My Photo
Name:
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Sunday, September 11, 2005

"Anonymous" Floats Alternative Funding Idea

Here's an excerpt from an idea for an alternative funding formula that someone posted to my binding arbitration post a while back. I have reservations about the idea (who determines how much where, and what makes them more qualified than us to determine it... do we really want to make ourselves more dependant on bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa?) but this is the kind of debate we should be engaging in:

"We all know the cbc is underfunded. we also know that no amount of complaining about is has done any good. i can't help but wonder if we were funded differently - then perhaps, we could make the argument more persuasively.here's what i'm suggesting. before the canada health and social transfer ($$$ money from the feds to the provinces), ottawa sent money targeted for 3 envelopes. health, education and social services. provinces had to spend in those areas accordingly.once it became the CHST, it was a lump sum the provinces could portion out any way they chose and the accountability was lost.

perhaps the cbc should be funded in a targetted way. instead of a lump sum - a specific amount for regional, national, radio, french, drama/entertainment/ sports etc. then the CBC couldn't engage in voodoo accounting. but more important, when one area was found wanting, the cbc could say - well we spent all the money we had for that department.

of course regular external audits would have to be done to make sure the money was spent where is was supposed to. but it would also put pressure on the feds. no local and regional presence??? well we've only got 50 million dollars for that! the idea needs some work - but i think it's a campaign we could sell and win.

the cbc always complains it's asked to do too much with too little. well the feds should be forced to fund exactly what it thinks the cbc MUST do. what it doesn't fund, we don't do. what it doesn't fund appropriately, we don't do well. as it stands right now, we've got all of the responsibility of meeting countless demands within our mandate with diminishing resources and then we're criticized for letting some things slide in favour of something else. if this kind of funding was in place in 1990, the closures wouldn't have happened - they COULDN'T have happened. and we wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation where we keep trying to reinvent supper shows."

An idea floated by Anonymous, posting to my comments section.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home