Updated: 11am. Additional reporting by Vivienne Clarke.
RTÉ is to publish “as much as possible” of an external review into undisclosed payments made to star presenter Ryan Tubridy over the past three years.
It comes as a staff protest is due to be held at RTÉ headquarters in Donnybrook at lunchtime in response to growing anger and a call for answers amid the spiralling controversy at the public service broadcaster.
Questions have intensified around the €345,000 worth of undisclosed payments made between 2017 and 2022 to Tubridy since it was made public last week.
It has prompted the Government to order an external review into governance and culture at the broadcaster, and RTÉ executives are due before two parliamentary committees this week to answer questions from TDs and senators.
Former RTÉ boss Dee Forbes has said that the payments made in 2020-2022 were a result of honouring contractual obligations after the pandemic hit, but was unaware of other payments made between 2017-2019.
She said that she led negotiations between senior RTÉ executives with Tubridy’s agent. She said the final deal aimed to deliver savings for RTÉ and that she did not “act contrary to any advice” at any stage.
Ms Forbes resigned as director general of RTÉ on Monday; Tubridy is not presenting his weekday morning radio show this week.
The RTÉ Board said on Monday it was mindful that the public, staff and politicians want accountability, and said it was “very mindful” of the need to provide clarity.
It said that a “comprehensive” statement would be issued on Tuesday afternoon “setting out its understanding of the circumstances” around payments made to Tubridy in the 2020-2022 period.
It also committed to publishing “as much as possible” of the Grant Thornton review into those payments, but said that the payments made from 2017-2019 are still being reviewed by the advisory company and so will not be included.
The Grant Thornton review into the 2020-2022 payments was commissioned by the Audit and Risk Committee of the RTÉ board after anomalies were noticed.
It was received by the board last Monday.
Later this week, members of the RTÉ board and executive are due to attend the Media committee and the Public Accounts committee to answer questions. It is unclear who exactly will attend, including whether Ms Forbes will be present.
Transparency
Meanwhile, the former managing director of Bord na Mona, Gabriel D’Arcy, has warned there needs to be greater clarity and transparency by the board of RTÉ.
Speaking to RTÉ radio’s Today with Claire Byrne show, he said: “There's a lot at stake here in terms of the confidence and the trust that has traditionally and hopefully continues to be placed in RTÉ. This issue is an issue of transparency.
“From a corporate governance perspective, there are very, very significant guidelines for corporate governance within state bodies.
“There's a code of conduct. It's very, very detailed, and there is a number of provisions within this that all play into some of the key judgment calls that were made here in regards to some of the issues that we've heard.”
“Under the oversight role, the management of the State body has a duty to provide the board with all necessary information to enable the board to perform their duties to a high standard, so the management had a duty to provide the board with full information. It was not an option, he said. It was a duty,” Mr D'Arcy explained.
The amounts involved in this case were not insignificant, he said, adding there was nothing trivial about the situation.
RTÉ’s annual report should portray an accurate oversight overview of the financial affairs of the company, he said, but added there was an issue of trust in the board. If there was any doubt, the chief executive should have brought the matter to the attention of the board, he said.
Mr D’Arcy said he thought there might have been a judgement call in this case because of confidentiality.
He added there might have been good reasons for that, but details would be awaited. However, he said, under good governance rules, the chairperson of the executive should have been made aware of such a significant decision.
