Directors effectively overturn editorial board's decision

Bondiplus and L-Ispjun - two of the programmes that had been left out of the short-list for the Public Broadcasting Services' winter schedule - are back in the race following a decision by the board of directors yesterday.

In a circular sent to the 130 producers who had applied to have a programme on PBS in October 2007, the station's board chairman, Joe Fenech Conti, said all producers would be invited to submit a demo tape by mid-May.

Mr Fenech Conti effectively overturned a decision by the station's editorial board which had short-listed 44 proposals, leaving out Bondiplus and L-Ispjun, produced by Where's Everybody? and Watermelon respectively.

In his circular, Mr Fenech Conti said the board of directors agreed that all producers who had applied should be invited to submit a demo tape by not later than May 15.

He said the board was committed to ensure that as many producers as possible are in a position to provide PBS with "varied and innovative offers" by introducing a new two-stage process of outline submission followed by full submissions. "The way that the editorial board has chosen to hijack this new process is damaging this commitment to you and endangering PBS's commercial viability."

He attached to the circular a copy of the National Broadcasting Policy, "which is the terms of reference of both the board of directors and the editorial board". "As you will be able to see, the full and final decision rests with the PBS board of directors. As the contracting body, only communications issued by the PBS board of directors and the PBS management team through the CEO are valid," he added.

"Finally, I would like to apologise for any anxiety and confusion that the recent events may have caused you.... We will do our best to catch up the slight delay in the process which this has caused, so that you and PBS can continue to provide content to our viewers which is entertaining, informative and educational. This will ensure that we preserve our position as the number one broadcaster and meet our important public service obligations, all at the best possible value to the taxpayer," Mr Fenech Conti told producers.

Speaking to The Times yesterday, producers who had been already short-listed by the editorial board called the decision "unfair" and argued that producers now faced financial uncertainty as the prolonged process would hamper their chances of securing advertising.

"All is in the balance again and we are in limbo. This means that we cannot engage actors and presenters, invest in equipment or strike advertising deals. If the programme is not selected by the beginning of summer, as is likely to happen, it would be too late even to go to other stations as their schedules would have already been filled up," a producer, who did not wish to be named, said yesterday evening.

An applicant claimed the decision to ask everyone to submit a demo tape went against a previous decision to ask for a demo after the short-list stage on the premise that it was difficult for smaller production houses to fork out money for the tape.

Editorial board chairman John Camilleri said when contacted the intervention of the board of directors was a "tragic farce".

He said in a press conference on Thursday the board of directors had gone "beyond its powers" when it ignored the short-list, maintaining that 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.

"PBS has become people's laughing stock. It is clear that one of the directors sitting on the board has an interest. Now the competition is back to square one, but the small fish will cover the big ones," Mr Camilleri said.

He added that the selection process of the editorial board had been based on the type and quality of programmes proposed. The National Broadcasting Policy made it 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 at a later stage.

"I am not saying the financial aspect is not important. But those who look at public broadcasting only as a means of making money would be doing a disservice to the country," Mr Camilleri said.

He insisted that the editorial board's position remained that it was not responsible for the actions of the board of directors.

"Everybody has eyes to see. If there were people who wanted to include programmes we had not short-listed, the editorial board cannot be held responsible," Mr Camilleri said.

Two proposals by Allied Newspapers were on the editorial board's short-list.