There will be an investigation into the state of affairs and policy at the Limburg regional broadcaster L1. That has been decided by the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The management of the broadcaster will also be temporarily expanded from one to two people, and a ‘super commissioner’ will be added to the supervisory board, who will have the deciding vote.
It has been rumbling within the broadcaster for a few months. The works council (OR) of the regional channel says that the problems within the broadcaster are due to the inadequate functioning of the supervisory board and the authoritarian style of management by director Peter Elbers, who took office in September.
Elbers got into trouble with the editors mainly because of his new privacy regulations, which stated, among other things, that hidden cameras could be installed in the editorial office and that for “compelling reasons” he could view the confidential e-mails from journalists, Works Council members and the company doctor. He withdrew that proposed regulation after a storm of criticism.
‘Relationships thoroughly disrupted’
Both the supervisory board and Elbers on the one hand, and the works council and editor-in-chief of L1 on the other, had asked for action. According to the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, the relations have been “thoroughly disrupted” and it is to be feared that both the staff of L1 and the public function of the broadcaster will suffer as a result. “An investigation into the functioning of all sections of L1 is necessary to put things in order,” says the Enterprise Chamber.
The Enterprise Chamber also says that so far it has not been shown that Elbers has contributed to the “escalation of internal relations”, and that he can therefore continue to work. The broadcaster’s staff had asked for a three-month suspension.
However, the arrival of a second director should lead to the relationship between all parties within the broadcaster being normalized again. Furthermore, the company law body says that the Works Council and the editor-in-chief have “turned against the director in a manner that is inconsistent with the task of the works council as a participation body and with the journalistic responsibility of the editor-in-chief”.
–
