LRT Council reprimands director-general, who calls it 'psychological pressure'
Lithuania's public broadcaster LRT Council has found Director-General Monika Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė responsible for a workplace violation over undisclosed service providers. She called the decision an attempt to pressure her.
The supervisory council of Lithuania's public broadcaster LRT ruled on Tuesday that Director-General Monika Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė was responsible for a workplace violation, tied to the broadcaster's failure to disclose the identities of individuals from whom it purchased services. The council classified the breach as minor rather than serious, meaning it does not provide grounds for her dismissal.
Under a procedure adopted by parliament earlier this year, LRT's director can only be dismissed immediately for a serious breach of duties. Council Chairman Mindaugas Jurkynas compared the decision to a yellow card in football — a warning rather than a serious infraction — and said public speculation that the council intended to remove the director had no basis. A second similar violation within a year, however, could open the door to dismissal.
The dispute stems from LRT's public reports on program purchases, which did not name individual service providers. The General Prosecutor's Office determined this summer that such cases should be assessed individually rather than withheld automatically on data-protection grounds, finding that LRT had applied a blanket non-disclosure policy without case-by-case review. LRT subsequently amended its report for the previous year to reflect the prosecutor's position.
Notably, the council itself had previously backed the non-disclosure decision, but Jurkynas said that after deliberation, the council's role in that decision was not considered central. Four council members abstained from the vote, saying the decision's wording was inaccurate and conflicted with LRT law and the Labour Code.
The council additionally recommended the director pay closer attention to transparency and accountability in procurement. Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė described the warning as psychological pressure intended to make her more compliant and to lay groundwork for her eventual dismissal. She said she is weighing whether to challenge the decision in court, though her lawyer noted the warning itself is generally not subject to appeal, while its potential reputational consequences might be.
