Senior executive fails to halt pension probe by university
A SENIOR university executive has failed in a legal bid to block an investigation into the alleged serious misuse of hundreds of thousands of euro.
The University of Limerick (UL) is investigating former human resources director Dr Tommy Foy over the alleged inflation of pension entitlements of a staff member.
The university claims to have lost almost €200,000 following the alleged unlawful transfer of additional years to the record of an employee, described in court as Mr X.
Dr Foy was in charge of the university’s HR department when controversy enveloped the institution in 2017, after RTÉ broadcast a programme on financial issues in a number of third level bodies.
A subsequent special report by the Comptroller & Auditor General examined the discretionary awarding of “professional added years” to employee records.
Dr Foy left his HR post in May 2018 following a mediated settlement agreement. However, he will remain an employee until July of next year and is currently on secondment as managing director of UniJobs, a subsidiary of the university.
Despite the settlement, Dr Foy was later informed by the university it had launched an investigation due to concerns over a particular aspect of Mr X’s pension entitlements.
Dr Foy issued High Court proceedings in September last year to injunct the inquiry, claiming it would breach the terms of a settlement letter agreed in July 2018.
He also claimed he could be unnecessarily exposed to potential “irreparable reputational harm” if the injunction was not granted.
However, in a ruling issued yesterday, Mr Justice Michael Twomey refused to grant a temporary injunction to prevent the investigation pending the trial of Dr Foy’s action.
The judge found Dr Foy failed to establish a strong case that the investigation amounted to a breach of the settlement letter.
He also said the balance of justice did not favour the granting of an injunction as the public interest in investigating alleged misuse of taxpayers’ funds took precedence over Dr Foy’s concerns about potential reputational damage.
Mr Justice Twomey said Dr Foy’s reputation may have already been damaged by his leaving his role at the age of 60, rather than 65. Dr Foy had also acknowledged in the settlement letter he had fallen short of the standards expected in the human resources department of the university, the judge said.
Mr Justice Twomey also said Dr Foy gave false sworn evidence in support of his application, which he now accepts was incorrect.
The university claims Dr Foy procured the unlawful giving of pension credits to Mr X by transferring a number of years of pensionable service from Mr X’s previous employer to his pension with the university.
This is alleged to have occurred even though Mr X received a refund of contributions in respect of those years of service from his previous employer and therefore those years were not transferable.
The university also claims Dr Foy processed the transfer of additional years in an unusual manner by contacting the pension human resources officer in person to arrange it and instructing them on what to process.
It is also alleged no instruction regarding the process was ever put in writing by Dr Foy, which the university says was most unusual.
A SOMBRE group of elected lawmakers convened to debate a question that would have high stakes for former president Donald Trump.
At issue was whether Mr Trump had flagrantly violated commitments he’d once pledged to uphold, and if he should be held accountable for comments that his lawyers are now seeking to downplay.
The setting? A virtual meeting of the Palm Beach, Florida, town council.
While many Americans – including Mr Trump himself – were following the impeachment proceedings in the US Senate, elected officials in the affluent island community were preoccupied by a different argument about the former president.
After discussing an inlet sand transfer and the purchase of a municipal generator, they turned their attention to whether Mr Trump should be allowed to continue living at Mar-a-Lago, the private club where he has been in self-imposed exile since leaving the White House last month.
As The Washington Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia previously reported, Mr Trump struck a deal with the town of Palm Beach in 1993 when he sought to turn what had been a sprawling single-family home into a private club.
Members would be permitted to stay at Mar-a-Lago for only seven days at a time, preventing anyone from making it a permanent residence. Mr Trump himself didn’t intend to live there, his attorney assured the town council, “except that he will be a member of the
Trump struck a deal with the townof Palm Beach in 1993
club and would be entitled to use its guest rooms”.
Neighbours contend that by making Mar-a-Lago his primary residence – and spending the past three weeks there while reportedly “licking his wounds” – Mr Trump is flouting the terms of that 1993 agreement.
But their main concern is that the presence of the former president will detract from what an attorney on Tuesday described as the “genteel” atmosphere of Palm Beach.
“We feel that this issue threatens to make Mar-a-Lago into a permanent beacon for his more rabid, lawless supporters,” added Philip Johnston, who represents a group called Preserve Palm Beach, according to the South
Florida Sun Sentinel.
Palm Beach’s millionaires and billionaires treasure their privacy, and Mr Trump’s frequent visits during his presidency – which meant that entire streets were blocked off and traffic came to a standstill – were an ongoing source of frustration.
But his Florida attorney, John B Marion, argued that Mr Trump is a technically an employee of Mar-a-Lago, making him exempt from the rule that limits how long members can stay on the premises. (© Washington Post).