It seems that NAMA is borrowing heavily from the Stephen McNamara of Ryanair school of public relations. A week after attacking the CIF-commissioned report on NAMA in terms that were eyebrow-raising, it is reported by RTE that NAMA has written a reply to the Committee of Public Accounts (CPA) which was seeking details of salary scales at the secretive agency, a reply which was characterised by the chairman of the Committee as effectively telling it to “get stuffed”.
It is obvious that NAMA is swimming in waters infested with sharks that wish to take bites out of the vast assets held by the agency, its spending power or indeed undermine it politically or otherwise. NAMA cannot afford to be a shrinking violet and must defend its position and actions robustly. That said, Ryanair can survive and prosper despite the prickly communiqués from Stephen McNamara because Ryanair’s core product is tried and tested and is outstanding – the jury is still out on NAMA (yes it has transferred a vast number of loans in a way which has secured EU approval and it has many fine processes and milestones under its belt but it is still unproven as it enters the critical disposal phase of its existence).
There seems to be an emerging communication style from NAMA that is befitting for an organisation that is excellent at its job and can afford to alienate sectional interests because its value is undoubted by the great masses and its existence secured by popular support (or more practically by the necessary political support). NAMA hasn’t reached that point yet and indeed may never reach it and should perhaps adopt a less prickly style which nonetheless forcefully communicates the position of the agency. The CIF-commissioned report was in itself inflammatory and Fine Gael’s Bernard Allen, the chairman of the CPA, will naturally have political motives alongside other motives. So NAMA needs be robust and avoid any betrayal of weakness, but surely it can promote those qualities in a more considered fashion than that which seems to be emerging.
It should be said that NAMA’s letter to the PCA is not yet in the public domain so we rely on the assessment of the chairman of the Committee on its theme and tone.
UPDATE: 10th December, 2010. CPA Chairman Bernard Allen said that he would publish the NAMA letter and we have now gotten hold of the letter which is reproduced here. It seems that the “get stuffed” characterisation might be unfair – it seems that the NAMA CEO is reiterating the position with respect to NTMA disclosure of salaries.
UPDATE: 10th December, 2010. By popular demand here is the list of public servants paid more than An Taoiseach as detailed by the Sunday Tribune in June 2010 and updated with what appear to be more current rewards published by the Irish Times this week. We’re still trying to find out the annual salary of the Attorney General and I note the President doesn’t appear on the list either – so it’s not an exhaustive list by any means.
UPDATE: 23rd December, 2010. The National Treasury Management Agency, the umbrella agency which includes NAMA (and four other state agencies) has confirmed some salary scales to the Committee for Public Accounts as follows:
– 202 NTMA staff earn up to €100,000.
– 65 earn between €100,001 and €150,000.
– 22 earn between €150,001 and €200,000.
– 16 earn more than €200,000.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Excuse me? What about accountability? Don’t we have the right to know what these assets are, who is benefitting and how the money is being handled in every respect? the public record is not a sectional interest and if the PAC are told to get lost where does that leave us?
Perhaps I am reading you wrong but you seem to think this ‘get stuffed’ attitude would be justified in the event that NAMA was doing a good job. How can we know that if the PAC are continually told to get stuffed…
We have little or no proof whatsoever that NAMA is functioning competently and without fear or favour. That the legislation which governs it is has put it beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act is a disgrace.
I find your post startlingly deferential in this respect.
From what you say, NAMA is rapidly evolving into yet another arrogant, unaccountable, expensive quango that we have no means of governing or controlling properly.
Hi Mediabite, with respect to this specific episode at the PCA, NAMA was asked to provide salary details for the 100-odd staff that work at the agency. NAMA is part of the NTMA that famously does not publish salary information and is allowed maintain such secrecy by the Government. As I undertstand it therefore, NAMA is not obliged to provide information on its salaries by law or by Government consent. That being the case I think NAMA is entitled to decline the PCA’s request. The entry was about what was reported as the style of the letter and continues a theme from last week where NAMA used inflammatory language to deal with a CIF report.
The position on here is that NAMA should be included within the Freedom of Information ambit and should publish salary and remuneration details to the same standard of openness as a public limited company (ie actual details for the directors and average information for employees). And I hope that there are changes in the future to effect both of those areas of transparency.
Is the PCA entitled to NAMA salary information when the Government allows the NTMA maintain as secret salary information? I don’t think it is but that’s not NAMA’s fault – it’s the Government’s for allowing such secrecy at the NTMA in the first place. The NTMA has always claimed that disclosing salary information would undermine the agency and increase salary costs and see the loss of key talent – that’s rubbish in my view but it is arguable.
The PCA say they will publish the NAMA letter and I have asked the clerk to the Committee for access and hope to bring it here later.
Given the disparity in the salaries of top-level executives in other semi-states like ESB and their international counterparts, as reported widely this week, I have to wonder, who are the NTMA and NAMA competing with?
Agreed that we need transparency, and perhaps Bernard Allen might ask Fine Gael to join with Labour, who last week published a proposal to roll back the restrictions on FoI introduced by McDowell as a first step.