Can the IBA afford the parliamentary delay in reappointing councillors when it has such a heavy work load? asks Neil Bierbaum
Delays in the reappointment of Independent Broadcasting Authority councillors has again come under fire, with industry players accusing Parliament of neglect – if not deliberate delays.
The IBA has been reported as saying that it has been “crying out” for Parliament to appoint councillors to replace those who have already left and others whose tenure expires early next year. Two councillors – Frank Meintjies and Harriet Ngubane – resigned soon after they were appointed and were both absent throughout the hearings.
The tenure of two other councillors – Lyndall Shope-Mafole and Christo Viljoen – will expire at the end of March next year.
Parliamentary select committee chairperson Saki Macozoma said at the parliamentary hearings in February that the reappointment of these two councillors would be the committee’s priority for 1995. However, no adverts were placed for the positions and no appointments have been made, despite nominations having been submitted.
According to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) executive chairman Daniella Goldman, the NAB submitted two CVs but had no response. Solid Gold managing director Tony Sanderson says he knows three people who submitted CVs but had no response. Goldman says that the initial reason given was “to wait for the triple inquiry to be completed; they thought it would not be a good idea to bring in new people until the decisions had been taken about the SABC”. Sanderson says he suspects that the shortage of councillors could bring into question the legal force of the IBA’s decisions.
The Act specifies that there “shall be one chairman and six other councillors”. Instead, there have been two co-chairpersons and six councillors. Only three councillors and the two co-chairpersons attended the hearings.
The Act does not specify what constitutes a quorum, although co-chairperson Peter de Klerk announced at the start of the hearings that the councillors then present would have to be present at every day but one of the hearings. The Act also states that any missing councillors should be replaced within a reasonable time. As Sanderson argues, there have been “no efforts made” to replace the missing councillors.
Says Goldman: “I don’t know if one can say it’s deliberate but it is certainly a distinct omission with no reason given. It seems to indicate a certain complacency which is quite a concern, given their enormous workload.”
There seems to be internal dissatisfaction with the mechanism of appointing IBA councillors. The responsibility lies ultimately with Parliament, which would have to advertise the position, receive nominations, draw up a shortlist and present the candidates to Parliament. The relevant parliamentary committee has neither an office nor clerks to handle this procedure. However, it is unlikely that more than a handful of nominations would be submitted.
Media consultant Michael Markovitz, who was instrumental in drawing up the Act, implied that someone could be delaying the reappointments. “All that was needed was for an appointment body to be set up,” he said.
Others have blamed the Act for not being specific enough about the procedure for reappointments. Markovitz responded that he is “tired of people blaming the Act for everything” and that while it is not perfect, it does provide a system in which the IBA can operate. Sanderson concurs: “They decided to find the university for the child to go to before it’s born. They want a perfect system but business is not like that.”
Committee chairperson Saki Macozoma and other committee members are in Europe on a MultiChoice sponsored tour and hence were not available for