The government is keeping its mouth shut tight on the controversy that has erupted after the appointment of Vanessa Macdonald as Manager News and Current Affairs at PBS was put on hold.

Last Sunday, the Labour party newspaper Kullhadd reported that the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) had vetoed her appointment in spite of having the approval of Minister for Investments, Industry and Information Technology Austin Gatt.

On Wednesday, Ms Macdonald told this newspaper that she had been selected as Manager News and Current Affairs at PBS.

“They gave me the contract and I reacted to some of the clauses. I have not received any feedback from PBS for more than two weeks now. I cannot say such more at this point.

“Maybe (the delay) is because it’s Santa Marija, but I am not going to jump to conclusions at this stage,” she told The Malta Independent on Sunday.

On Wednesday afternoon, this newspaper asked the MIIIT for its reaction to the claims made by Kullhadd on the matter. We asked the following questions:

1. What is the status of the discussions with Vanessa Macdonald for the post of head of news at PBS? Have they broken down or not? Why has she not been given the appointment yet?

2. Have there been other persons who have been short-listed together with Ms Macdonald for that post? If the talks have indeed broken down, will PBS issue a new call for applications or else pass on to the next short-listed person?

3. Can you confirm or deny whether Ms MacDonald’s appointment has been vetoed by the OPM as reported in other sections of the media? Is it true that the salary she requested was the reason why the OPM vetoed her appointment?

On Thursday afternoon, the MIIIT spokesperson sent the following reply: “Selection and recruitment processes are strictly confidential processes, for obvious reasons. One of the guidelines specific for the entities within the MIIIT portfolio prohibits companies (or the Ministry) to disclose any such information to third parties, let alone the media.”

The following morning, we sent some follow-up questions to the MIIIT:

1. When were these guidelines adopted by MIIIT?

2. Could you kindly provide a copy of the above-mentioned guidelines?

3. Does the Ministry think that this policy will give rise to more speculation about the appointment or not?

4 Does the Ministry think that the process for the appointment of head of news of PBS should be open to public scrutiny in view of the fact that PBS is financed by taxpayers or not?

At around mid-day, the MIIIT spokesperson sent the following in response:

“1. May 2003.

“2. No. These are for internal consumption.

“3. Confidentiality and correct conduct are not tantamount to speculation. You will surely be sensitive to the fact that any recruitment process in any organisation is covered by basic standards of confidentiality. Not all applicants for a new position would like their present employers to know they are applying for a new job. It is a recognised duty of any employer to respect the confidentiality of any job application it considers. We have on various occasions communicated with entities in our portfolio guiding them that it is our policy that they ought never to depart from this standard of confidentiality.

“4. First of all, to clarify matters, PBS is financed by the revenue it generates. The PSO contract that PBS has with the government is intended specifically for a list of programmes it is obliged to air. This was a cornerstone of the re-structuring programme. Answering your specific question, you should clearly define what you mean by ‘public scrutiny’. Most government organisations are directly financed by taxpayers’ money. Does your question imply that all these selection processes are ‘open to public scrutiny’ and as such each step in the selection and recruitment process is to be published in the media? For the reasons mentioned above we believe that public scrutiny in selection processes in public sector entities should be first of all governed by stringent confidentiality measures.”

Also on Wednesday afternoon, this paper sent the following question to the OPM:

Can you confirm or deny whether Ms Vanessa MacDonald’s appointment has been vetoed by the OPM as reported in other sections of the media? Is it true the claim that the salary she requested was the point on which the OPM vetoed her appointment?

After a couple of reminders, the OPM spokesperson sent the following reply on Thursday afternoon: “OPM has nothing to add to the reply given by MIIIT in response to the same questions put forward to us.”

As a last resort, this paper also tried to get some information about the matter from PBS chief executive officer Andrew Psaila, but his reply was: “I am sure you appreciate that recruitment processes are confidential and I am therefore unable to reply to your questions for reasons that should be obvious.”

One could not expect more from the hapless CEO after the public bollocking film commissioner Oliver Mallia got from Dr Gatt for giving an interview to The Times without first seeking approval from the Minister.