Options
BBC Should sack Agius
mRebel
Posts: 24,882 Forum Member
✭✭✭
We've all heard of one scandal after another at Barclay's Bank. Mark Agius, Chairman of Barclay's, is also an executive at the BBC, being paid £47,000 a year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/agius_marcus/#section-2
Given that the reason for the existence of BBC is public service, having the Chair of Barclay's on the Board is incompatible, as he's part of a culture which is opposite to that ideal.
The BBC should fire him now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/agius_marcus/#section-2
Given that the reason for the existence of BBC is public service, having the Chair of Barclay's on the Board is incompatible, as he's part of a culture which is opposite to that ideal.
The BBC should fire him now.
0
Comments
Not sure of his position, he seems to be described as a non-executive director of the Executive Board so not sure if that makes him an executive.
Having said that he will be forced to quit as the banking scandal continues.
You understand what I mean Steven. Agius is on the BBC Board, and in any organization the Board determines the bodies culture. The culture of the BBC is supposed to be public service, and given the numerous scandals at Barclay's during Agius's chairmanship, his record shows him to be totally unsuitable for a role with them.
What's happened at Barclays has nowt to do with the BBC or his position with the trust.
If he were to be 'sacked' as you wish then you'd be the first in here moaning about compensation payments, lawyers costs and golden handshakes, all of which he would be entitled to.
Remember your moans about CH4's director pay outs?
As a passionate supporter of the BBC it is in the corporation's best interests if Agius goes, we don't know to what extent he was involved in the Libor scandal.
Whispers suggest that Lord Patten is seeking his removal if he does not resign, personally i'd prefer his sacking.
No it doesn’t.
Sorry, but a non-executive chair doesn’t have anything to do with the actual running of a corporation day to day on an editorial or priority level.
They are there to ensure that the company is being audited properly, that the main board is appointed properly, and that the financial accounts and reports are accurate. And that’s it.
Hence, it requires people with board experience and significant financial qualifications, which Mr Agius does have. The FSA regulates that sort of thing with an iron fist, and so they should. It is not a place for democracy or amateurs, it requires expertise.
now must surely be whether he should consequently resign his position at the BBC, once a suitable replacement is found.
There seems to be a little confusion in this thread -
Agius is a non-executive director of the Executive Board of the BBC and thus a member of 'senior management' -
he is not a trustee of the BBC Trust who say
The Trust must raise this matter of suitability of Agius's continued service on behalf of the Licence paying public.
I would wish to see him go so there is no 'toxic' infection.
Yes, he's the senior non-Executive member of the board and it has to be wondered what sort of advice he's been giving on matters such as budgeting, pensions and pay.
It can be useful to have co-opts on boards - they can bring extra knowledge and insight on particular subjects - but, often, they're just mates of executives, with mutual benefit for individuals being their focus. (Personal experience and what I've heard/read from others, there.) You have to wonder what Marcus Agius and others from the commercial sector bring to the BBC board that the Chief Financial Officer does not; after all, the BBC's commercial operation, BBC Worldwide, is a separate company. The BBC's Chief Financial Officer is the only person who sits on both the BBC and BBC Worldwide boards, IIRC.
Indeed, and what better person than the (now former) chairman of Barclays who "oversaw" corruption and dishonesty which resulted in the manipulation of the Libor rate and a £290 million fine?:)
Methinks his days on the BBC Exec board are numbered. Whether he does the decent thing and resigns his directorship or they force him off the board it won't cost the Beeb much if anything. He was only on £47k for the role and it seems to me they have good grounds to question whether he can continue to perform his role effectively.
I completely agree.
What I was disagreeing with is that non-executive board members should be "representative of the general public". They shouldn't, any more than CERN's Large Hepton Collider Team should include more carpet salesmen.
It's now being reported that he'll stay on until November and won't be seeking a third term.
Precisely why he should go.
So nothing to do with the Chairman? And same with the PPI misselling, 'agressive tax dodgibg', interest rate swaps, breach of rgulatory fines in the US, bonuses and pay of Board rocketing while share price falls by three quarters, and so on.
If there was a vacancy on the BBC Board at the moment, do you think anyone from Barclays would be invited to fill it?
That's something.
Are you saying that the financial accounts and reports are inaccurate then?
Non-execs are meant to represent the interests of shareholders, which in the case of a public body is the public.
As BBC governor the money is insignificant, but he should be able to provide some guidance on long term strategy and how to run a huge organisation. Even if he were implicated the two businesses are so different that it's difficult to see how bad practice could be carried over.
Commonsense in DS:GD shocker!
Other than saying that I agree with your analysis, I have nothing further to add.
Non-execs are there to represent the *financial* interests of shareholders.
And in the case of the general public they are there to represent the financial interests of the general public. That is done by having qualified financiers do the role and not your typical DS resident who believes that just because something has revenue it must automatically be profitable, for example.
Phazer