Management of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) have urged all commissioners to wait for a Supreme Administrative Court ruling on the chairman’s qualifications for more clarity on the leadership deadlock.
The management also raised questions about possible irregularities in a series of recent ‘special meetings’ held by the majority of commissioners without the participation of embattled chairman Sarana Boonbaichaiyapruck.
‘The NBTC office does not take political sides. We stand strictly on the side of the law,’ said acting secretary-general Trairat Viriyasirikul.
Mr Trairat has been the acting secretary-general of the regulator for six years, reflecting the dysfunctional nature of the NBTC board, legal disputes and delays in making permanent appointments.
He said the commissioners should wait for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court before making any potentially controversial decisions that could expose staff to personal and legal liabilities.
Commissioner AM Thanapant Raicharoen earlier said that the majority of the board members believe they have the legal authority to hold the special meetings without the chairman’s participation, as the NBTC selection committee ruled in mid-July that Dr Sarana is disqualified from holding office.
The full seven-member board has not held a meeting since the ruling was handed down. Some members boycotted meetings called by Dr Sarana as they believed decisions made while he was in the chair would be invalid. They subsequently decided to hold their own meetings without him, but questions about their validity persist.
NBTC commissioners receive compensation of about 360,000 a month – at the high end of the scale for public agencies and state enterprises – and the chairman receives 450,000 baht.
Dr Sarana, a cardiologist by profession, was disqualified on the grounds that he continued to receive compensation for medical services after being appointed to the NBTC board. Members are prohibited from paid employment at other state entities – in this case state hospitals – while serving on the board.
The Central Administrative Court agreed that the panel’s ruling was lawful, and Dr Sarana appealed to the higher court.
Until a final judgement is delivered, Mr Trairat said the NBTC office would adhere to administrative regulations before acting on any legally questionable board decisions. This means it is uncertain whether resolutions passed during the special meetings or directives issued by the chairman possess binding administrative authority, he noted.
‘If a board resolution orders me to fine an operator millions of baht daily, the operator will undoubtedly sue me and the office because there is no conclusive proof whether that special meeting was legally valid,’ said Mr Trairat.
He insisted his primary duty was to protect nearly 2,000 civil servants at the office from legal jeopardy.
In addition, Mr Trairat highlighted procedural irregularities during the special meetings, such as the secretariat receiving no official meeting transcripts, certified meeting minutes or complete audio logs.
Moreover, if these six commissioners consider the chairman to be unqualified, he said they should have invoked Section 20(5) of NBTC Act to select one of their own to serve as chairman. But they did not make that move, said Mr Trairat.
Instead, they appear to have avoided selecting a new chairman, opting to elect a chairman for each meeting on an ad hoc basis, he noted.