Election Candidate's CVs
This month's Mailshot contains a
letter from Tony Lawyer (C51) concerning the
DaC election candidates CVs which were
published in the last issue of Call Sign.
While I can understand Tony's point re
knowing more about the candidates than the
personal details given, there are a few
things that I need to explain. Having
since looked back at previous election pages
in Call Sign, some have just CVs as in the
last issue, while others have CVs plus
candidate's future plans / ambitions should
they be elected. I personally have no real
problem with either and no pressure
whatsoever was put on me from above. If
candidates want to give a brief outline of
what they would like to do if elected and
providing it is fair to all candidates -
something that is my prime concern - then
fine. But life rarely comes in just black
and white...
I asked this year's prospective
candidates via a series of terminal messages
over 10 days to send me their CVs by 23.59
on December 11. Several sent good CVs in
fairly quickly and none asked if they could
address the voters with their future
ideas. Neither did anyone send in
anything other than that which could be
classified as a standard CV, some combined
with a very general synopsis of the cab
trade. Then towards the closing date,
two asked if they could give their future
ideas / plans as well as their CV. My only
problem at that time was that they had left
it so late...
One subscriber, who had already
sent in his CV, had by then left to go on
holiday and was due to return too late to be
asked if he wanted to add anything. I tried
phoning him in Tenerife, as did one of the
two subscribers, but with no response.
So far as I was concerned, to
then allow other candidates to make
additions would have been grossly unfair.
Had any candidate asked at the beginning if
they could give their future ambitions, I'd
have probably said yes - although under
those circumstances the articles would have
been subject to possible cuts should the
candidates have promised anything that
breached Society rules - as one candidate
actually did.
I spoke with both candidates
for over an hour explaining that in my view
it would be unfair on the candidate who was
now on holiday to make changes at that late
stage. One of the two then printed out his
own leaflets and distributed them with the
same suggestion in that he had been told was
illegal under our constitution. He headed
the leaflet with: "What Call Sign would
not publish," and went on to add:
"This election address should have
appeared in the January issue of Call Sign,
however the Editor refused to publish the
contents and allow the membership the
opportunity to make up their minds."
Not one mention of how it would have
been unfair to at least one other
candidate.
|
Not one mention about
being told by Howard Pears (who he showed it
to) that the
suggestion was illegal under our constitution.
Therefore, I must assume that he didn't care
about fairness to other candidates, just his
own election. That is his concern, my concern
differs and I like to think that as a
principle, it would not alter even if I were
not the Editor.
One candidate sent in his CV with
just over an hour of the closing time left.
That is his right, but what if he had then
demanded the right to add something that no
one else could? Would the candidate above have
then objected if he was away? If subscribers
wish to keep their candidacy under wraps until
the last minute, then this is the problem that
has unfolded.
If prior to future AGM elections,
subscribers wish to add their ideas and I am
still the Editor of Call Sign, then I would
certainly look at their suggestions and if
fair to all candidates, would probably give
the go-ahead - but it could involve problems.
What if a candidate says that he / she wants
to cut the price of subscriptions by half and
will explain how at the AGM? That candidate
may get a large postal vote. What if that
candidate then fails to show that his / her
idea is feasible - is that person not getting
the postal vote share unfairly?
What if a candidate claimed in
Call Sign that he / she had a plan to double
the number of accounts that we have, but again
failed to offer any form of plan at the AGM?
He / she may again get a huge postal vote, but
would that be fair to those who would only
give a mention to real possibilities that they
could hope to achieve? I hope you can see my
problem, Tony.
As I said, in two years time, if
asked, I will look at the candidate's
suggestions provided they aren't kept secret
until the last minute. Of course, if all
subscribers took the trouble to turn up on the
day, then the above wouldn't really matter...
Busy Police...?
The date was January 13 and
Londoners were still reeling from the shock of
a London Judge's
announcement that there were not enough police
available to chase burglars and other than for
violent entry, just a report would be asked
for from the victims.
January 14 and I'm driving along in my taxi
listening for the bleep from my terminal that
could signify a radio job. It certainly
bleeped, but not for the reason I had been
hoping...
There were speed traps at the
Blackfriars Underpass, Euston
|
Underpass, Upper Thames
Street, Lambeth Palace Road,
Grosvenor Road, Holland Park Avenue
and probably some others that I missed. Not
enough police to catch burglars? Well now we
know why...!
Cash Circuits
In the Chairman's report of the
January issue, Brian Rice told of a new
initiative by the four major circuits - soon
to be joined by Geof Kaley's XETA - which
would offer Londoners a new service for cash
clients. It involved them dialling a single
number for a taxi and if the first circuit
to take it couldn't cover the trip, it would
be passed onto the next and so on.
Suddenly, the January 15 issue
of TAXI announced the formation of a new
radio circuit under the heading of A New
Year... A New Circuit For A Fiver A Week!
Drivers naturally assumed this to be XETA,
but they were wrong...
Delgro/ComCab had started their
own new cash-only circuit but hadn't told
any of the others concerned in the
one-number agreement, preferring instead to
announce it in TAXI - which is of course
their right. However, what was the point of
agreeing to a one-number cash circuit only
to announce in TAXI that ComCab and their
new cash circuit would pass uncovered cash
rides to each other?
In addition, the new circuit
has a no run-in policy, so even if they were
to pass it on to anyone else, the chances
are that it wouldn't be covered. How far
would YOU run for a cash ride with no
run-in? I believed that the one-number idea
had real possibilities. Unless ComCab think
again, the idea now lies in tatters...
Fare Increase
I hear that the Mayor is looking
to take Tariff 3 and push it to a 10pm start
from the current 8pm. As someone who
was dead set against it when it came in and
who still thinks it was a liberty, I have to
say that now it is with us, pushing the
start forward two hours would be like trying
to uninvent the wheel. Passengers are now
used to it and while many have deserted the
licensed taxi trade for minicabs, if we
reduced it back down, it would not gain us
one extra regular fare. It would cause the
Evening Standard to look down on us and say
"we told you so..." We would be
seen as greedy so-and-so's who had got their
comeuppance. And they could be right...
Our best bet is to say that the
Tariff 3 fare rate will not be subject to an
increase this year. That would go down far
better than admitting that we were wrong. In
fact any increase to the evening rate this
year would be sheer stupidity - even the
long overdue increase in the "flag
drop." If those who negotiate our fare
increases don't sort these matters out when
it's busy, then doing it when there is
little spare money around is just
pointless...
Alan Fisher
callsignmag@aol.com
|
