THE former chairman of Bord na Mona, Mr Brendan Halligan, will meet the directors of the company this afternoon in an attempt to resolve the eight week controversy over the pay package of the managing director, Dr Eddie O'Connor. The board of the company is seeking to determine if the package agreed between Mr Halligan and Dr O'Connor conforms with government guidelines and with tax law.
Mr Halligan has already told Mr Dineen, who took over as chairman last September, that he agreed the controversial package under which Dr O'Connor earned £1.9 million over nine years, including salary, bonus, pension and expenses. However Dr O'Connor has maintained that this figure, arrived at by accountants Price Waterhouse, is grossly inflated because it includes non beneficial expenses. He claims he earned closer to £750,000 over the nine years.
One issue the board is expected to focus on today is why Mr Halligan approved the package and why he kept the details of it confidential. He may also be questioned on why he did not approve the expenses.
An investigation into Dr O'Connor's package by Price Waterhouse concluded that he received £585,000 in expenses over the nine years, of which £66,000 were unvouched. Dr O'Connor has also disputed this calculation but has declined to meet Price Waterhouse to discuss the report on the basis that it exceeds the mandate which they were given by the board.
Earlier this week, Dr O'Connor claimed that someone was trying to subject him to "death by a thousand cuts". He received support in his interpretation of recent events yesterday from Mr Brian Cowen, the former Fianna Fail Minister for Energy.
Mr Cowen said that employees of Bord na Mona to whom he had spoken "believe that the real agenda is about restricting the growth of the company and that destroying Eddie O'Connor is an important step in that respect".
Dr O'Connor has publicly criticised the attitude of the Government towards companies such as Bord na Mona and has also, frustrated in some of his more ambitious expansion plans, which would have seen it diversify out of its traditional businesses.
Some directors are thought to favour seeking a motion of no confidence in Dr O'Connor if the board concludes his package was in breach of Government guidelines and tax law.
To date, Mr Dineen has said he would not accept any such motion but he may decide to do so now on the basis that Dr O'Connor has been given sufficient timed to furnish an explanation.
