This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/bbc-payoffs-observer-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Great British Payoff shows that BBC governance is broken Great British Payoff shows that BBC governance is broken
(2 months later)
If it was a television series, they'd probably call it The Great British Payoff, but you can't see the BBC rushing in with a commission. A few years ago, as director generals and the structures that regulated them changed, the corporation found it had hundreds more senior managers than it needed and was instructed by its new governing trust to shed them. No easy task. So the process – 401 severance payments later, with average individual payments touching £191,000 in the last financial year – has sometimes played fast and loose with contract entitlements.If it was a television series, they'd probably call it The Great British Payoff, but you can't see the BBC rushing in with a commission. A few years ago, as director generals and the structures that regulated them changed, the corporation found it had hundreds more senior managers than it needed and was instructed by its new governing trust to shed them. No easy task. So the process – 401 severance payments later, with average individual payments touching £191,000 in the last financial year – has sometimes played fast and loose with contract entitlements.
One old stager walked away with just over a million. One much newer operator, only two years in her job, departed nearly £400,000 richer. The director of the BBC archive took £375,000 and promptly became head of the British Library, before giving his cash back. Enter the National Audit Office, irate MPs and, of course, newspapers with an axe to grind.One old stager walked away with just over a million. One much newer operator, only two years in her job, departed nearly £400,000 richer. The director of the BBC archive took £375,000 and promptly became head of the British Library, before giving his cash back. Enter the National Audit Office, irate MPs and, of course, newspapers with an axe to grind.
There are reasonable explanations for some of these payments. Often, in a cut-throat world, notice has to be worked to stop a competitor benefiting. Sometimes, contrapuntally, a high-profile employee must be gone in a trice. Occasionally, there's a need to give particular thanks for exceptional endeavour. And always, for the BBC, there's the fact that the salaries our licence fee pays for can't touch the levels at ITV, BSkyB or even Channel 4.There are reasonable explanations for some of these payments. Often, in a cut-throat world, notice has to be worked to stop a competitor benefiting. Sometimes, contrapuntally, a high-profile employee must be gone in a trice. Occasionally, there's a need to give particular thanks for exceptional endeavour. And always, for the BBC, there's the fact that the salaries our licence fee pays for can't touch the levels at ITV, BSkyB or even Channel 4.
But – and it is a huge but – none of this excuses the tetchy shambles at the public accounts committee as the current trust chairman blamed the former director general and facts got lost in the furore. The longer this sour, buck-passing session went on, the more the whole system of BBC governance and regulation – supposedly settled in 2007 – seemed to unravel before our eyes. There is no escaping a dismal conclusion. It's broke. It will have to be fixed again and this time with responsibilities clear, not artificially scattered.But – and it is a huge but – none of this excuses the tetchy shambles at the public accounts committee as the current trust chairman blamed the former director general and facts got lost in the furore. The longer this sour, buck-passing session went on, the more the whole system of BBC governance and regulation – supposedly settled in 2007 – seemed to unravel before our eyes. There is no escaping a dismal conclusion. It's broke. It will have to be fixed again and this time with responsibilities clear, not artificially scattered.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.