|
For a while I thought that it was the minister responsible for public broadcasting that loves to talk out of his hat. Your interview with the Prime Minister (6 November 2005), however, made me realise that he too exercises Gatt’s technique when it suits him best to do so. He too seemed to be playing to the gallery when he remarked that he recognises that it is difficult to find people who will run the show at PBS. What show is he exactly referring to? The farcical show at the national broadcasting station which has been running so successfully for years on end. In fact, I very much doubt whether the famous ‘Mouse Trap’ at the London Theatres had survived, uninterruptedly, for so long.
If, on the other hand, he is referring to the successful (mis)management of the station, from Board of Directors downwards, than he is only echoing his subordinate’s excuse for government’s failure of seriously taking the bull by its horns to put the national station on a sound footing, these last score of years or so.
Dr Gonzi knows, as much as your readers do, that this county is loaded with competent people who could have successfully handled public broadcasting, as much as it is loaded with good lawyers, doctors, priests, and policemen, if only the right people were appointed for the job. It was no one’s fault but government’s, for persistently and consistently appointing the wrong people to supposedly stir PBS out of the mud. Had it picked on fit and proper people, whose priorities were in the right order, public broadcasting would have registered progress a long time back. At the same time, the Exchequer would have also saved millions of liri of the people’s money spent in studies, consultants’ fees, and subsidies, which served no real purpose other then to line some pockets and foster abuse.
Remuneration should never be the prime motivator of a job, thought admittedly many would consider the thickness of the pay packet, first and foremost. What makes matters worse is that despite the fact that most of the appointees were keener on the remuneration and the perks the post offers, they were not competent for the job. My principles in this regard are normally guided by placing the challenge and job satisfaction the post offer, as the two topmost priorities that feature on my list, when considering a position.
In the Flamini era it was said that the station was managed by ‘remote control’, for it was said that very often he was away from the office. No wonder he left a mess behind him. I would say the situation has remained unchanged to this very day. If the information I have is correct, and I have reasons to believe that it is, most of the people that matter operate, more or less, in a like manner. Business planning/strategies should not be discussed off the company’s premises. This practice can only encourage more abuse. It would make good sense had the chairman’s post to be upgraded to an executive position. He may then be able to check these practices, which other senior officials seem to be too weak to stop, and, perhaps, may also find it too difficult to check. The suggested executive directorship does not necessarily mean that the remuneration pack needs to be much fatter. Far from it, it only has to be decently higher than any of the other non-executive appointments within the set-up.
Unfortunately, government appointments are generally based on the political inclinations of the individual concerned, rather than on his skills and efficiency, hence the constant failures. Little heed, if at all, seem to have ever been given to management skills and the appropriate priorities prospective appointees embrace. In fact, the inefficiency that government entities experience is the main reason for making privatisation of the state enterprises a sine qua non. Otherwise, governments would need to continually to pump public funds to support the incompetence and inefficiencies of the people it appoints.
Having heard of the drastic measures PBS Ltd had gone through these last two years or so, I still have serious doubts as to how viable this institution has become. What seems to be certain, however, is the fact that its management still seems as lacking as it has ever been these last 30 years or so. The latest News Manager story which, thankfully, the PM brought to the fore, confirms my thinking.
I am sure the PM knows that for the last twenty years nationalist governments, had continually and consistently, promised reforms in public broadcasting. Today, after so many so-called reforms, restructurings and reorganizations, he still admits (to put it mildly) that there is room for improvement within the station. He would have been more precise, and to the point, had he said that there was still ample room for improvement.
On the recent News Manager Application fiasco, it sounds absurd of the PM to disagree with your remark. If he did not consider it a fiasco why on earth did he shoot Dr Gatt in the foot, on the matter, and ordered him to abort the procedure to fill the post on offer? Another fiasco is no doubt the hurried announcement that the post of News Manager had been filled when, in reality, it was not. Why does Dr Gonzi permit so many blunders to take place? Doesn’t he believe that these things will only damage government’s credibility, not to say his as well? I must confess that I had welcomed his election to the leadership of the party for I though he would give both the party, and government, that much needed boost. Unfortunately he failed to do so.
The PM should tell the public who was responsible for recommending the recruitment of an outsider to fill the post of a News Manager when, at the end of the day, it transpired that internally there were staff members who were eligible to fill the post with a simple lateral move, and with no added costs to the institution. Now, as things stand the ‘new’ incumbent is demanding the same remuneration pack that was being offered to the prospective outsiders, who was about to be appointed, and rightly so. How on earth can Dr Gatt or the company’s chairman expects the current incumbent to accept the condition of a definite appointment, yet the pay packet remains unchanged? It would be only fair and reasonable that the remuneration parcel enticing the outsiders to take on the job, be offered to the appointed insider; in its entirety; no more no less.
Obviously, the foregoing applies only if the post on offer has not been downgraded in an endeavour to fill the vacancy with an internal move. However, if this is the case, the present incumbent should be given the option to reject the responsibility of the editorship. If government wants to make appointees shoulder responsibilities, this is the opportune moment to vest the legal responsibility of editorship on the chairmen of both the board of directors and the editorial board. Surely, they are not paid simply to pose before the cameras whenever the opportunity presents itself, then shy of responsibility. This will not only bring an end to the top echelon at PBS repudiating their accountability whenever criticism is levied at them, but it will definitely bring about that much needed new culture within the enterprise, and beyond.
The PM should realise that the handling of matters at PBS still indicate, undoubtedly, lack of management skills. If Dr Gonzi seriously wants to put matter on the right track he has to get rid of a few faces and seek to replace them with the right persons by knocking on the right doors in the first instance.
John G. Borg-Bartolo
Attard
Editor’s Note: This letter was received at our newsroom prior to the announcement of the resignations of the chairmen of both the Board of Directors and the Editorial Board. |
