APTS Defers CPB Legislative Reforms
APTS has put on hold a CPB reform package unveiled amid the Tomlinson imbroglio, in part because it’s encouraged by CPB board actions to “reform its own governance and internal operations.” At staff’s recommendation, the APTS board has deferred “final action” on CPB reform until Inspector Gen. Kenneth Konz has reported to Congress in June on progress by the CPB board and management toward implementing his proposed reforms, APTS Pres. John Lawson told us.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
At a recent meeting, CPB Gen. Counsel Westwood Smithers told board members due to CPB actions APTS has “backed off a little” on its push for legislative fixes, with the reform proposal modified to be less “invasive.” He gave no details. CPB Vp Michael Levy clarified that in “consultations” with APTS staff on the eve of Capitol Hill Day, it appeared that “they have softened and modified their position” on the CPB reform legislative package “in view of the good governance changes we have made at CPB.”
Lawson said the APTS board also held its fire upon realizing there is “no real chance of CPB reauthorization legislation moving this year.” But APTS made clear to the CPB that “this was a deferral of action and our board decided to revisit the issue after the IG reports [to Congress] in June,” he said. As for any modifications to the reforms package, Lawson said stations and other public broadcasting entities strongly back the reforms, but doubts were raised about a move to have 5 ex-officio members on the CPB board. Those members were to be CEOs of the National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, Smithsonian Institution and the Library of Congress. That “required us to rethink whether or not that provision or a different version should be in our package,” Lawson said: “So we are reconsidering that item.” But, he said, “we did not modify the package. The action of our board was to not take action to finalize our legislative package.”
Congress hasn’t acted on the President’s budget, which proposes steep public broadcasting funding cuts, said Lawson. The 300 public TV representatives in Washington for Capitol Hill Day get “mixed” responses to their lobbying, he added. But the responses were “certainly more positive than we were receiving this time last year.” In 2005 public broadcasters faced more than $100 million in cuts, largely restored thanks to lobbying efforts by stations that took to the air. That led the CPB IG to investigate allegations that federal funds were misused for lobbying. “We are doing everything we can to avoid the necessity of asking our stations to go on the air,” Lawson said: “We don’t want the fight and we know that at least some members of Congress have expressed to us that they too would like to avoid a fight over funding cuts for public broadcasting.” But if the majority cuts funding again this year, he said, “we will do what is necessary and what is within our rights to fight back, including asking stations to go on the air again.”
The deferral of the reform shows all stations want “frankly is the money. It is not about ethics and public policy,” said Jeff Chester, exec. dir. of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of 3 groups urging long-term reforms in CPB governance. Stations have been “bought off” by private assurances CPB will be the “station sugar daddy,” he said. APTS could argue that the political climate isn’t right for pushing through reforms, he said, and “they probably have a case to make. But I don’t believe you should allow the winds of politics to affect your policy approach.”