23 September 1999 Edition
Redmond - lone gunman or one of many?
A complete suspension of reality was necessary to listen to the Flood Tribunal hearings this week. George Redmond, former Assistant Manager for Dublin City and County, was being questioned at the Tribunal on his last years in one of the top council jobs.
The Tribunal heard how in 1988, Redmond had 33 separate bank accounts both in Irish and offshore locations. These accounts had in 1988 amassed £660,000. In 1988, Redmond lodged £171,000 to his accounts. In 1989 he banked £94,924. His actual income during this time period was £29,000 a year.
Redmond told the Tribunal that he ``did nothing unlawful'' and that he was a ``saver and retainer'' who over the years had made ``investments of various sorts''.
Redmond also told the tribunal: ``Over the years, I advised people or should I say, people sought my advice''. For this he might have received ``unsolicited'' payments.
The general public might be forgiven for taking a more sinister view of George Redmond's activities. It also begs the question as to whether Redmond was the only local government official who had such a healthy bank balance? Is it just in Dublin that such advice was given to entrepreneurs? How many other local government Solomons were there or are we supposed to believe in some sort of lone gunman theory where Redmond is concerned?
Redmond's testimony at the Tribunal is bordering on the farcical and is cheap entertainment. It should spur on the Dublin government to realise that real reform of local government is something that cannot be put off any longer.
The Tribunal heard how in 1988, Redmond had 33 separate bank accounts both in Irish and offshore locations. These accounts had in 1988 amassed £660,000. In 1988, Redmond lodged £171,000 to his accounts. In 1989 he banked £94,924. His actual income during this time period was £29,000 a year.
Redmond told the Tribunal that he ``did nothing unlawful'' and that he was a ``saver and retainer'' who over the years had made ``investments of various sorts''.
Redmond also told the tribunal: ``Over the years, I advised people or should I say, people sought my advice''. For this he might have received ``unsolicited'' payments.
The general public might be forgiven for taking a more sinister view of George Redmond's activities. It also begs the question as to whether Redmond was the only local government official who had such a healthy bank balance? Is it just in Dublin that such advice was given to entrepreneurs? How many other local government Solomons were there or are we supposed to believe in some sort of lone gunman theory where Redmond is concerned?
Redmond's testimony at the Tribunal is bordering on the farcical and is cheap entertainment. It should spur on the Dublin government to realise that real reform of local government is something that cannot be put off any longer.