RTSH UNDER A CLOUD OF QUESTIONS: DECISION NO. 33, THE NEW TASK FORCE AND THE MILLIONS THAT DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY
Editorial by Flamur Bucpapaj*
The public broadcaster cannot be transformed through administrative decisions, new structures and consultants while the public is left without clear answers about costs, remuneration and results. Decision No. 33 of the RTSH Steering Council must be subject to transparency, scrutiny and accountability.
The Albanian Radio and Television (RTSH) is not the property of the executives who come and go through its offices. It is a public institution that must serve Albanian citizens and responsibly manage the financial resources at its disposal.
For this very reason, *Decision No. 33, dated July 31, 2026, adopted by the RTSH Steering Council, deserves serious public scrutiny.* The decision provides for the establishment of a Task Force to coordinate, monitor and oversee RTSH’s institutional transformation under its 2026–2030 strategy. It includes senior representatives of internal departments and provides for the engagement of external consultants on legal, financial and human resources matters.
In principle, transforming a public institution may be necessary. The problem begins, however, when the public is expected to trust the process without being given all the information required to scrutinize the decisions being made.
The fundamental question is this: *How much will this structure cost, what concrete results will it deliver, and who will be held accountable if those results are not achieved?
Decision No. 33: A New Structure, but Transparency Must Not Remain on Paper
According to the decision, members of the Task Force and the Technical Secretariat will receive remuneration in accordance with the table set out in Annex No. 2. External consultants, meanwhile, are to be selected through a public competition based on the criteria established in Annex No. 1.
This raises a specific concern: the published five-page PDF document does not appear to include the referenced annexes. Consequently, the amounts of remuneration, the method used to calculate payments and the full criteria for selecting external consultants cannot be verified from the published document.
This does not prove that any abuse has occurred. However, it creates a clear transparency problem: the public cannot fully scrutinize the financial implications of a decision when the very documents on which it relies are missing.
Why have the annexes not been published alongside the decision? What budget has been allocated for these payments? Will additional remuneration be granted for duties that already fall within the ordinary responsibilities of executives? How will overlapping functions and payments be prevented?
These are legitimate questions that the Steering Council must answer with documents and figures.
In a public institution, transparency cannot be partial. Publishing a decision is not enough if the documents defining its costs and implementation criteria are left out.**
A Task Force for One Year: What Concrete Benefits Will the Public Receive?
The decision establishes a one-year term for the Task Force, with the possibility of renewal and extension by the Steering Council. It also requires periodic reporting every 30 days on progress, problems encountered and proposed measures.
But reporting, in itself, is not a result.
An institution can produce dozens of reports without changing anything in practice. That is why measurable objectives must be established: what will improve in financial management, what will change in work organization, how will programming quality increase, and how will spending efficiency be assessed?
Will the 30-day reports be made public? Will recommendations and their implementation status be disclosed? Will there be a final report showing how much was spent and what RTSH gained from the process?
If institutional transformation requires additional funding and dedicated personnel, it must also deliver measurable and verifiable results. Otherwise, there is a risk that the process will become an administrative mechanism that consumes time and resources without producing the promised changes.
Who Provides Oversight, and Who Is Held Accountable?
The decision assigns the Task Force Chair responsibility for leadership, coordination, project monitoring and reporting to the Director General and the Steering Council. At the same time, the existing functional responsibilities of RTSH’s departments are not replaced by the Task Force.
This division of responsibilities must be clear in practice. Who proposes a measure? Who approves it? Who implements it? Who controls the costs? And who answers for the failure to achieve the objectives?
When authority is divided among multiple structures, the public must be able to identify the chain of responsibility. No one should be able to hide behind a committee, a report or a collective decision.
There is no reason to prejudge the work of the Task Force members. There is, however, every reason to demand that their duties, results and responsibilities be clearly defined and verifiable.
RTSH’s Millions and the Scenery Costs of “Eja te ne”
The need for transparency becomes even more important when the decision on institutional transformation is considered alongside documentation concerning television production expenses.
The documentation submitted for the programme “Eja te ne” lists a cost of *1,768,320 lek for the scenery*. This amount calls for a detailed cost estimate and a full explanation of the materials, construction work, design, installation and services included.
The figure alone does not prove that the expense was inflated or that any violation occurred. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask how the amount was calculated, who approved it and whether the cost corresponds to the services actually delivered.
For an institution that administers public funds, simply listing an amount in a cost estimate is not enough. Supporting documents, the relevant procedures, technical specifications and verification of completed work must be available.
If RTSH expects public trust, it must be prepared to explain these expenses as well. Transparency cannot apply only to major strategies while the specific costs of television productions remain insufficiently explained.
## Financial Figures Require Scrutiny, Not General Justifications
According to RTSH’s document on the implementation of economic and financial indicators for 2025, total expenditure amounted to 2,503,776,859 lek, against a planned budget of 2,730,560,000 lek.
Another financial document comparing the first six months of 2023, 2024 and 2025 shows an increase in the category covering film and artistic projects, television rights and the independent production fund, from 136,159,300 lek in 2023 to 278,416,724 lek in 2025.
This category covers several types of expenditure and cannot be equated solely with television programme production. Nevertheless, the figures illustrate the scale of funding that requires careful planning, documentation and oversight.
For this reason, the establishment of a Task Force for institutional transformation must be accompanied by even greater financial transparency. It is not enough to create new structures to monitor the institution; it must also be demonstrated that these structures bring concrete improvements to the way public money is used.
Questions RTSH Cannot Avoid
The Steering Council and the Director General should publish the following documents or provide clear explanations:
– Annex No. 1 and Annex No. 2 to Decision No. 33, including the selection criteria and remuneration table.
– The total budget allocated to the Task Force and Technical Secretariat, together with the basis used to calculate payments.
– The procedures and criteria for selecting external consultants.
– The specific objectives to be achieved during the one-year period.
– Periodic reports, results achieved and a final report detailing costs and benefits.
– The detailed cost estimate and supporting documentation for the scenery of “Eja te ne,” including verification that the work was completed.
These demands are not an attack on RTSH. They are demands directed at a public institution that must demonstrate responsible management of public funds.
Conclusion: RTSH Needs Results, Not a Blank Cheque
Decision No. 33 may be part of ab necessary institutional transformation process. But no transformation can justify a lack of transparency, unclear costs or the absence of measurable objectives.
The public does not need general promises. It needs to know how much the process costs, what results it will deliver and who will be held accountable if those results are not achieved.
If the decision was drafted and implemented in accordance with the law, the documents should demonstrate this. If irregularities are identified during implementation, they must be investigated by the competent authorities, and responsibility must be determined in accordance with the law.
*RTSH cannot demand trust without accountability. Administrative decisions are not blank cheques, consultants are no substitute for institutional responsibility, and reports are not proof of success without concrete results.*
Public money demands transparency. Authority demands accountability. Transformation demands results.
And Albanian citizens have every right to demand all three.
*Flamur Bucpapaj*
