SENIOR CIVIL and public servants were invited on overseas trips to persuade them of the merits of upskilling and career progression for lower-paid health and local authority staff, the Siptu official who organised the controversial visits has maintained.
Matt Merrigan said that study visits to the US and elsewhere were aimed at convincing senior management of the potential value and feasibility of the culture change that was being proposed.
He said that the staff involved were considered by some as an “overhead that should should be de-skilled and outsourced”.
The union wanted them to be treated as a resource, as stakeholders, to be upskilled and integrated into the service.
“I researched various initiatives in the US and elsewhere which claimed progress in developing a ‘win-win’ in respect of public provision. Study visits were arranged as part of the process of proving the case, persuading management of the potential of the approach, familiarising them with the methodology and monitoring progress.
“The majority of those who participated were senior management personnel,” he said.
Mr Merrigan was one of the signatories of a controversial bank account, known as the Siptu national health and local authority levy fund, into which nearly €4.5 million in funds from various State sources was lodged. The other was Jack Kelly, a former Siptu national executive member.
Mr Merrigan’s comments on the background to the controversy – his first since the issue emerged more than a year ago – are contained in a statement which he made to Siptu last month. The statement was published by the union yesterday.
He said expenditure on travel and accommodation accounted for less than 11 per cent of the total in the account. He said the bulk of the money was spent on training for more than 5,000 shop stewards, union activists and officials.
Mr Merrigan said that the initiative was radical but in hindsight there were clear shortcomings in the way the money was provided.
“Regrettably no service agreement or contract was set down. It was intended that I would administer it in conjunction with relevant public service management. No resources were provided for managing the funds or conducting period audits. No requirements for these were specified and I did not receive any advice in relation to these matters.
“With the wisdom of hindsight I should have sought a definitive contract, advice on fund management and resources for same as well as providing for periodic audits.
“We developed a good concept for the public, the management and for our members. Tragically for all concerned, we erred on the booking due to the absence of specified requirements, monitoring and lack of resources.”
The report of the Siptu trustees into the controversy, which was also published yesterday, says the bank account was opened by Mr Merrigan and Mr Kelly without the authorisation of union leaders.
It criticises the two signatories to the account over how the fund was administered but also hits out at State bodies which provided the money for failing to adhere to basic standards of governance, transparency and accountability.
The report accepts that the bulk of the money drawn from the account went on training and upskilling programmes.
However, it says that it was “a serious omission” that “complete records were not kept of the training days provided or the number and roles of those who received training”.
