DEAR SIR: Jim Scully’s letter in the Irish Farmers Journal last week hit the nail on the head.

He is correct to say, in his opinion, that the former IFA president and general secretary were scapegoated and wronged and he is especially right in saying that the Con Lucey review did not go back far enough.

Con Lucey was mandated and expected to report on the general secretary’s pay since 2009. Michael Berkery was still employed by the IFA for part of 2009 as he only retired in April or May of that year. So, why were all payments made to him since 2009 not included in Con Lucey’s report, as I assume he received his pension payout etc in 2009 as well.

The Con Lucey report, in my opinion, should have been asked to report on the deputy chief executive’s pay, bonus, pension etc. Surely, what’s supposedly fair for the voluntary officers is equally fair for the deputy chief executive Bryan Barry.

I want to support Jim Scully in saying the details of all pay and pension payments made to senior executives for the past 10 or 15 years need to be put out in the open now. In my opinion, the Con Lucey review is more about protecting the staff of the IFA than anything else.

In addition, I want someone to explain to me what Con Lucey means when he implies prioritising policy and democracy was a problem in the IFA?

As a member of the national potato committee, I never saw any interference in our work and we got every support possible from the leadership whenever needed and policy is always prioritised in our committee.

I would like to hear from the committee chairs in the IFA who support Con’s assertion and where policy was not prioritised and when, and on what issue, did the leadership not fully support and help drive on the work agenda?

If the IFA is to regain the trust of farmers, it needs our leaders to stop spinning in the mud and take control back, and deal with this – warts and all.