Sir, – Further to “OPW to review ‘fatally flawed’ systems for signing off on spending in wake of Leinster House bike shed” (Jack Horgan-Jones, News, September 24th), I suggest that the bike shelter in Leinster House be designated as a smoking shelter as well.
In that way, we will have two shelters for the price of one.
And if we assign a bus stop number to the shelter . . . – Yours, etc,
BILLY HANNIGAN,
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
Bob Geldof defends Band Aid as 40th anniversary single released: ‘This little pop song has kept millions alive’
Goodbye to the 46A: End of legendary Dublin bus route made famous in song
Eoin Burke-Kennedy: Is remote working bad for productivity?
Limekiln,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – I was mightily relieved to learn that the expenditure of €336,000 on a bike shed in Leinster House resulted from a “fatally flawed system”.
I was very concerned that a human being may have been responsible for this expenditure. – Yours, etc,
DAVID FITZGERALD,
Dundrum,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Jack Horgan-Jones reports that officials from the Office of Public Works have told the Oireachtas Commission that for spending under €500,000 on one-off projects there is no value-for-money evaluation. Furthermore, the OPW has a system where a principal officer can sign off on projects up to €500,000 without the need for a second signature.
This is all in the context of the €336,000 bike shed. The Ceann Comhairle says that the OPW “could say with hand on heart that they had followed protocol and procedures, and they had, but the problem was with the protocol and procedures”.
Needless to say, the OPW has told the Oireachtas Commission that the procedures will be reviewed.
Veteran observers will be aware that this is what passes for accountability in that other world.
When a problem arises, it is always with the system and there is a solemn promise that “learnings” will be taken. There is never any suggestion that Peter, Paul or Mary is responsible and will be held accountable.
Let’s introduce a touch of reality here. Principal officers are on a pay scale in the range of €100,000 to €135,000. They are clearly people of some standing and substance. Of course it would be good to have a second line of approval. But I don’t accept that the current “fatally-flawed” system has no value-for-money evaluation. The requirement for approval by a person on that salary level should implicitly involve a consideration as to whether the planned expenditure offers the taxpayer value for money. The evaluation process might proceed along the following lines: “If I were spending my own money and not the taxpayers’ money, would I spend €336,000 on a bike shed?” or “Is a bike shed costing three to four times my annual salary value for money?”
I suspect that question could be answered sensibly by an official earning €100,000, never mind €135,000.
I suppose we should give thanks that the bike shed contractors weren’t aware of the €500,000 threshold in the fatally-flawed approval process. – Yours, etc,
PAT O’BRIEN,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.