The issue of IFA executive pay level is still in the public spotlight. On Saturday, Cavan executive added a motion for the December executive council meeting to that agreed last week in west Cork. Both are calling for the 53-strong council to be made aware of the level of remuneration for general secretary Pat Smith.

Other counties such as Kildare, Laois and Carlow debated the matter vigorously, but drew short of tabling a motion.

On Monday, Eddie Downey issued a letter to the council, setting out his position. Downey reminded the council that it had rejected a motion calling for disclosure to it of the scale of pay involved, and had overwhelmingly endorsed that “the strengthened remuneration committee be accepted and get on with its work”.

In a clear reference to Derek Deane’s public letter on the matter, Downey described it as “regrettable that any member of council would deliberately try to circumvent the authority of our governing body”.

Downey said that in response to the concerns being raised by grassroots members, he has called on national treasurer and remuneration committee chair Jer Bergin to convene the committee, “immediately get down to work” and report back to the December executive council meeting regarding both the general secretary’s pay and his own remuneration as president.

Intervention

Any hope that this would close the matter was dashed by Éamon Ó’Cuív’s intervention the next day, saying ordinary members are entitled to know the pay level of senior executives.

The Fianna Fáil agriculture spokesman has enjoyed a poor relationship with the IFA, supplying forms for farmers to withdraw their permission for IFA to collect levies from their produce at meetings he held last year.

Downey responded that politicians, more than any other group, should respect the democratic decisions taken and procedures adopted by a representative organisation such as those made by the governing body of the IFA.

This is now a test of the trust that president Eddie Downey holds, both within council and among farmers. He is the elected leader of all IFA members. If he, deputy president Tim O’Leary, and national treasurer Jer Bergin cannot be trusted on this matter, it suggests a low level of confidence among members.

Remember, Downey and Bergin contested the presidential election, so every farmer who voted will be represented on the remuneration committee. The committee will report back to council next month, but will council accept their assurances? It all comes down to trust in the end.

Analysis

Usually, no one circles the wagons better than the IFA. While internal rows and politicking is an everyday reality, when threatened no one is quicker to close ranks.

The current spotlight on the remuneration of the general secretary may yet follow this pattern. Éamon Ó’Cuív’s intervention could annoy farmers. Ó’Cuív is an astute politician, but his attempt to raise the heat on the IFA may backfire.

In a sense, IFA is damned either way. If no figure is ever released for the general secretary’s pay, the figure that will stick in the public mind will be the €400,000 mentioned by Derek Deane. It should be remembered that Deane quoted this figure as a rumoured figure that he had been “constantly challenged” with – it is not an authorative figure.

If a figure is released, it may well be lower than the reported figure, in which case the wider public interest will instantly disappear. It may be a figure that will seem high and shocking to many rank-and-file members who pay their subscriptions and levies to the IFA, people with average incomes hovering way below the average industrial wage.

How much is too much?

There is a natural curiosity around the issue of executive pay. The general secretary of the IFA has a very demanding job, and it is to be expected that it would be well rewarded. The figure being circulated (€400,000) has shocked, but just what might be deemed appropriate?

One potential benchmark figure Derek Deane mentioned himself was the pay the secretary general of the Department of Agriculture receives. This is quoted as being €185,000. However, this does not factor in the public sector pension provision.

Ask a pensions adviser to set up a pension that would create a fund sufficient to pay a defined benefit of nearly €100,000/year. It would not be affordable. This is the central truth of why this country faces a public sector pension timebomb, and why benchmarking was a failed exercise – it never properly evaluated the true value or the full cost of public sector pensions.