Sir, due to the recent news about a contentious expense on a bike shed in Leinster House as reported by Jack Horgan-Jones on September 24th, I recommend transforming the bike canopy into a dual-purpose shelter for smokers as well. This would give us a two-in-one deal.
Moreover, attributing a bus stop number to the shed might be worth considering. Indeed, the announcement of the €336,000 bike shed expenditure being due to a “seriously defective system” was a great relief, as the thought of an individual being held accountable was rather alarming.
Reportedly, the Office of Public Works assured the Oireachtas Commission that for single happening projects under €500,000, there isn’t any method for appraising if the expenditure is worthwhile. In addition, it seems that a main officer from the OPW can approve up to €500,000 for projects with no requirement for a second sign-off.
These details come into context when considering the costly bike shed, where the Ceann Comhairle states that the OPW insisted solemnly that they had adhered to all protocols in place. While technically this was true, the real issue lies within the protocols themselves.
Veteran observers would not miss that this kind of justification is nothing unusual in such matters. Finally, though, the OPW has shared word of an imminent review of these procedures with the Oireachtas Commission.
“When trouble looms, the system is always indicted with a serious assurance of acquiring ‘lessons’. However, there is never an implication that the onus lies with individuals like Peter, Paul or Mary.
Let’s infuse some realism into this scenario. Head officers have a pay band that varies between €100,000 and €135,000. They indeed are people of significant stature and means. It is indisputable that a secondary approval would be beneficial. But I refuse to believe that the prevailing system, which is termed as ‘fatally flawed’, completely lacks a cost-effectiveness assessment. An approval requirement from an individual rewarded with such a handsome salary should automatically infer a judgment on whether the proposed expense is justifiable in regards to taxpayer value. The assessment method could perhaps adopt the following approach: “If the expenditure was coming out of my pocket, and not that of the taxpayers, would I justify spending €336,000 on a bicycle storage?” or “Does a bicycle storage costing three to four times my yearly pay deliver good value for money?”
It seems reasonable to assume that an official receiving €100,000 would respond sensibly to this question, let alone one making €135,000.
We likely should express our gratefulness that the bicycle storage contractors were not privy to the €500,000 limit in the ‘fatally flawed’ approval scheme. – Yours, truly,
PAT O’BRIEN,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.”