The controversy in the IFA is far from over

DEAR SIR: The recent controversy involving the IFA shows no sign of abating. No amount of rhetoric about lines in the sand or putting the past behind us or pressing ahead with elections will quell the anger among members on the ground who gave their hard-earned money and volunteered their time to help build the IFA into what was the most powerful union and lobby group in the country.

This controversy only came to light because there was a clash of personalities involving the general secretary and members of the national council.

The Con Lucey Report raised more questions than it answered. It does not go back far enough; it has to go back to find out when exactly this notion that a general secretary and the presidents he worked with thought that they were worth these outrageous salaries.

John Donnelly, past president, has stated that he received an income of approximately €24,000 per annum, enough to hire someone to run his own farm in his absence, which is fair enough. So we need to know what subsequent presidents have received as well as the then general secretary Michael Berkery. This was farmers’ money and we have a right to know where and how it was spent. It would not be fair to ask Con Lucey to carry out this as he was an associate of Michael Berkery. Someone not connected with the association would have to be brought in.

The Con Lucey report, although it is a good and fair account of what took place from 2009 until now, has, in my opinion, made scapegoats of both Eddie Downey and Pat Smith. This is unfair on both of them as it now appears that they inherited the situation.

Nobody questioned anybody or anything and if they did they were ostracised. Eddie Downey seemingly was making an attempt to bring about change.

Other aspects need to be fully examined apart from the financial woes, ie policy decisions and the direction the organisation was taking were being dictated from the top down instead of from the members on the ground.

The presidency of the IFA was not only, it appears, very lucrative, but also seen as a stepping stone to boards and positions that are often in direct conflict with farmers.

This raises the question – are farmers’ best interests being served by presidents who have one eye in furthering their careers after they have finished their term?

Presidential campaigns have become more like an American-style election rather than a farm leaders’ election. These campaigns need to be examined and the money used to run them needs to be fully transparent – has anybody from agri-business sponsored these campaigns, for example?

Finally, two words spring to mind in this whole sorry mess – credibility and accountability. In order to restore any semblance of credibility among farmers these questions need to be answered and some people need to be held accountable. Farmers and hard-working staff at local level have been let down by the organisation in Bluebell.

The IFA as we have known it is doomed and has lost the confidence of farmers unless it fully embraces the notion that farmers and farmers alone are the people they represent.