That The University Times reported on the unceremonious ousting of the Chair of Trinity Publications, Clare McCarthy, before Wednesday’s meeting had even ended no doubt came as a surprise to those on its committee. It is, after all, the type of event they’d surely hope would pass with little scrutiny.
But the removal of the chair of one of Trinity’s five capitated bodies is not an everyday occurrence – and you’d think that the turn of events leading to such a scenario would be particularly grave indeed.
Let’s, for a moment, take the reporting of Trinity News at face value. (This would seem like a good call, given the Editor of Trinity News, Michael Foley, and its Deputy Editor, Niamh Lynch, were both present in the room – and both were entitled to vote on the motion.) The newspaper’s article suggests that an “internal conflict” arose after actions taken by McCarthy and the body’s Treasurer, Carla King-Molina – actions that were in turn precipitated by questions about the accounts of one of the body’s constituent publications.
But given that the constitution of Trinity Publications requires the treasurer to not only monitor the financial affairs of individual publications, but to ensure compliance with grant policy (and grant policy gives the chair a significant role in funding decisions), it is hard to see how this escalated into anything beyond a minor squabble. A probing of accounts – even if they turn out to be in proper order – is not an act of misconduct. Then, that Lynch – who, in addition to being Deputy Editor of Trinity News and editor of the constituent publication in question, is actually an officer of the Trinity Publications committee – was involved in sending a “formal complaint” to the chair of the body she sits on seems altogether farcical.
Admittedly, it is also ridiculous that McCarthy ended up threatening another fellow committee member with legal action. But ridiculous is not the same as “failing reasonably to fulfil their responsibilities” – the criteria set down in the body’s constitution for dismissing a member of its committee.
That, coupled with claims that the committee didn’t even follow its own procedure, laid down “in order to avoid an unfair dismissal”, suggests that McCarthy’s removal was an outrageous act entirely.
