Results 12,581-12,600 of 26,396 for speaker:David Cullinane

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 103 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Remuneration of certain senior staff in the University of Limerick and Institute of Technology Sligo (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Will Professor Fitzgerald respond again?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 103 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Remuneration of certain senior staff in the University of Limerick and Institute of Technology Sligo (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Professor Fitzgerald can give it to us here. I am asking now. It may have asked but I am asking today.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 103 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Remuneration of certain senior staff in the University of Limerick and Institute of Technology Sligo (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I find that extraordinary as well but my time is up and I will leave it to others.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I welcome the witnesses and thank Professor Donnelly for his opening statement, which painted a picture of the Waterford economy and the wonderful legacy of WIT. I did not disagree with any of it, but he did not deal to any great degree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. In fact, it is the last paragraph that makes reference to it. Why was there not more of a response to...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I understand, but an Accounting Officer would normally make a more substantial response in his or her opening statement. However, that is a matter for Professor Donnelly. I thank Mr. McCarthy and his office for their work and report. I will turn to page 20, which covers the review of intellectual property management and conflicts of interest. Paragraph 2.17 discusses the review by the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Paragraph 2.18 refers to how the review highlighted some common areas of weakness, including in respect of systems for managing conflicts of interest and the decision-making process around relative equity stakes in spin-out companies. These were the two areas that the committee and I focused on. We highlighted potential deficiencies. That has been agreed by the Higher Education Authority...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Let us consider Waterford Institute of Technology given that this report focuses on the institute from the perspective of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The report refers to failures in the systems for managing conflicts of interest. I gather "weaknesses" is the word used. Were there weaknesses in the decision-making process around relative equity stakes in spin-out companies?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: From his perspective as the State's chief auditor, having produced this report, Mr. McCarthy has concluded that in these two areas, that is to say, the protection of the institute in respect of its equity and management of conflicts of interest, there were weaknesses in respect of Waterford Institute of Technology and this company. Is that accurate?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I am referring to decision-making.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Does Professor Donnelly agree with that?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I do not but, first of all, the person who sought the documentation was not me. The organisation that sought the documentation is the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is the job of the Comptroller and Auditor General as the auditor. The Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that there were weaknesses in supporting documentation. It was not me. I would go further....

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I want Professor Donnelly to know that, as we progress through this meeting, we are not dealing with my report or some report of the members of this committee.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Does the Comptroller and Auditor General accept that as a response?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Maybe that could have been one of the recommendations. Given that it was not in the document, perhaps the institute can accept that for these types of strategic big sales or initiatives, it should keep better records. I will move on to conclusions and recommendations on page 21 of the report. Paragraph 2.20 states: "The Governing Body of Waterford Institute of Technology adopted a local...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: So it would have been the responsibility of Professor Donnelly, along with the president and the governing body, I imagine, to formulate policy. In fact, the 2010 policy states that the officeholder is the office of the vice president of research. Why did it take six years to develop the policy?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I did read the report. My question is why it took six years.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I would like to short-circuit Professor Donnelly's response. Essentially, Professor Donnelly is saying that there was good reason it took six years. It was not because there was-----

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: Yes, but there is a difference between established practices and an actual policy.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: We have dealt with that. The Comptroller and Auditor General states at paragraph 2.22: "There is no record that the assignment of the Institute's IP to FeedHenry Ltd in December 2010 was considered or approved by the Governing Body." Essentially, a decision was made to transfer the IP. That would have been a fairly big decision to make. I gather the person or the office overseeing it was...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 104 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Waterford Institute of Technology - Development and Disposal of Intellectual Property in FeedHenry (24 Jan 2019)

David Cullinane: I gather that decision was never approved by the president or the governing body or the tech transfer office. Is that accurate?