-accountability of the unelected executive staff who directed policymaking.
Many of my colleagues shared my views, including the then deputy president, who happened to be John Dillon.
As I said in my previous letter (Irish Examiner, October 3), Mr Dillon, in his presidential election campaign, referred to the "yawning gap between the Farm Centre and grassroots farmers".
Indeed he was elected IFA president on an anti-establishment mandate.
Contrary to Mr Dillon's assertion, some major policy decisions were made without even consulting national council, which is the IFA's governing body.
Most notable among them, under the previous leadership, was the signing up to an unworkable form of sheep-tagging and registration, which is now discredited, without consulting the national sheep committee, under the cover of the ban on IFA meetings because of the foot-and-mouth scare in spring 2001.
Another example of a policy decision being made without debate or the consent of the majority of national council members was the decision to support a Yes vote in the first Nice treaty referendum in May 2001.
It was followed by a similar decision in September 2002 on the second Nice referendum this time by issuing an official press release on behalf of council but without allowing that body to debate the issue.
Other examples include the controversial decision of council to adopt the Dowling report on reform of the organisation after a marathon 14-hour meeting despite the fact that many council members were mandated by the county executives they represented to reject those proposals.
I never suggested that executive staff members who do a proper job should not be fairly remunerated.
I said "there must be an end to the policy of open-ended contracts for those members of the executive staff in the Farm Centre and at regional level who carry with their positions the ability to concentrate power," and that their levels of remuneration should be disclosed to ensure transparency.
In my previous letter I suggested that any company directorships held by IFA officers, or by members of the executive staff, should be disclosed in an annual report which would be readily available to every member.
Mr Dillon further referred to the requirement that IFA election candidates make a full disclosure of their interests outside farming to the IFA returning officer.
However, in my earlier letter, I suggested that this information be made readily available to every member.
On the issue of the botched IFA reforms to which Mr Dillon referred, how could the removal of county representatives on national council, who are directly elected by ordinary members in their branches, and their replacement by county chairmen elected annually by a conclave of branch delegates, which excludes the input of the ordinary members, constitute the "copperfastening of democratic accountability?"
Finally I would like once again to call on the three presidential candidates to take up the issue of the real reforms which are necessary if the organisation and, more importantly, the farm families it is supposed to represent are to have any future.
James Reynolds
Secretary
Family Farm Protection Group
Laughill
Coolarty
Mostrim
Co Longford.
