In all the murky events that have plunged one of the State's major cultural institutions, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, into crisis, one thing at least has seemed clear: the Minister had nothing to do with it. On December 12th, the Minister for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, S∅le de Valera, denied in the most unequivocal terms possible, that she played any part in the row that led to Dr Brian Kennedy declining the appointment of IMMA Director after the museum's board had offered him the job last month.
S∅le de Valera's reply in the Dβil to questions from Opposition parties could not have been more emphatic: "I categorically refute any suggestion that I made any views known about any of the candidates for the Director and Chief Executive post at IMMA, neither were my views canvassed on the matter by any member of the Board . . . I again categorically deny that there was any interference by me, and I did not ask anybody to make my views known, directly or indirectly. I kept them to myself."
The Minister also accepted that it would have been entirely wrong for her to have made her views known: "I have no legal function in the matter of the selection of the Director of IMMA. This function is specifically reserved to the Board."
There is no evidence of any interference by S∅le de Valera to block the appointment of Brian Kennedy, who, as director of the National Gallery of Australia, was both the leading contender for the IMMA job and a man who had evoked the Minister's ire a year previously in a row over the visit of the Books of Kells to Australia. What does seem equally clear, however, is that there was indirect interference by well-placed people purporting to represent the views of the Minister.
One of these people - not the Minister herself - is a very senior politician. All were extraordinarily well informed about the supposedly confidential recruitment process at a time when even the IMMA Board itself did not know that Brian Kennedy was the leading candidate. The message they passed on was also a consistent one: that the Minister would view Dr Kennedy's appointment as "controversial". The former Chairman of IMMA, Marie Donnelly, has confirmed to The Irish Times that, while the Minister did not contact her at all in relation to the possible appointment of Dr Kennedy, four approaches were made by people purporting to communicate the Minister's views. Three were made directly to Donnelly herself, and one to her husband, Joe Donnelly. All four came from people who had knowledge of Dr Kennedy's prospective appointment, even though the confidential interview process was still in train. One came from a senior political figure, the others from people who have or have had direct involvement with matters of cultural policy.
"These were all people whose views I would take very seriously," said Marie Donnelly. "The first approach was a telephone call from a person who has considerable standing in the arts world. He mentioned his belief that we were considering Brian Kennedy for the job and told me that I should know that this would be anathema to the Minister. He suggested I speak to Michael Ronayne, the Minister's adviser, who would confirm this view.
"The second was from a senior political figure, who asked me whether I thought Dr Kennedy was a good man for the job and expressed concerns about whether he had caused problems with staff in Australia. The third was from another IMMA Board member who had been approached in a manner he described as 'distasteful'."
The fourth approach was made to Joe Donnelly by an acquaintance who has a very considerable background in the public service and who retains an important relationship with Government projects. The message he imparted, according to Joe Donnelly, was that "The Minister will not allow Brian Kennedy to become Director of IMMA." Marie Donnelly declined to name the people who made these approaches. She stated that "the approaches were made on the implicit understanding of confidentiality", but added that "in view of the damage done to Dr Kennedy and to IMMA, I will name them to the Minister if she asks me to do so". The Irish Times has also learned that, contrary to de Valera's stated policy of non-interference in such matters, her personal press adviser Michael Ronayne was involved in earlier discussions surrounding the departure of the last director of IMMA, Declan McGonagle.
The controversy over the ending of McGonagle's tenure began on November 20th, 2000 with a disastrously abrupt meeting between himself and Marie Donnelly, at which she rather hastily informed him that his job would be advertised, that he would be free to apply, and that generous terms would otherwise be agreed with him.
This triggered a court injunction from McGonagle, a long legal process, a final acceptance by the Museum that he was entitled to a new contract and, ultimately, his decision to leave with a substantial settlement. The damage to the Museum's standing was immense, and the financial costs were significant.
There is no doubt that the decision to advertise Declan McGonagle's post and so begin a full year of continuing crisis, was Marie Donnelly's, taken after informal consultation with other members of the Board. Two documents seen by The Irish Times, however, reveal that the abrupt nature of that announcement was influenced by discussions between a Board member, the journalist Eoghan Harris, and S∅le de Valera's press adviser, Michael Ronayne. In a reply to an affidavit from Declan McGonagle, Marie Donnelly wrote that the manner in which she conveyed the decision at that fateful meeting "was discussed in detail with two Board members, one of whom sought and received support for this course of action from the Minister's personal adviser." This is supported by the second document, an e-mail from Eoghan Harris to Marie Donnelly, sent on the evening before the November 20th meeting. In it, Eoghan Harris wrote that he had "just got Michael Ronayne a few minutes ago . . . His first reaction was 'sweet Jesus' - first because he says S∅le is very close to Declan and wanted to take him abroad soon and she would be a bit gobsmacked (and) because he could see Declan digging his heels in. But after I filled him in and gave him three reasons why it was the right time, he was fine and said he hoped we would stick to the three reasons . . . Ronayne, in summary, said that we seemed to have it under control, and that he would strongly urge S∅le to support whatever the Board wanted to do. He was very happy that you were talking to me about the media end, and asked me to emphasise two points to you: (1) that you tell Declan as soon as possible, and (2) that you offer him good terms." Eoghan Harris went on to say that, "because he is no fool", Michael Ronayne "asked me what fallback position I would recommend for saving face in a sudden-death situation (such as we found nobody good, or it got cocked up in any way, or Declan injuncted or whatever). I told him that we could say that a preliminary trawl had turned up nobody good and that we would re-appoint Declan for a shorter three-year period, pending a trawl . . . he asked me to keep him closely posted. That would be wise. So tell me whatever you need to tell me that might affect S∅le . . . But, as Michael advises, you must tell Declan as soon as possible. You should call him at dawn. Although I have no doubt S∅le will do what Michael wants, there is a distinct danger that as soon as she hears this she might sound off to some eejit who would talk, or call Declan or whatever."
Yesterday, a spokesman for the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands confirmed to The Irish Times that Michael Ronayne and Eoghan Harris had discussed the prospective departure of Declan McGonagle. He said that "Eoghan Harris and Michael Ronayne are former colleagues and friends from RT╔. They are in contact about a range of issues." He added that in the course of a wide-ranging discussion, "reference was made to the fact that Ms Donnelly was seeking a new director of the Irish Museum of Modern Art. They both felt that the Board would be deeply divided on this, but however long it took, the matter would have to be resolved by the Board alone."
After Declan McGonagle's departure, the IMMA Board began the process of seeking a replacement last July when it advertised the post. An interview panel consisting of Marie Donnelly; the senior curator Catherine Marshall; the former director of both the Whitney and San Francisco Modern Art museums, David Ross; the former general secretary of the ICTU, Peter Cassells; and two Board members: the artist Felim Egan and Eoin McGonigal SC (who withdrew early on because of work pressures) was established. From 18 applicants, they drew up a shortlist of five. Two of these subsequently withdrew, leaving just three remaining candidates at the first round of interviews, conducted on October 16th.
It seems clear that there was no dispute at this stage that Brian Kennedy was the outstanding candidate. The principle anxiety, indeed, seems to have concerned his willingness to take the job. The interview panel asked Marie Donnelly to continue discussions with him in the hope of getting him to agree to a second interview.
The day after the first round of interviews, however, some anxieties became apparent. Marshall, who was effectively representing the IMMA staff on the interview panel, wrote a memo to two board members. On the one hand, it emphasised her "enormous respect" for Brian Kennedy and praised his strength of personality, his energy and drive, his ability to raise money and his commitment and ambition. On the other, it raised legitimate concerns: his lack of experience in the field of contemporary art and the hostile coverage he had received from sections of the press in Australia.
These were clearly the kind of legitimate issues that could properly be raised in the second interview with Brian Kennedy, which was conducted on November 19th. Before that interview could take place, however, an entirely unconnected and much less legitimate campaign against Brian Kennedy began, as the people purporting to represent the views of S∅le de Valera made their approaches to Marie Donnelly, warning that his appointment would not be acceptable to the Minister. It was the accidental conjunction of these two very differently motivated sets of objections - one a proper part of a rigorous interview procedure, the other an improper interference with that procedure - that doomed Brian Kennedy's appointment and plunged IMMA into crisis.
After Brian Kennedy's second interview, the panel remained ambivalent. Marie Donnelly and Felim Egan were enthusiastically in favour of recommending his appointment to the Board. Marshall's anxieties remained, and were in some degree shared by Ross and Cassells. The panel's decision was that "a wider search should be undertaken, but that the second interviewee (Dr Kennedy), as the strongest person to date, should, if possible, be retained as a significant contender within that search." The following day, however, Ross, who had flown back to the US, phoned Marie Donnelly. He had been unhappy with the rather rushed nature of the panel's deliberations, and now felt that the reservations that had been expressed about Brian Kennedy were outweighed by the candidate's many strengths. He was concerned that a man who already held the prestigious position of Director of the National Gallery of Australia was highly unlikely to wait around while IMMA cast about for other candidates. He asked Marie Donnelly, as he put it in a subsequent e-mail, "to overturn our ill-considered decision and directly invite Brian Kennedy to accept the position." This intervention was extremely significant. Not only is David Ross a highly respected figure in the international art world, but his revised view now meant that a majority - three of the five members - of the interview panel was recommending Brian Kennedy's appointment. Thus, when the IMMA Board met on November 26th, it had before it in effect two contradictory recommendations from the interview panel: one to continue the search for a new director, the other to offer the position to Brian Kennedy.
There was no attempt to hide this contradiction from the Board. The documentation before it consisted of the panel's decision of November 19th; an e-mail from David Ross outlining his revised position; Catherine Marshall's memo of October 17th, expressing her reservations; and an e-mail from Felim Egan strongly recommending that the job be offered immediately to Brian Kennedy.
Before the Board meeting, however, there was yet another political intervention, this time a representation to Board member Fiona O'Malley, who is a Progressive Democrats councillor and general election candidate. She received, she has confirmed to The Irish Times, a phone call "from someone I'd know well through political channels". She does not wish to identify the caller other than to say that he or she is not an elected representative. The caller had, however, "an awful lot of information" about the interview process which was, at this stage, still supposed to be a confidential one. The message delivered was that "the Minister would view Brian Kennedy as a controversial appointment". Fiona O'Malley regarded this intervention as improper and subsequently resigned from the IMMA Board.
The only course open to the IMMA Board was to make a decision itself. It could accept the interview panel's original recommendation to widen the search for a director, or it could accept its revised recommendation to offer the post to Brian Kennedy immediately. There is no doubt that there were legitimate differences of opinion as to which course was in the best interests of the museum. There is equally no doubt that these differences were resolved by a democratic vote of the Board: seven in favour of Brian Kennedy's appointment, two against.
That the two Board members who voted against - Niall Crowley and Terry Prone - felt strongly enough to resign and to give their resignation letters to The Irish Times for publication was unusual but not unprecedented. State boards of all sorts do sometimes suffer from acrimonious disputes. What was both extraordinary and crucial was S∅le de Valera's very public gesture in agreeing immediately to meet the dissidents before she had even discussed the events with the IMMA chairman or the democratic majority of the Board. As soon as the story of the resignations broke, a spokesman for de Valera told The Irish Times she was "naturally concerned that two board members should tender their resignations. She will be discussing with them their reasons for resigning and afterwards will be contacting the chairwoman". The order of priorities could only be interpreted as a public signal of support for those opposed to Brian Kennedy's appointment. Against the backdrop of a sustained campaign to suggest that that appointment would be politically unacceptable, it made his decision not to accept the appointment inevitable. In the end, the standing and future of the museum and the independence of State boards mattered far less than the expression of personal and political hostility. The implications of that for all Irish cultural institutions, and indeed for the entire public sector, are momentous.
