THE HIGHER Education Authority (HEA) has become embroiled in a bitter dispute with RTÉ's flagship Prime Time programme about the non appearance of its chief executive, Tom Boland on a recent edition.
Mr Boland told the programme makers the issue of the value for money delivered by an agency like the HEA was too "complex and would be difficult to communicate effectively . . . in a short time."
In a confidential e-mail to HEA members, Mr Boland claimed the April 27th Prime Time programme on value for money in State agencies was "biased and unfair to the agencies which were featured, including the HEA."
But in e-mails to Mr Boland, the programme's editor, Donogh Diamond strongly defends the programme's editorial integrity.
He writes: "It is my view and the view of all media organisations I think, that taxpayer funded organisations are also accountable to the public through the media."
The dispute arises from Mr Boland's refusal to take part in the programme.
The authority, which manages the €1.6 billion budget of the higher education sector, said it was happy to answer any questions about its work - but Mr Boland would not appear.
In explaining his decision, Mr Boland told fellow HEA members in his e-mail: "I had a concern about the objectivity of a programme on this topic. I also expected that the format . . . would involve edited extracts from a number of CEOs (most likely edited to support an already decided 'angle'). In the circumstances, I had no confidence that the editing of the programme would do justice to the HEA."
Mr Boland's decision not to appear on the programme was conveyed to RTÉ by HEA communications director Malcolm Byrne. He wrote that the HEA did not believe "a short series of edited soundbites would sufficiently convey the extent of our work or its values."
In an e-mail response, Mr Diamond wrote: "In a situation where the taxpayer is facing the most onerous tax increases in a decade and a half I do not believe it is a legitimate decision for the head of a significant taxpayer-funded organisation to refuse to answer questions as to its stewardship of that money, and I have no doubt that the 500,000 people who watch Prime Time will feel the same.
"So I'm afraid I do not accept your reasoning for refusing to take part in our programme and my working assumption is that you are not confident that you will be able to justify the size of your organisation, its efficiency, or perhaps its very existence. Given that assumption, let me assure you that not only will the HEA form part of our programme, our programme will focus on it with much greater intensity than was my intention previously."
Subsequently, Mr Boland complained about Mr Diamond's letter to Angela Daly, executive producer of Prime Time.
He said he was "greatly disturbed by the tone and content" of the e-mail. "In particular, I am concerned by what I interpret as a thinly veiled threat to deal with the HEA in a more hostile way if I do not co-operate in being interviewed for the programme . . . I remain of the view that the proposed interview is not the optimal way to deal with the issue of our effectiveness and value as an organisation."
In a subsequent e-mail Mr Diamond rejects the suggestion that HEA spending is "too complex" an issue to explain in a documentary format . . . Were (we to) accept such reasoning, Prime Time would not have made most of it's major programmes in recent years, very many of which focused on far more "complex" issues.
Last night, Mr Diamond told The Irish Times: "We believe the programme was entirely balanced. We are particularly anxious to ensure that major State bodies did not succeed in avoiding scrutiny by the simple expedient of refusing to do an on camera interview."
