The conflict between the Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) editorial board and the board of directors over the selection of the PBS winter schedule programme came to a head yesterday with the resignation of the chairman of the editorial board, John Camilleri.

The resignation came after PBS decided to go ahead with its selection of winter programmes after the PBS editorial board had rejected the proposed schedule. The station’s editorial board had sent the schedule back to the directors, saying, among other things, that it was incomplete.

The controversy surrounding TVM’s winter schedule – which sparked a clash between the station’s board of directors and the editorial board at the beginning of summer – escalated after the editorial board turned down the finalised programme schedule and sent it back to the directors at the beginning of August.

Contacted by The Malta Independent yesterday, Mr Camilleri said that he had made his decision after he had given the board of directors every possible chance to get back on the right track.

“However, things got worse and I felt that I had no choice but to resign,” he said.

He expressed his disappointment at the reply sent by Investments, Industry and IT Minister Austin Gatt to his resignation letter, saying that Dr Gatt had shifted the blame elsewhere, instead of facing the truth.

Furthermore, he said, the process did not follow the rules established in the Public Statement of Intent (PSI) that clearly states that:

“All proposals will be evaluated by the editorial board from the perspective of content. The evaluation will be presented to the board of directors which will, in conjunction with the editorial board, take the final decision about which programmes will form part of the schedule.”

“The PSI is very clear – the schedule has to be approved by both boards and one does not have precedence over the other. Just like I understand plain English, I’m sure that Dr Gatt understood it when he approved it,” said Mr Camilleri.

In his strongly-worded resignation letter addressed to Dr Gatt, Mr Camilleri said that he was resigning “out of protest at the miserable state of national public broadcasting that has been brought about by the present board of directors at PBS.”

In the letter, Mr Camilleri said that the selection process was not “credible, fair and transparent” and he reminded Dr Gatt that the PSI had been drawn up by the board of directors and approved by the two ministries involved.

He pointed out that the editorial board had done its utmost to follow the correct procedures, but said that the board of directors had decided to ignore a public agreement they had made with the government, producers and public opinion.

“In my opinion, the actions of the board of directors constitutes an abuse of power,” said Mr Camilleri.

He stressed that he believed that PBS should not function at a loss but added that profit should not be an excuse to ignore what is right.

Mr Camilleri said that he had carried out his duties with a clear conscience to the best of his abilities and in the national interest.

In his hard-hitting reply, Dr Gatt said that he “regretfully” accepted Mr Camilleri’s resignation. However, the minister specified that he is regretful because of the recent media controversy about the PBS winter schedule that totally overshadowed the principle aim behind the setting up of the editorial board.

“The media debate overshadowed the total independence that the

editorial board was given over the news programmes that led to almost no accusations of partisanship in the news during the last three years,” said Dr Gatt.

He pointed out that good news is the least sensational and “probably that is why no one sang the praises of the editorial board that quietly managed to sail the news programmes from a mine-field into quiet waters.”

Dr Gatt added that, up to four years ago, no one was interested in PBS’s programmes but everyone was ready to accuse the 8pm news of discrimination and favouritism.

“As a result, the government took a decision to distance itself, even structurally, from the news programme and set up the editorial board. The board was given absolute autonomy when it came to the content of the news programmes.”

Dr Gatt went on to say that the independent structure had been established and he added that it is a great disappointment that the recent controversy had made it into the news, and not the success story.

“I have made very clear what the government’s approved policy is when it comes to the selection of programmes – the final decision is in the hands of the board of directors,” he said.

The editorial board, he went on to say, has a consultative role and no amount of nit-picking of PBS documents can lead to any other interpretation.

“These parameters were clear from the very start – you might not agree with them but they are there to be followed,” he added.

Dr Gatt pointed out that it is unfortunate that the editorial board did not want to respect this simple decision and expected that the final decision would be theirs.

He said that the controversy between the two boards is “superfluous” and that a balanced and compromised decision could have been found in a mature atmosphere of cooperation.

However, said Dr Gatt, “in a argument where everyone wants to have the last word, we will end up with legal interpretations of a document that was meant to give policy direction and not act as a legal document.”

Mr Camilleri said that Dr Gatt’s reply is a clear denial of his approval of the PSI.

“I did not request to be on the editorial board – and I did not ask for the post of chairman. I served my post to the best of my abilities and now I am publicly insulted,” he said.

Mr Camilleri pointed out that the proposed schedule had included several programmes that were not originally shortlisted and programmes that had not even submitted a proposal.

“However, several programmes were included to please the producers and I will not accept this,” he said.