Editorial board, directors clash over selection process

The chairman of the PBS editorial board yesterday accused the station's board of directors of going "beyond its powers" when it requested TV producers to ignore a short list of programmes sent to them by the first board.

Chairman John Camilleri said his board would therefore stand by its original position on the list to be considered for the winter schedule.

Of the 130 submissions for the October 2007 schedule, 44 were short-listed by the editorial board, with Bondiplus and L-Ispjun among those left out.

The board of directors later accused the editorial board of going beyond its role as internal watchdog for PBS, saying it was the directors who had to safeguard the company's financial interests.

In a press conference earlier, Mr Camilleri insisted he would not serve as a "smokescreen", as he outlined his board's position following an e-mail sent by PBS chairman Joe Fenech Conti the day before informing producers who had submitted their proposals that the PBS board had not selected or rejected any of them.

Mr Fenech Conti told the producers that the decision on the short list had not yet been taken and that the opinion of the editorial board was non-binding. He said that producers would be informed whether their programmes had been short-listed over the coming days.

But Mr Camilleri insisted that the National Broadcasting Policy made it amply clear that the editorial board was not subject to the board of directors in matters of editorial content and judgement. The directors could only digress from the choices of the editorial board on financial grounds - and that, only after having done its utmost to respect them.

Asked whether the members of the editorial board would resign if the board of directors decided to ignore this policy and their role, Mr Camilleri said this was not being considered.

Dominic Fenech, another of the three government-appointed members on the editorial board, said it was possible that this board could be rendered powerless if its authority were not accepted, and a programme that was not short-listed could end up being part of the station's winter schedule.

Asked whether they expected ministers' intervention, they said they had not been informed but that it would not be considered "out of this world" if they chose to intervene.

Both maintained logic would have it - although there was no evidence - that the board of directors' "interference" was spurred by the elimination of certain programme proposals from the short list.

No part of the NBP envisaged the right of the board of directors to enter into the merits of excluding certain programmes, Mr Camilleri insisted.

He said the NBP envisages a process whereby the editorial board judges and grades proposals and then forwards its short list to the board of directors - a stage it has not yet reached.

According to a new and approved procedure, obtained on the advice of the PBS CEO and programmes manager, from the Investments and IT and Tourism and Culture Ministries, the short listing was divided into two phases, whereby producers had two weeks to make their submissions. Those short-listed would then be required to submit a demo within three weeks from notification.

Mr Camilleri explained that, following the grading of those short-listed in the second phase, the board of directors would deal with them according to commercial and financial criteria.

When Mr Camilleri communicated the short list to the producers on April 19, he was "acting within the powers of the editorial board and in the spirit of the NBP". His actions were "purely aimed at safeguarding the credibility, transparency and reputation of PBS and to ensure pluralism of broadcasting in the interest of the viewing and listening public".

Given the CEO's failure to inform the producers of the selection, according to a unanimous decision on April 16, Mr Camilleri decided to inform them himself. The producers would all be sent the reasons by the programmes manager shortly, he added.

Last night, the board of directors issued a statement saying its responsibility was to safeguard the company's commercial interest. The editorial board - the internal watchdog - advised on matters of content and acted autonomously on matters of news.

However, the editorial board had stopped being an internal watchdog and had taken it upon itself to decide what programmes were or were not to be shown on PBS, the board of directors charged.

The editorial board had also taken the unauthorised action of informing bidders of its decision, passing it as the company's.

"Nothing in the spirit or the letter of the National Broadcasting Policy or in any other instructions received here at PBS from the shareholder could justify the editorial board's action in this matter."

The board of directors, who had the personal responsibility for safeguarding the financial and commercial interests of PBS, was being prevented from exercising its authority to over-rule the editorial board's decisions on financial grounds.

It was for this reason that it had informed bidders that the schedule remains open and all bids still under consideration, the directors said.