SOS working group: petition now live, updated letter to Minister

Hello there
 
Our petition  re: SABC Board nominations is now llive. The url address is below....  Do go and place your signatures.

To: South African Parliament

Nominations for the new permanent SABC Board

The “Save our SABC” Campaign believes it is critical that the general public feels ownership of the SABC. It is our SABC. One of the most important ways for us to feel this ownership and for the general public to get actively involved is to put forward names for the Board.

We note that the invitation for nominations has been released and the deadline has been set for the end of this month - 31 July 2009. Further we note that small notices have been placed in the supplementary sections of the Mail&Guardian, Star, Sunday Times and Rapport newspapers.

The Coalition is concerned for two reasons. Firstly, we believe that the nomination period is extremely tight and secondly we believe that the dissemination process as regards notifying the public re: the nomination process is wholly insufficient.

To ensure that this critical process is taken forward in a positive and constructive way the Coalition proposes the following:

- That the nomination process if possible be extended to the end of August 2009.
- That Parliament immediately set aside a budget to ensure that notices are carried in the main body sections of all key national and provincial newspapers – and particularly in newspapers read by ordinary South Africans such as the Daily Sun.
- That public service announcements are carried on all free-to-air channels including all SABC channels and e.TV.
- That public service announcements are carried on all community radio stations and also in community publications.
- That Government Communication Information System (GCIS) and statutory bodies such as the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) are creatively utilised to ensure that nomination notices are further disseminated.

As civil society organisations we also promise, from our side, that we will use our own networks to ensure maximum dissemination of this important information.

Also, further to this public nomination process, we believe there needs to be maximum transparency to ensure maximum public confidence in the nomination and selection process. We have the following suggestions:

- That the names of nominators and nominees are made public through the Parliamentary website and other accessible websites.
- That all CVs of short-listed nominees are housed on the Parliamentary website and other accessible websites for public scrutiny.
- That all interviews are televised and put on free-to-air radio and television channels at times when the majority of people are watching.
- Finally, that MPs give reasons for their choices as regards their final shortlist.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE 

Warm regards
 
Kate Skinner
SOS

“Save our SABC” Coalition welcomes the Minister of Communications decisive actions and statements

“Save our SABC” Coalition welcomes the Minister of Communications decisive actions and statements

26 June 2009


The “Save our SABC” (SOS) Coalition representing unions including COSATU, the Communications Workers Union, BEMAWU, a host of media NGOs including the Freedom of Expression Institute, Media Monitoring Africa, the Media Institute of Southern Africa, independent producer organizations and individual freedom of expression and communication activists and academics welcomes the recent statements and actions of the Minister of Communications, General Siphiwe Nyanda (ret).

Firstly, the Coalition welcomes the Minister’s statements as regards some of the root causes of the present crises at the SABC. The Minister acknowledged that the appointment process of the 2007 Board was flawed due to political interference and that serious implications arose from this fact. SOS believes that this frank acknowledgement of the issues allows us, going forward, to ensure that all future appointment processes of SABC boards and staff are free of political interference and further ensure maximum public participation and maximum transparency. This is an excellent starting point for resolving SABC problems in the long term.

Secondly, the Coalition welcomes the Minister’s assessment of the SABC crisis as multifold. SOS believes that the crises stem not only from problems with the SABC Board but also with SABC management and further with a lack of rigorous oversight from Parliament and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). Moving forward SOS believes that we now have an excellent opportunity to clarify the roles of these various governance and oversight structures so as in the future to hold them to the highest possible standards of governance and oversight.

Thirdly, the Coalition welcomes the Minister’s statements as regards the drafting of new legislation for the SABC. The Minister announced that his department will be amending the Broadcasting Act, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Further, he stated that the new legislation would bring the Charter in line with international best practice and that a more appropriate funding model, less dependent on advertising, would be introduced. SOS believes that new legislation will be one of the most effective ways of ensuring that the root problems of the SABC’s multiple crises are decisively and holistically dealt with. SOS is ready and willing to engage with the Department on these substantive issues.

Finally, moving forward SOS has a few further recommendations as regards the solving of the SABC crises. As stated on numerous occasions, SOS believes that Parliament needs to move swiftly as regards the appointment of an interim Board. Parliament should provide the President with its recommendations on the men and women with the necessary credentials to stabilize the SABC and to steer it towards financial health and good governance. Parliament must recommend people who are independent of vested interests, who have impeccable integrity and records of public service and who have skills and experience in corporate governance, finance, media, broadcasting and journalism. The interim Board’s mandate needs to include:

- The commissioning of an independent forensic audit (comprising of people outside the SABC) into the financial affairs of the SABC. These findings need to be reported to Parliament so as to ensure a public airing of issues. The recommendations of the forensic audit need to feed into new policy and legislation for the SABC. Further, the recommendations need to assist with the implementation of strict new financial systems within the SABC and the simultaneous rooting out of corruption and the dismissal of corrupt staff members.
- The negotiating of a financial bail-out of the SABC with National Treasury
- The urgent implementation of sustainable agreements as regards payment issues with key SABC stakeholders such as SABC unions and independent producers.
- Finally, the appointment of an executive management that is skilled and has impeccable integrity and the relevant broadcasting experience.

Also, immediately upon the appointment of the interim Board, Parliament must begin the public process culminating in the recommendation of a permanent Board to replace the interim Board which will sit for a maximum period of six months. The permanent board appointment process must be beyond criticism if the SABC is to have a chance of regaining public credibility. Thus it requires maximum transparency and public participation in the nominations, short-listing, interview and recommendations processes. Parliament must take responsibility for the caliber of people appointed to the SABC Board as they are responsible for making the necessary appointment recommendations to the President. We need a permanent board made up of men and women who are independent of major vested commercial and political interests, who have impeccable integrity and records of public service, who have skills and experience in corporate governance, finance, media, broadcasting and journalism and who broadly represent South Africa through being drawn from various sectors including labour, business and civil society.

For more information please contact:

Kate Skinner: (082) 926-6404
William Bird: (082) 887-1370

2 SABC directors attend probe

Only two members of the SABC board managed to turn up at the inquiry being conducted by Parliament's communications portfolio committee into the fitness of the board to continue in office. by Michael Hamlyn

Alison Gilwald and Nadia Bulbulia, the two who pitched, were clearly reluctant to answer a number of the questions posed to them by the committee, saying that they were invited at short notice, and did not have time to prepare.

Gilwald told MPs that she needed to consult with other board members before some questions could be answered, but the chairperson Ismail Vadi told her that the board would be questioned individually about the conduct of their responsibilities.

Few answers

This contrasted with what committee member Johnny de Lange told her. He said that the board was being considered collectively.

Neither Bulbulia nor Gilwald were able to inform the committee on whether the board has ceased to function since the resignation of three of its members.

Bulbulia said she did not know whether their resignations took effect immediately or whether they have to work out three months' notice.

If the latter, then the board can still function because it will be quorate, and will have a deputy chairperson in Christine Qunta, one of the three who quit but said in a newspaper article on Thursday morning that she believed she is still a member.

Last board meeting

Vadi undertook to enquire from the presidency whether or not the three have been given a shorter notice period.

The only question that was answered came from the leader of the ANC group on the committee, Eric Kholwane, who wanted to know when the board last held a meeting. June 4, he was told.

The committee adjourned without getting much further and will reconvene next week, when the members hope to have further answers from more members of the board.

http://www.news24.com

South African broadcaster near collapse

Massive debts and a spate of top-level resignations have pushed South Africa's public broadcaster to near-collapse, threatening a network once styled as the voice of the country's democracy. By Fran Blandy

The resignation of eight of the SABC's 12 board members as well as its chairman in recent weeks are just the latest in a string of scandals plaguing the debt-ridden broadcaster.

The board no longer has enough members to take binding decisions. Workers are on strike over a pay dispute, independent producers fume over lack of payment and a deadlock over how to proceed means no decisions are being taken at any level.

"If the board does not function, the SABC does not function. The legal constraints and protection of its own statutes (mean) that if the board does not meet, the SABC literally grinds to a halt," said board member Alison Gillwald.

She was addressing parliament's communications committee, which on Thursday opened an inquiry into what committee chair Ismael Vadi termed a "lack of effective corporate governance."

Gillwald said members had resigned in the middle of an incomplete audit process. The hamstrung board cannot now take decisions on salary increases or on critical expenditure for coverage of the 2010 football World Cup.

The SABC is crippled by over 800 million rand (98 million dollars) in debt and is seeking a two billion rand cash injection from the government.

Newspaper reports have outlined 40 million rand owed to producers, threatening to sink popular local soap operas, the network's bread-and-butter advertising vehicles.

Even parliament seems unsure how to proceed, with the committee struggling to agree whether the enquiry should continue and where the blame lay for the rot at the SABC.

Television only came to South Africa in 1976 as the Calvinist apartheid government feared the medium's influence on its segregationist rule. Once TV arrived, the government used it purely as a propaganda tool.

After the transition to democracy in 1994, the SABC became one of the most visible signs of the new nation, with a new cast of multiracial presenters broadcasting in all 11 official languages.

Now the SABC is accused of being a propaganda outlet for the ruling African National Congress (ANC). Around this year's elections, the network yanked a documentary about political satire that included cartoons of President Jacob Zuma.

Similarly, a documentary on former president Thabo Mbeki never made it to air, while the network was outed in 2006 for blacklisting commentators critical of the government.

In 2008, scandal arose again when chief executive Dali Mpofu was suspended for insubordination, just hours after he had suspended the head of news as tensions rocked a heavily divided board.

Shortly thereafter the previous administration sped through controversial legislation allowing government to dissolve the board, which would be appointed by the president and speaker of the National Assembly.

Mpofu, who also appeared before parliament this week, said the SABC was in a crisis of "the highest magnitude."

Opposition parties and the ANC were united in slamming the SABC for what they say is outlandish spending and failure to perform its function.

Mpofu told the committee that protecting the jobs of the more than 4,000 SABC workers was vital. The workers were, he said, "sitting at a public institution on auto pilot, with no leadership."

Parliament will summon more board members to explain themselves so they could decide whether to dissolve the board, or appoint interim members to salvage the network.

"It is haemorrhaging from every pore," Gillwald said. "It is unable to perform its basic duties."

http://www.google.com

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY COALITION: SAVE OUR SABC – RECLAIMING OUR PUBLIC BROADCASTER, ON ICASA’S DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION R

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY COALITION: SAVE OUR SABC – RECLAIMING OUR PUBLIC BROADCASTER, ON ICASA’S DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION REGULATIONS
_____________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) in terms of the Electronic Communications Act (36/2005) published Draft Broadcasting Digital Migration Framework Regulations. The Regulations were published in Government Gazette, 3 October, Notice 1240 of 2008 with a deadline for comment of Friday 7 November 2008. Oral hearings were held on 1 December 2008. The Save our SABC: Reclaiming our Public Broadcaster (“the Coalition”) submitted written representations. The Coalition then presented at the oral hearings. At the oral hearings ICASA then gave all interested parties the opportunity to submit additional comments by 23 January 2009. The Coalition duly submitted these. ICASA then published in Government Gazette, 31 March, Notice 344 of 2009 the Digital Terrestrial Television Regulations (“the Regulations”) with a deadline for comment of 30 April 2009.

1.2. We, the Coalition thank ICASA for the opportunity to make these further written representations. (Please see annexure A for list of Coalition members.)

1.3. There are a number of issues the Coalition would like to address. These include: the definition of incentive channels, allocation of multiplexes, the public value test, and local content issues.

2. DEFINITION OF INCENTIVE CHANNELS

2.1. The Coalition has noted that ICASA’s definition of “incentive channels” does not include incentives to encourage audiences to move to digital, the incentives are rather to encourage broadcasters to take on the additional costs of the “dual illumination” period. The Coalition however believes it is critical to incentivise audiences to move to digital. If audiences fail to buy set top boxes all parties concerned will be adversely affected including ICASA, government (who wants to free up spectrum space), the existing broadcasters (who will have to bear the costs of the dual illumination period for longer), producers and of course the audience. The Coalition believes that the definition of “incentive channel” should reflect this important issue.

3. ALLOCATION OF MULTIPLEXES AND INCENTIVE CHANNELS

3.1. In the original draft Regulations ICASA allocated a specific number of channels i.e. 8 channels to each multiplex. The new approach appears to focus on the issue of capacity rather than specifying the number of channels. This is a positive development as it recognises that some channels might use less capacity than others.

3.2. However, there are still a number of gaps. In terms of the SABC the Regulations do not limit the number (or percentage of the multiplex) that the SABC could use for public commercial channels. In our two previous written submissions the Coalition has strongly made the argument that the SABC’s present funding model is unworkable at a number of levels – in particular it is unworkable in terms of its split between public and public-commercial channels. The original aim, as outlined in the Broadcasting White Paper, 1998, was for the public-commercial channels to cross-subsidise the public channels. SABC annual reports, however, provide no evidence of cross-subsidisation. Also, there have been clear indications from the SABC’s Chief Financial Officer, Robin Nicholson that the public-commercial TV channel SABC 3 has made significant losses. It appears therefore that the original purpose for having public-commercial channels has fallen away. As the Coalition has stated before, we therefore do not think that the SABC should be given any further public-commercial channels. All incentive channels should be authorised as public channels.

3.3. Further, in terms of e.tv and MNet, the Regulations have allocated 60% of the second multiplex to e.tv and 50% to MNet without stipulating the reasons for these particular allocations. The Regulations recognise that the remainder of these multiplexes will be reserved for new channels after the dual illumination period. But this suggests there will be unfair competition after the dual illumination period. For example if only one new commercial channel were to be licensed it would not have the same capacity as e.tv – let alone if more than one were licensed. This seems to defeat the purpose of migration i.e. to allow more players and competition.

4. PUBLIC VALUE TEST

4.1. As stated in the Draft Regulations, and now in the Regulations, authorisation of channels for public broadcasting will be subjected to a Public Value Test. As stated previously the Coalition supports the concept of the Public Value Test but needs to highlight certain gaps.

4.2. To summarise the Public Value Test:
o Focuses on a number of requirements including the level of educational programming; the distribution of different languages; the promotion of cultural diversity etc. in terms of each incentive channel.
o Insists the SABC include in all its applications for incentive channels a market impact analysis, including the implication of the proposed channel on diversity of programming, other DTT services and subscription television services.
o States that the authorisation process may be subjected to a public process (our emphasis).
o States the authorisation process will be concluded within 60 days “of the filing of the request for public service channel authorisation” (Regulation 9(3)).

Finally, the Public Value Test states that public commercial channels will not be subject to this process. They will be subjected to the same authorisation requirements as those set out for commercial services.

4.3. First, in terms of the gaps in the Regulations, the Coalition believes that the principles included in the Public Value Test, as it stands, assume that each channel will cover all the requirements listed i.e. educational programming, the distribution of different languages etc. In a multi-channel environment however the bouquet of PBS channels need to cover these principles as a whole. The Public Value Test needs to reflect this understanding. We propose, in line with the SABC’s own submission, that the Public Value Test be applied to the bouquet of PBS channels as a whole rather than to each incentive channel.

4.4. Second, the principles outlined above e.g. the need for educational programming, the coverage of various languages appear to be a reflection of some of the SABC’s Charter requirements but these are not clearly defined, measurable targets. As discussed in our previous submissions we believe the Public Value Test should rather reflect public value at three different levels - value for money, value to the individual citizen and value to society. In terms of “value for money”, the SABC needs to cost its offerings and demonstrate how it would be able to sustainably provide for these. In terms of “value to the individual citizen” the SABC needs to outline its proposed offerings and show how each channel would enhance diversity of content and language across its bouquet of public channels. Further, the SABC needs to demonstrate that a variety of different audiences would actually be interested in watching its programming. Finally, in terms of “value to society” the SABC needs to demonstrate that its offerings, across its bouquet of channels, will contribute to the deepening of democracy, the fulfilment of its goals outlined in its Charter and ensure greater diversity of content within the broadcasting environment as a whole. ICASA needs to specify the kind of documentation required to demonstrate the above. The Regulations as they stand do not require the SABC to demonstrate it has the necessary funds to run these channels – nor do the Regulations require the SABC provide a detailed programming schedule. The Coalition however believes that this is critical information that must be provided in terms of the Public Value Test.

4.5. Third, there is no clear indication that ICASA will be conducting the Public Value Test, there is only an indication that they will be finalising this process. The Regulations need to specify clearly that ICASA will be conducting the authorisation process in its entirety. Further, there needs to be more information on the steps included in the Public Value Test process.

4.6. Fourth, as discussed in our previous submissions, the Coalition believes that ICASA should make all reasonable efforts to inform and educate people about the Public Value Test - what it is, why it is important, and how it is being applied, and how to get involved. This will inform citizens on a matter of great importance to them. It will also indirectly serve the needs of broadcasters as it will encourage public participation. This will serve to enhance any application they make in terms of the Public Value Test.

4.7. Fifth, linked to the above, we want to reiterate the positions we have put forward in our previous submissions that public participation must be included as an essential component of the channel authorisation process.

4.8. Sixth, we want to reiterate our argument made in 2.1 above that no new public commercial channels should be allocated to the SABC so the need for public commercial channels to be exempted from the Public Value Test falls away.

4.9. Seventh, the Regulations are not clear about what happens if the SABC fails to propose channels that are acceptable to ICASA. There is no stipulation that the SABC (or MNet or e.tv) have to use their allocations or face losing these. The Coalition is worried that the SABC may not be in a position to start any of the new services envisaged due to its lack of resources. It is also conceivable that e.tv and MNet simply use content they already hold (repeats and excess inventory) to fill the space. If this is the case there will be no incentive for audiences to buy set top boxes and to migrate to digital. The incentive to migrate will only be compelling if excellent new content is on offer. The Coalition therefore suggests that if broadcasters don’t take up their allocations then they should be faced with competition from new players.

5. LOCAL CONTENT REGULATIONS

5.1. The Regulations do not address the critical issues of local content and language requirements, except briefly in the Public Value Test. This is a serious oversight. Local content regulations have been an important cornerstone of regulation from the passing of the original Independent Broadcasting Act, 1993.

5.2. Further, what is worrying is that MNet and e.TV have stated clearly that they do not want to be encumbered with any local content requirements. The Coalition believes that all broadcasters must be regulated in this regard. Our hard won gains in terms of ensuring viewers have access to local content and that local content industry is developed, will be seriously undermined if this is not enforced. ICASA needs to pronounce on these issues.

3. CONCLUSION

4.1 The Coalition thanks ICASA for the opportunity to make these further written representations and trusts that its concerns will be addressed.

4.2 Please do not hesitate to contact Ms Kate Skinner, the Coalition’s Campaign Coordinator, (contact details provided below) should ICASA have any queries or require any further information with regard to this submission.
Cell: 082.926.6404.
Email: kate.skinner@mweb.co.za