The parliamentary opposition, excepting the Christian-democrat MPs qualifies as a “mischievous act” the way the new members of the Audiovisual Coordinating Council were appointed. On October 20, the Parliament appointed 8 out of the 9 members of the regulating authority, Info-Prim Neo informs. The discussions on this issue started one week before the appointment, at the sitting of the Parliament, where several opposition MPs expressed their disapproval as regards the selection of candidates by the specialized committee. Subsequently, it was proven that one of the candidates does not comply with all the standards stipulated by the Audiovisual Code (AC). Discussions on this subject continued at the next sitting. Whilst the opposition claimed the non-transparent way of selecting the candidates and the violations admitted in this process, the communist and Christian-democrat MPs considered otherwise. On the other hand [Victor Stepaniuc], the chairman of the specialized parliamentary committee declared that all the procedures were performed absolutely legally and transparently and that the media participated at the meetings of the Committee. Stepaniuc was supported by [Vlad Cubreacov], the Christian-democrat leader of the parliamentary faction, who also declared that the selection procedure was transparent and was made public by the press, thus “any MP could have come to the meeting”. [“Diacov should shut up…”] At the meeting from October 20, the MP of the “Moldova Noastra” Alliance faction [Anatol Onceanu] mentioned that the way the members of CAA are appointed is a mischievous act aiming at ensuring the joint political control, of PCRM and PPCD, over the future of the Council. According to Onceanu, the present pseudo-democratic mechanism allows the appointment of CCA members at the “green table”: first of all, two or three influent persons from PCRM and PPCD decided that 5 candidates will belong to the communists, 3 to the People’s Christian Democrat Party and 1 to the Democrat Party – “so that Diacov would shut up”. Afterwards, the communist and Christian-democrats named the candidates of the future CCA. Out of 5 candidates proposed by PCRM, 4 were proposed by “Solidaritate” Trade Union and one by the League of Professional Journalists; both structures are communist “clones”. “This disgusting play, this circus organized at the meeting of the committee aimed at making official the hidden agreements”, the AMN MP states. The presence of beforehand agreements was publicly recognized at the debates from Radio Moldova, and then by Victor Stepaniuc himself, in the moment when he was trying to justify in front of the Parliament. Another AMN MP, [Leonid Bujor] mentioned that there are more professional candidates than the ones selected by the committee. More, one of the selected candidates was not accepted by the Legal Committee for Appointments and Immunities. [Dumitru Diacov] declared he is “very sad” because this composition was selected in such a manner and he supposes this is a political decision. The Democrat MP also considers that many candidates who submitted their files are better than the appointed ones. “The way the Council was formed shows that even after this change the situation in Audiovisual will be another”, Diacov added. According to him, the present legislative framework allows the creation of a public TV, but there is no such desire, excepting the ambition of 2-3 persons to control it. The MP [Anatol Taranu] considers that “the law is politically imperfect”. The fact that the majority of CCA members were voted by communist MPs, makes us think, that there will not be an Audiovisual Coordinating Council but a PCRM Council, Taranu says. At the same time, the MP [Vitalia Pavlicenco] considers that after the election of CCA members the situation at “Teleradio-Moldova” will not evolve towards correctitude and pluralism. She called on the opposition not to participate at this “shameful agreement” and also to let these actions to the responsibility of “Voronin and Rosca, who directed the arrangement and created a pocket Council”. [Stepaniuc recognizes: selection was subjective] Within the frameworks of the discussions, the Christian-democrat MP [Angela Arama] declared that “the persons who talk do not really understand what CCA means and confuse it with the Council of Observers. CCA is not directly responsible about TRM, but about the audiovisual field in general, the Christian-democrat MP states. On the other hand, the communist MPs and especially [Victor Stepaniuc] denied the accusations brought to the specialized committee. Stepaniuc says that the discussions referring to the selections of the candidates were public and that any MP had the possibility to participate in the meeting. At the same time, the communist MP, considers that the composition of CCA is better and will have the possibility to improve the situation in audiovisual field. More, the communist MP says that progresses were ascertained as regards the selection of candidates, because the civil society had the possibility to participate in this process. At the same time, he recognized that the selection was performed through the subjective vote of the MPs, and that is why some well-known personalities did not gain the necessary number of votes. “Not all the provisions of AC are perfect”, Stepaniuc recognizes, mentioning that Code’s 42nd article is confusing on the way the specialized and the legal committee participate in the selection, and the terms for which the candidates are appointed are as well debatable. In the end after one hour discussions 8 out of those 9 candidates were voted, being approved by communist and Christian-democrat MPs. Those 8 CCA members confirmed by the Parliament are Corneliu Mihalache, Ludmila Vasilache, Gheorghe Gorincioi, who will be appointed for 6 years; Ruslan Plesca and Valeriu Soltan – 4 years each; Constantin Rotaru, Valeriu Frumusachi and Vlad Turcanu, who were appointed for 2 years. The candidature of Carmelia Albu was not confirmed at the meeting because of her absence. 5 out of those 9 candidates were proposed by the communists from media committee, 3 – by Christian-democrat MPs and 1 – by the Democrat Party. Many NGOs, especially media related ones, but also the audiovisual experts declared their disagreement with the way the composition of CCA was selected, as well as some concrete candidates.