Results 12,801-12,820 of 26,610 for speaker:David Cullinane

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?

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: Is that what happened?

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 think that is acceptable?

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: Was it surprising to Professor Donnelly? Was he not aware of that before publication of the report?

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: In my judgment, and it is only my judgment, it would not be good practice for one individual, for example, the financial controller, to sign off on the transfer of IP without getting any authorisation or approval from the governing body. Mr. McCarthy's point is that the governing body is the ultimate body that should be responsible for disposal of assets.

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.

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: That is great, but it did not happen then.