Here’s a strange twist in the saga over the international rights sale of 135 programs.
The Corporation has taken the unusual step of publicizing that its Board of Directors has given the green light to the deal. (The Corporation rarely announces specific Board decisions. In this case, the Board’s support was distributed both on the CBC’s corporate news feed and as a news release to other media.)
The deal, which sees the CBC sell off all international rights to its program catalogue of about 135 active titles, came under heavy criticism from Canadian firms who said they should have been given the opportunity to bid for the rights. The deal was done with the British firm Fireworks International. A Canadian office will be established to manage the assets.The sale is permanent; the deal is not structured on any kind of multiple-year agreement.
Two days after the proposed sale was announced, the parent company, ContentFilm, was bought by Toronto-based Peace Arch. CBC executive Fred Fuchs was a senior vice-president at Peace Arch before coming to the CBC.
In an email to staff this morning updating them on the Board meeting, CBC’s new President Hubert Lacroix said:
“[Head of CBC's English services Richard Stursberg's] analysis shows that public tendering would have diluted the value of our assets while increasing the negative impact for staff. During the discussion, Board members voiced different points of view, considerations and concerns.”
“I am convinced that we, in exiting this business in this way, struck a deal that allows us to maximize the consideration for these distribution rights, while meeting the strategic objectives that we sought [including] continued income stream to CBC for the sale of active titles in the catalogue.”
While CBC executive Steve Billinger, a key player in the negotiations, has said he does not yet know what the impact of the 11 staff within CBC’s international sales division will be, he did say the deal with Fireworks included discussions about taking on at least some of those staff. Lacroix was more direct: “Content Film/Fireworks has expressed interest in our employees, which was a really important factor for us in taking this decision.”The Canadian Media Guild says the Corporation contracted out the work of international sales employees without following collective agreement provisions or Corporation policies on procurement of services. It says it “was never consulted on the plan and never had an opportunity to examine the business case or to propose alternatives to sending the work outside.”
|
Email This Post |
| Board of Directors |
Well, it came as no surprise, at least to this 5 year veteran of the CBC. If the CMG is correct then perhaps they have a legal case against the CBC for improper practices. But why is the deal permanent? What copyright issues have been negotiated? What role did Mr. Fuchs play in what appears to be a conflict of interest? If Mr. Stursberg, the Board and Hubert are certain this is a good deal for the corporation, will they show us the money?
You say the deal is permanent. What happens if the company
goes belly-up in the near future?
Only an investigation by the Auditor General will realise the effect of this deal over the fiscal year and its long term benefits. I await the report. In the meantime, perhaps the CMG
or other interested parties can see the contract under the access to information Act of which the CBC falls under.
Somehow I thought that the Board would prevail and cancel the deal. Alas, I was disappointed by their decision to support it. All I can say is that we need more transparency at the top. As a CBC employee, I believe that I have a feduciary duty to defend the public broadcaster and be available to people who question its work. It’s part of my acceptance that I work for a public institution which is, and rightly so, held to a higher standard of scrutiny. It’s a pity some members of the upper management don’t feel the same way. This deal was created in secret, processed in secret and not give due process under public corporate law, ie. put to tender. If we, as Canadians, allow this type of behaviour to continue at the CBC or any other public institution then we get what we pay for, literally. Is this the country you want?
Can we get a clarification about which exactly "rights" are being sold?
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of this release/blog entry refer simply to "international rights" of the CBC’s material.
Yet Lacroix’ statement refers more specifically to "distribution rights".
Obviously there would be a big difference between general rights to (final sale of) to all CBC material, and the distribution rights, where a distributor works to maximize re-sale value for all CBC material sold overseas.
Can someone clarify?
How unfortunate that the Board caved and gave their stamp of approval to a deal that doesn’t pass anyone’s smell test. No private sector company would get this one by their shareholders. And it’s inarguable that a public institution has to adhere to a higher standard. But clearly the Board was in no mood to embarrass the new President so soon into his term. Too bad. They had the opportunity to do the right thing: to either reject the deal or at the very least force a full financial public disclosure of its terms to provide at least some veneer of retroactive transparency. As LeonT says in the above post "is this the country we want?" No. We…and the CBC…deserve better.
A fair concern to put it mildly.
It’s strange to see this concern for Canadian taxpayers from the CBCers all of a sudden. It’s refreshing and I hope it will influence a change it their news gate keeping. ‘Tis to dream!