An RTÉ assessment of plans to publish details of staff ‘nixers’ said the more a person earned, the more likely it was the broadcaster would “be seen to be compromised.”
It also said an anonymous register would not be enough to satisfy the public and could lead to a “witch-hunt” over who got paid what and a risk of somebody being wrongly identified.
The data protection impact assessment (DPIA) was prepared as part of RTÉ plans to publish a detailed register of external activities.
It explained how a new register was needed so that there was full oversight of how many outside gigs staff were doing and how much they were being paid.
The DPIA said: “[We need] this information to ensure that any conflicts of interest that may arise, or have already arisen, can be identified promptly and swiftly resolved before any reputational damage occurs that affects RTÉ.”
The broadcaster’s plans to make public full details of outside activity came unstuck however, after the Data Protection Commission warned complaints or enforcement were likely.
RTÉ had originally refused to release a copy of the data protection assessment under FOI laws saying discussions were still ongoing with government over new laws to allow more complete data be published.
However, the document was released this week as the broadcaster acknowledged there was “little chance of the legislation requested … happening anytime soon.”
The assessment said a register of external activities was crucial for more “effective management of conflicts of interest.”
It said while staff were obliged to declare outside earners, they needed to standardise the approach right across the organisation.
However, it did acknowledge that there could be a risk to “the rights and freedoms” of people whose financial information was listed online.
It explained how a new process would be put in place whereby at least three managers would review each application for outside work.
The document added: “A dedicated oversight group … will be entrusted with reviewing all decisions (including rejections) across RTÉ every six months.
“[This is] for the purposes of monitoring, assessing and evaluating decision-making over a reasonable period of time.”
It said only once-off activities like speaking engagements, promotion of commercial ventures and brand ambassador work needed to be declared.
Other outside work like membership of local clubs, volunteering in charities, or cases where a journalist was asked to contribute to another broadcaster did not need to be declared.
It added: “In circumstances where RTÉ employees and contractors engage in external activities without the necessary approval, it may result in disciplinary action.”
The original plan was for a register using bands of no payment, payments up to €3,000, up to €6,000, and up to €10,000.
For the rare events that were worth over €10,000, RTÉ was planning to publish the “exact amount” in each case.
The assessment added: “The effective achievement of these objectives is significant where RTÉ, as a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer, has publicly committed to enhanced transparency and openness.”
It said that “recent controversies” had put their work under the spotlight which meant “stronger governance and controls” over outside earners.
“The dataset collected is not excessive, nor is it intrusive (being directly volunteered by individuals),” the assessment said.
It also concluded that labelling events as either ‘paid’ or ‘unpaid’ would not be enough as the “quantum of payment goes to the strength of the conflict [of interest] that may be presented.”
The assessment added that companies and other third parties would become less likely to offer nixers to RTÉ presenters knowing details would be public.
“As the nature of the activity and the name of the individual are likely in the public domain (given that most of the activities are public events), the impact on the individual is (in reality) minimal,” it concluded.
It said RTÉ had rejected the idea of having an anonymous register saying it would not “give the public sufficient information.”
“[Publishing] on an anonymised basis could inadvertently lead to a ‘witch hunt,’ with individuals and third-party media outlets speculating on (and potentially misidentifying) who is engaging in external activities,” the assessment added.