No justification for paying VEC chief executives €12,500 a year allowance, court told

There is no justification for paying the chief executives of two VECs a €12,500 a year allowance "in perpetuity" to administer the student transport scheme given they no longer do that work and the country's "appalling" public finances, lawyers for the State have told the High Court.

The Minister for Education and the State deny the allowance was part of the "core pay" of some €100,000 per year of two chief executives — former GAA president Seosamh MacDonncha, of Galway VEC, and Dr Katie Sweeney, of Mayo VEC.

The allowance cut decision was also made independently of the restructuring of the country’s VECs, Nuala Butler SC, for the State, argued.

On claims the allowance loss would adversely impact on their pension entitlements, counsel said the relevant retirement age is 65 and, if Mr MacDonncha (59) retires within the next 10 years, the allowance loss will not affect his pension.

The pension entitlements of Dr Sweeney (51) will be determined in negotiations intended to address the effect on the pensions of younger chief executives of the allowance cut, the court heard.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan today reserved judgment on the judicial review challenge by Mr MacDonncha, An Aill Bhain, Troscai Thiar, Bearna, Co na Gaillimhe and Dr Sweeney, Knockaphunta Park, Westport Road, Castlebar, Co Mayo.

The case raised “important and urgent” issues and he hoped to give judgment on May 29th, the judge said. The issues include alleged breach of provisions of the Croke Park Agreement, consultation about the designation of chief executives under the reorganisation of the 33 VECs into 16 Educational and Training Boards and termination of the Transport Liaison Officers Allowance, known as TOLA.

Under the reorganisation, it is claimed Dr Sweeney faces being “ousted” from her present position and reassigned while Mr Mac Donncha is to take over the running of three counties for no extra remuneration and with a 300km commute.

In closing arguments, Ercus Stewart SC, for the chief executives, said there remains no lawful basis for the allowance cut. His clients had not challenged pay cuts but the allowance was part of their core pay, contract and appointment and any variation must be in accordance with law. As existing chief executives, not new entrants to the posts, they were entitled to keep the allowance.

Mr McDonncha has additional responsibilities with no extra remuneration and without his seniority being taken into account, counsel said. The State had also wrongly claimed his clients had sought “sweetheart deals” when what they had done was make written proposals to address their positions with a view to avoiding litigation.

Earlier, Ms Butler said the decision to axe the allowance was made after a value for money review found “no logical reason” why the chief executives should administer the school transport scheme. There was a difference between allowances that are part of a person’s functions and, as in this case, allowances for a specific duty no longer being carried out.

The axing of the allowance was announced in the December 2010.