Barclays: A page to be updated

[teamsaint]

I often wonder what any non-executive director of any company does, apart from sitting in at board meetings and occasionally butting-in and informing the executive directors of how well he/she and her other directors do things in his/her main job/company, even if the two (companies) are not even remotely connected.

But there you go, that's pure cynicism (and probably total ignorance) for you ...

sounds a well informed view to me Scotty...

[french frank]

Well if you don't know what the role of a non-executive director of a large organization such as the BBC is, then why are you senior member of Friends of Radio 3? And as for the £47,000, I'm quite surprised he gets out of bed for so little.

I wasn't asking about 'a large organization such as the BBC', I was asking specifically about the BBC.

And boning up hastily on the normal duties of non-executive Directors, I'm still curious about it because several of those duties seem, in the BBC, to come under the responsibility of the BBC Trust (governance, scrutiny of management performance, and the endorsement of strategy proposals), rather than the Executive Board, which is therefore rather different from the average Board of Directors in having a superior level of governance. And in this case, why would someone with no experience of the broadcasting industry be helpful in appointing senior management (other than to appoint managers who also have no experience of the broadcasting industry, as has been known to occur, quite recently).

And as for the £47,000, I'm quite surprised he gets out of bed for so little.

Indeed, it is very little by a banker's standards, but it would buy Radio 3 about eight full length feature programmes which licence fee payers might appreciate more.

[Lateralthinking1]

I often wonder what any non-executive director of any company does, apart from sitting in at board meetings and occasionally butting-in and informing the executive directors of how well he/she and her other directors do things in his/her main job/company, even if the two (companies) are not even remotely connected.

But there you go, that's pure cynicism (and probably total ignorance) for you ...

In the past 24 hours, it appears that Francis Maude's Wikipedia entry has been changed to remove information about his past role in Barclays. However, from memory he was paid in excess of £9,000 for 15 hours work. It was said that the work comprised inputs to meetings on the telephone and in person and writing e-mails.

As for people with a more significant role than non-executive directors, Bob Diamond's Wikipedia entry includes a comment from Lord Mandelson in 2010. Mandelson described Diamond as 'the unacceptable face' of banking. However, I distinctly recall that this morning there was more detail including a reference to him being someone who mainly, quote, 'shuffles paper'. That reference has also mysteriously disappeared.

[french frank]

In the past 24 hours, it appears that Francis Maude's Wikipedia entry has been changed to remove information about his past role in Barclays.

Not sure where you're looking, Lat, but the article hasn't been edited since 24 April 2012. (A pretty 'hostile' article all round, though!)

[teamsaint]

there is a VAST amout of manipulation of online profiles.
I doubt if a nasty manipulative tosser like maude sits around and does nothing while people say honest things about him in the internet.

[french frank]

there is a VAST amout of manipulation of online profiles.
I doubt if a nasty manipulative tosser like maude sits around and does nothing while people say honest things about him in the internet.

But every change to a Wikipedia article is recorded by the software and is checkable and reversible.

[teamsaint]

But every change to a Wikipedia article is recorded by the software and is checkable and reversible.

fair enough...but it's true anyway !

[Lateralthinking1]

Not sure where you're looking, Lat, but the article hasn't been edited since 24 April 2012. (A pretty 'hostile' article all round, though!)

My apologies and, yes, his past financial portfolio arguably looks sleazy. I must though have read about him and Barclays here -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-top-tories-dragged-into-banking-scandal-7901941.html

Here is the Mandelson quote on Diamond about paper shuffling. I don't think the BBC site is where I saw it but I could be wrong. It strikes me that Labour would find it a little difficult to square that comment with the insistence that he was up to his neck in it -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8601512.stm

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well keep boning . . . Because so far everything you have for the responsibilities of a BBC Trust non exec would align with the role of a typical non-executive director. I don't see any difference.
And £47,000 is pitiful by the standards of not just bankers, but any lawyer, doctor, or engineer with just a few years experience. Why volunteer for all the crap at his age for so little?

[Lateralthinking1]

Well keep boning . . . Because so far everything you have for the responsibilities of a BBC Trust non exec would align with the role of a typical non-executive director. I don't see any difference.
And £47,000 is pitiful by the standards of not just bankers, but any lawyer, doctor, or engineer with just a few years experience. Why volunteer for all the crap at his age for so little?

Denial of mortality. Genuinely. That is these people's motor from a very young age and why many of them when older go mad.

All the dragons being willingly slayed are in the vulnerable categories. That's their own unacknowledged vulnerability turned outwards. So there is a policy dimension there. Policy is poor, being formulated in fantasy. Ditto the notion of getting away with things. That fanciful invincibility is made into reality for a very long time, and believed by many, until they come a cropper.

'How much money have these people got? They can't need it all surely'. You hear that kind of sentiment a lot. Well, it is because they feel they need the security to last them many lives. As soon as they stop raking it in, they are a goner in their heads.

[teamsaint]

BBC NEDs are contracted for 28 days work for their money.

What a nasty little can of worms this is....

[french frank]

Well keep boning . . . Because so far everything you have for the responsibilities of a BBC Trust non exec would align with the role of a typical non-executive director. I don't see any difference.

Let me clarify:

There is no such thing as 'a BBC Trust non-exec'. The members of the BBC Trust are Trustees.

Mr Agius is not a member of the Trust: he is the senior non-executive of the BBC Executive Board. But since a number of the responsibilities of non-executive directors of a company's board of directors (i.e. in the three areas I mentioned) fall, in the BBC's case, on the Trust (which is the superior body), the question remains: what duties remain for the non-executive directors on the BBC's Executive Board? If you know the answer - and it may well be on the BBC's website (I'm sure it's not a secret) - do please enlighten me.

And, of course, without knowing what the job entails, who's to say whether £47,000 pa is pitiful or a gross overpayment? To give an extreme example, if he was only required to attend one board meeting a year, or even two, I think even a banker would consider himself quite well paid for the inconvenience of turning up.

[Lateralthinking1]

Let me clarify:

There is no such thing as 'a BBC Trust non-exec'. The members of the BBC Trust are Trustees.

Mr Agius is not a member of the Trust: he is the senior non-executive of the BBC Executive Board. But since a number of the responsibilities of non-executive directors of a company's board of directors (i.e. in the three areas I mentioned) fall, in the BBC's case, on the Trust (which is the superior body), the question remains: what duties remain for the non-executive directors on the BBC's Executive Board? If you know the answer - and it may well be on the BBC's website (I'm sure it's not a secret) - do please enlighten me.

And, of course, without knowing what the job entails, who's to say whether £47,000 pa is pitiful or a gross overpayment? To give an extreme example, if he was only required to attend one board meeting a year, or even two, I think even a banker would consider himself quite well paid for the inconvenience of turning up.

This is they - http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...iormanagement/

This was April. One hour. Thin month.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/seniormanagement/ebmins/ebmins_april12.pdf

[Lateralthinking1]

........In fairness, the minutes say that the Board meeting on 16 April took place at the end of a day long Executive Board conference. Still, it ended at 4.30pm which is not a bad moment to go home under flexitime.

Presumably though Mark Thompson then went to the Media Cafe to celebrate 55 years of the 'The Sky at Night' with Sir Patrick Moore. Now let me see. If 50 is Gold and 60 is Diamond, what is 55? Money, perhaps, or Old Rope?

The stresses of a hard day's work with the Board are clearly etched on his face. Nevertheless our hero had soldiered on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aboutthebbc/7088016529/

(Funny - it looks very light through that window. A starburst galaxy no doubt.)

[french frank]

The stresses of a hard day's work with the Board are clearly etched on his face. Nevertheless our hero had soldiered on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aboutthebbc/7088016529/

He's wearing that tie deliberately, if you ask me!