|
I could not help burst out laughing, immediately as I started reading your report on what Fr Joe Borg had to say on PBS and its restructuring, at the Vodafone Today Seminar held recently at Sliema. I was having breakfast, enjoying the nice early morning breeze in the garden, when I nearly choked with laughter.
Was Joe Borg truly the architect of the final restructuring? If I am not mistaken he had, at lease, submitted two previous restructuring proposals, and supposedly both were accepted, though neither of the two ever took of the ground. So much so, that after his first submission, he was actually engaged (as was recommended in the said report) to see to the implementation of the restructuring recommendations.
I had publicly condemned both suggested reforms, as being amateurish and that they seriously lacked the basic principles of a good management structure. If, as you say, he had also manoeuvred the final restructuring which Dr Austin Gatt finally implemented, then he hasn’t much to boast about either, since the institution is still limping badly, including the infamous editorial board.
I do not believe that there was ever any reference to who owned the patent of the actual restructuring that befell the station. One thing is certain: it differed substantially from what Fr Joe proposed in the earlier attempts.
I cannot understand how a consultant/expert whose submissions are scrapped, and no or little heed is given to his advice, can maintain his position with the organisation for so long. Neither can I understand how an employer who engages a consultant to carry out, a specific assignment, would tolerate the assignment to practically last for ever. I find this very strange indeed, though it tallies perfectly with government’s ‘money no problem’ attitude.
Fr Joe must have some nerve to criticise government regarding PBS’S new financing arrangement, and more so for his questioning whether PBS should remain under the responsibility of two ministries. I find his criticism most ludicrous. Why did Fr Joe find it so appropriate to speak about the twinning of responsibilities of PBS, so late in the day? Was he comfortable with the situation, when his relationship with Austin Gatt was tops, and when Francis Zammit Dimech didn’t bother an iota of his part in public broadcasting? I wonder what made him stop short of adding who of the two ministers deserves the honour of ‘fostering’ the national station.
The very reverend has been involved with PBS for some eight or nine years, either as a member of some commission, task force, or consultant to the minister responsible, to the board of directors of PBS, and also to certain individuals. For this he enjoyed a rather hefty annual remuneration.
What puzzles me, and probably many others, is the fact that during his long relationship with PBS, he failed to improve the station’s bad image. I do not recall that he ever criticised government (prior to walking out on Austin) on any of the points he now says are obstructing a truly public broadcasting service. Were things any better when, in his time, PBS was receiving some Lm2.5m annually in subsidy? Was the cleric competent to look into the shabby management of the station to ensure progress? What action did he take to see that PBS follows the pattern of any of the European countries, in its public broadcasting obligations, notwithstanding his visits to the BBC and elsewhere? What did he do to prevent unbiased news bulletins, other than disclaim responsibility whenever protests were filed? Surely, things did not go sour the moment he abandoned Austin Gatt.
Fr Joe must have a hidden agenda, for expressing himself now, in the manner he did, particularly on the question of whether two ministers should keep on sharing PBS’s responsibility. Is he trying to kick Austin Gatt out of the broadcasting scene, to re-establish himself at the national station, once again? Was this his true crusade in quitting Austin to move to Francis?
Regarding the editorial board, and its chairperson’s vacant post, the situation goes to prove that the creation of such a board was superfluous and a mere waste of public funds. It could only have served one to absorb power somehow, and to pick on his favourite graduates to support him.
How come Fr Borg is now echoing the former BA chairman’s call, regarding the setting-up of the Broadcasting Authority, and is suggesting to the MCESD to make a list from which some of the Broadcasting Authority members are to be selected? Is he losing his grip with government?
Unless Fr Joe adopts the culture of making public, the reasons for relinquishing public offices, including his former post at the church radio station, and give due consideration to rumours, he will remain shrouded in hearsay.
John G. Borg-Bartolo
Attard
|
