07 June 2008
From: Devan Maistry Sent: Sat 07/06/2008 18:32 To: Kate Carr; email@example.com Cc: Michele Paduano Subject: RE:
Thanks for being so patient and trying to find a way forward. As I mentioned for the sake of clarity I am trying to get an idea of how the NUJ regards the ‘compromise’ reached during these so called capability discussions.
Paddy’s note to me reflects his position on the matter. My note to Graham Poole suggests what I thought would be a fair way to resolve the issue ie a return to the status quo at the time of my joining Breakfast and this time being accorded the courtesy afforded normally to someone transferred to another department. There is now an effort – a year on, to redress these managerial shortcomings. The circumstances under which this takes place however suggest a wholly opportunistic and cynical response, and a failure to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves, especially within the culture of the BBC.
Paddy has promised to solicit head office’s view on Graham Poole’s proposal which Paddy suggested I go along with in good faith. Paddy told Graham Poole that head office might well take a different view. The proposal itself amounted to the following. Management would not proceed with a formal hearing. They would immediately however initiate an improvement plan they had previously drawn-up with some minor modifications relating to the scoring.
My view is that management has not satisfied the process that could lead to a formal hearing under the agreed statement and have failed to rebut our argument to this effect. I also believe that this so called ‘climb-down’ cannot be accepted by the NUJ under the agreement without compromising the Union.
Much of the alleged performance issues relate to broad claims that I do not have the leadership qualities, or vision required of a Senior Broadcast Journalist. My ability to promote the BBC’s values has also been questioned. There are also more detailed allegations that not only lack any force but amount to farce. However the implication of this informal process now underway can only be to endorse these claims.
I believe my response to each of these allegations should be noted and judged honestly and in context. If I failed to object to such a process I would be simply proving that I do not have regard for the values of the BBC, for professional standards of journalism or the integrity of the NUJ.