NEWS RELEASE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Report Shows Laws Broken in Attempt to
Politicize Public Broadcasting

The Inspector General's Report says:

• "former Chairman [Tomlinson] violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics"
• "'political tests' were major criteria used... in recruiting a President/Chief Executive Officer for CPB, which violated statutory prohibitions against such practices"
• established procurement and contracting practices were bypassed"

WASHINGTON -- A report released by the Inspector General for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) this morning shows former Chair Ken Tomlinson "violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics" in his attempts to push a Republican agenda on public broadcasting.

On May 11th, Rep. David Obey, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Appropriations, and Rep. John Dingell, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requested that CPB Inspector General Kenneth A. Konz investigate whether the Corporation for Public Broadcasting violated the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (PBA), which prohibits interference by Federal officials over the content and distribution of public programming, and forbids "political or other tests" from being used in CPB hiring decisions.

"The report shows that Mr. Tomlinson was willing to ride roughshod over the law to impose his political mindset on PBS programming," said Obey. "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting needs significant reform and vigorous oversight to preserve the political neutrality that Mr. Tomlinson pretended he wanted but did so much to prevent."

"A runaway chairman apparently took advantage of a lackadaisical board of directors and a curious absence of basic management, and was allowed to inject politics into the work of the Corporation. I believe that someone who, according to the report, disregarded ethics and the law should not be trusted with government authority," said Dingell. "Now the Board needs to get tough, or get out. The board members, regardless of their political affiliation, must put in strong management controls and enforce them so that the credibility of public broadcasting is not further diminished."

"The Inspector General exposed a shameful attempt to politicize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and to manipulate the media," said Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Committee. "The CPB is a revered institution. Karl Rove and the Bush Administration may not like the objective reporting heard on public television and radio but that's no justification for Mr. Tomlinson's crude attempt at political interference disclosed by the IG."

The Inspector General's (IG) report found that former CPB chairman, Ken Tomlinson engaged in illegal and inappropriate behavior. The IG found that Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act's prohibitions on interference into public broadcasting programming through his personal involvement with the selection and funding of the program "The Journal Editorial Report".

Further, the IG found that politics influenced the hiring of senior CPB employees, including the CPB President and CEO, and identified "e-mails between the former Chairman and staff in the Executive Office of the President that, while cryptic in nature, their timing and subject matter gives the appearance that the former Chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the President/CEO position."

The IG also found a lack of appropriate checks and balances at CPB, including a lack of transparency in decision-making within the Board and within CPB.

Tomlinson's term as Chair ended this fall, but he remained on the CPB board. On November 3rd the IG gave an initial briefing to the CPB Board. At the conclusion of that meeting Tomlinson resigned from the board.

Read the report

Read the letter by Reps. Obey and Dingell that started the investigation

From the report:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Office of Inspector General, has conducted a review of alleged violations of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended.

We found evidence that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) former Chairman violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics by dealing directly with one of the creators of a new public affairs program during negotiations with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the CPB over creating the show. Our review also found evidence that suggests "political tests" were a major criteria used by the former Chairman in recruiting a President/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for CPB, which violated statutory prohibitions against such practices.

Our review of the hiring of a consultant to review program content for objectivity and balance showed that such reviews were consistent with Section 19(2)(B) of the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, however problems occurred when the former Chairman initiated such actions without informing the Board and signed the contract without Board authorization. Further, CPB has never developed a policy for how such reviews should be conducted and what would be acceptable criteria for evaluating program content. Had a policy been established and developed in conjunction with the public broadcasting community, the community would have understood the purpose and use of such a review to ensure accountability to Congress and the American people, as envisioned by the statutory requirement.

Our review of the creation of the ombudsman function showed that by expanding the public's ability to have issues of objectivity and balance addressed, CPB's actions were consistent with their responsibilities under the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992.

Problems arose by the way the function was created. Our review of public concerns about White House officials' involvement disclosed that a White House employee briefly did some work on the ombudsman press release and related talking points just prior to joining CPB. This work appeared to be advisory in nature and she did not provide the ombudsmen with guidelines on how to operate or interfere with their functioning.

Our review of the alleged hiring of lobbyists to assist CPB in addressing a proposed amendment to the reauthorization bill to change the composition of the Board found that the consultants provided only strategic advice to CPB about the legislative process and how to handle requests for information from committee staff. CPB's actions to seek professional advice were consistent with their responsibilities; however executive management's contracting for the consultant's services was not handled in accordance with CPB's contracting procedures.

While we believe the aforementioned violations were primarily the result of the former Chairman's personal actions to accomplish his various initiatives, our review also identified serious weaknesses in the corporate governance system. CPB's internal control mechanisms did not function to protect the CPB Board of Directors (Board) and the Corporation. Potential problems in procurement and new policy initiatives should have been raised up the chain-of-command to the former Chairman and the full Board.

Specifically, established procurement and contracting practices were bypassed in processing actions for consultant services initiated by the former Chairman and executive management, (e.g., in contracting with a consultant to evaluate program content and to identify and select two ombudsmen candidates without competition). Further, CPB management allowed consultants to begin work before contracts were executed and, in some instances, months before these activities were entered into the accounting system. In addition, the lack of formal personnel policies governing executive recruitment practices left CPB managers vulnerable to congressional criticism over hiring decisions.

Our review found an organizational environment that allowed the former Chairman and other CPB executives to operate without appropriate checks and balances. Many factors helped to create this environment, including:

• the lack of specificity in CPB's By-Laws regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Board and CPB management;
• top management's attitude towards internal controls; and
• the lack of transparency in decision-making within the Board, between CPB leadership and the Board, and within CPB's management structure. The former Chairman told us that he relied on CPB management to ensure that established procurement practices were followed and he assumed proper procedures had been utilized.

Finally, our observations should not be generalized to the wide ranging activities conducted by CPB or their Community Service Grant making responsibilities. Our review had a very narrow scope, looking at selected consultant contracts and programming grants, as well as executive recruitment actions over the last 34 months. In response to our report the CPB Board of Directors has made a serious commitment to update and improve the governance and operations of CPB. They will be implementing many of the recommendations in this report and will be studying others, as well as taking other steps beyond those contemplated in the report. The Board's response is attached as Appendix B. At their request, we have provided comments received from the former Chairman as Appendix C and the former President/CEO as Appendix D.

# # #