Paul Harley wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get

Paul Harley

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.

Tom

On 2 Jun, 20:25, Paul Harley wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:

The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.


Good, I think it was thoroughly deserved.


Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get


Yes - this got discussed on uk.transport.london at the end of Feb/
start of March in the "Mayoral Manifesto from London Travel Watch"
thread. Note however that this was intended to add to the public
debate on transport as opposed to being a partisan statement in favour
of the candidates or indeed against the incumbent.

On 2 Jun, 21:43, Tom Barry wrote:

Paul Harley wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

(snip)

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.


Thanks Tom, you've answered some of my questions about that, including
who is was who abstained from the vote - having looked up the
composition of the committee I couldn't work out who it might be, and
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to hear it was Jenny Jones
(though maybe I should read or listen to the arguments before I reach
that judgement). Maybe she'd built up a rapport with him over
transport issues, I dunno. At least it's not as bad as it might look
at first glance - she seemingly wasn't against punishing him, just not
punishing him so severely. Any idea who the Conservative AM who didn't
turn up was and why?

I think I will try and find time to look at the papers properly, read
the minutes when they come out and even watch the webcast. I don't
like this talk coming from the Tories of 'technical breaches' one bit
- flagrant breaches more like. It sits rather ill with their apparent
stand against cronyism and maladministration.


P.S. Paul Harley's post (the first of those quoted above) won't have
appeared in uk.transport.london coz for some reason he removed the
follow-up.

Mizter T wrote:

Thanks Tom, you've answered some of my questions about that, including
who is was who abstained from the vote - having looked up the
composition of the committee I couldn't work out who it might be, and
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to hear it was Jenny Jones
(though maybe I should read or listen to the arguments before I reach
that judgement). Maybe she'd built up a rapport with him over
transport issues, I dunno. At least it's not as bad as it might look
at first glance - she seemingly wasn't against punishing him, just not
punishing him so severely. Any idea who the Conservative AM who didn't
turn up was and why?

Victoria Borwick, the only female Tory (so fairly easy to spot, then).
The remaining three sat in a line on the right (haha) with Jones next
along. The most forceful questioning came from the Lib Dem, Caroline
Pidgeon, who appeared to be channelling Gwynneth Dunwoody at times.

I think I will try and find time to look at the papers properly, read
the minutes when they come out and even watch the webcast. I don't
like this talk coming from the Tories of 'technical breaches' one bit
- flagrant breaches more like. It sits rather ill with their apparent
stand against cronyism and maladministration.

It's probably worth viewing through again, since I missed some chunks
first time round.

Tom

On 2 Jun, 18:07, Mizter T wrote:

His fig leaf of issuing said statement in a 'personal capacity' was
just that - he is supposed to be an independent impartial ombudsman,
and his actions completely invalidated that.

If it was a personal statement, why did he mention LTW at all?.....he
obviously felt that by doing so, his statement carried more weight,
and hence he involved his office & thus no longer was it a completely
personal statement.

I just hope Boris now does the right thing & does NOT give him any
sort of job. Having attended various meetings of LTW, I found him to
be only interested in Brian Cooke plc....

On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Tom Barry wrote:
Paul Harley wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:56:00, Tom Barry
wrote:
The issue of replacing Cooke was raised - the Tories didn't want the
Deputy taking over (she's a Labour councillor!) so there's going to be
an open invitation to current members to put themselves forward as an
interim until September, when a new one would be appointed anyway.

The Transport Committee did have the option of giving Brian Cooke
three months notice of termination of contract, which would have
carried TravelWatch over (almost) until the new appointee took up
his/her post, but they chose the most severe action open to them.

Interestingly, London TravelWatch have issued a manifesto for the new
Mayoral term 2008-2012, which can be seen he

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3159/get

Paul Harley

Watching it on the live feed, the decision was made by taking a vote on
the severest action first, and continuing down the scale until a
majority decision was reached. As it happened, on the first vote the
Chair, the other two Labour members and the Lib Dem put their hand up
for instant dismissal, the three Tories voted against and the Green
(Jenny Jones) abstained, so that was that. I think Jones would have
preferred a lesser punishment, from her comments, which ironically would
have meant it was her choice as the swing vote if the fourth Tory had
attended. The Tories had a hard time accepting that he'd done anything
wrong at all (a 'technical breach') was about the hardest line they took.

Tom

Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

On 3 Jun, 13:54, wrote:
Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

No, because Brian was sacked for a gross breach of his employment
rules, whereas Lazala was sacked because Metronet had underperformed.

As any employer will tell you, it's a lot easier to sack someone for
gross misconduct than gross incompetence.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 3 Jun, 15:24, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 13:54, wrote:

Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. *Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

No, because Brian was sacked for a gross breach of his employment
rules, whereas Lazala was sacked because Metronet had underperformed.

As any employer will tell you, it's a lot easier to sack someone for
gross misconduct than gross incompetence.


Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Jonn

wrote:


Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.


By your own logic, everyone who'd never been promoted would still have a
job.

Tom

On 3 Jun, 16:15, Tom Barry wrote:
Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

By your own logic, everyone who'd never been promoted would still have a
job.

Surely the reason they've never been promoted, according to the Peter
Principle, is that they've already reached their level of
incompetence?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org