UL official failed to go to meeting of watchdog
Questions asked over housing deal
A University of Limerick (UL) official responsible for a controversial housing deal failed to attend a meeting with the Dáil’s spending watchdog last year, despite travelling and preparing for the session with colleagues.
It led to concerns that the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) record of the meeting might have to be corrected, TDs were told at another meeting with UL officials yesterday.
UL’s delegation told TDs how approval processes were “over-ridden” when the college approved €11.44m spend on 20 houses in Rhebogue, Limerick.
Valuation reports show UL overspent by €5.2m on the homes.
UL chief commercial officer Andrew Flaherty was one of two sponsors responsible for guiding the purchase through internal approval processes.
PAC chairman and Sinn Féin TD Brian Stanley questioned why Mr Flaherty did not appear before the committee yesterday, or at a previous meeting with UL officials last year.
UL provost Professor Shane Kilcommins told the committee he selected an “appropriate team” to take questions from the PAC.
He said Mr Flaherty met colleagues in Dublin last year on the night and morning before a PAC meeting.
Mr Flaherty also met colleagues in Dublin after that PAC hearing and was texting a member of UL’s delegation during the meeting, Prof Kilcommins told TDs.
UL president Professor Kerstin Mey told the committee last year that Mr Flaherty could not attend because of “a long-standing engagement that he could not get out of ”.
Prof Kilcommins said this was a surprise to him, but “it may well remain their position”. He said he questioned this “inconsistency” after last year’s meeting.
Mr Flaherty had told Prof Kilcommins he was precluded from attending last year and discussing the Rhebogue deal with the PAC as it was the subject of an investigation.
A protected disclosure was made at the university last year about the deal, and this was being investigated when UL appeared before the committee.
The disclosure examined planning issues at the site, valuations, the application of the public spending code, procurement issues and “the extent to which the agreement had been reached in advance of the proper process”, Prof Kilcommins added.
Labour TD Alan Kelly said the situation was “like an episode of Hamlet without the prince”.
“The prince was texting and is not here this time,” he added. He said a reading of a report into the deal was like the script for “a Netflix mini-series”.
That report was prepared by Niamh O’Donoghue, a former secretary general at the Department of Social Protection, and found legitimate questions about the purchase were undermined and ignored. It found the acquisition was approved without a full awareness of risks being presented to key decision-makers.
Prof Kilcommins apologised to the committee for the Rhebogue purchase.
UL chancellor Professor Brigid Laffan promised “there most certainly will be changes and there will be accountability”.
The UL delegation stopped short of outlining what, if any, management changes may be in the pipeline, with Prof Laffan citing legal considerations.
However, they did paint a picture of how the deal was progressed through approval processes at the university.
They said emergency or informal meetings, some of which were poorly attended, were called at times for the deal to be progressed through different stages.
Legitimate questions and concerns staff or experts raised about the proposal were not brought to the attention of the key decision-makers, they added.
UL director of management and planning John Field told the PAC he raised concerns about the deal at an early stage, but the proposal proceeded regardless.
Mr Field said he was “extremely alarmed” at plans to bring the transaction to UL’s executive committee at a very early stage in March last year before due diligence had begun or paperwork on the proposal had been gathered.
He wrote to chief finance and performance officer Gary Butler with these concerns.
“I set out matters that should be considered in a transaction such as this, matters such as appraisal, procurement, cashflow and operational costs,” Mr Field said.
At a meeting a week later, he voiced his concerns again, but the meeting was not minuted.
“Very little was documented or minuted in relation to this transaction,” he added.
Mr Kelly asked if information on the deal was presented “in a certain way so as to create a strong possibility of a certain outcome”. Mr Field agreed.
The Rhebogue deal is the subject of a garda investigation over poison-pen letters sent to the university last year and targeting an individual who raised questions about the purchase.
UL wrote to gardaí last month about a possible fraud in relation to the purchase. The matter is currently the subject of assessment by the Garda Economic Crime Bureau to see if a criminal investigation is warranted.