Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Two top TransLink planners axed

May 8th, 2015 · 137 Comments

News seeping out this afternoon that TransLink called staff to a meeting to say that two top TransLink planners were gone.

Both were very experienced people at the top of the heap and doing the actual planning. One, Brian Mills, was director of systems planning and research. The other, Tamim Raad, director of strategic planning and policy.

Charlie Smith at the Georgia Straight has an actual news story on this.

Like him, I heard that one speculation was that Raad had never been a fan of a Broadway subway and that, since the people in the Vancouver mayor’s office agitated to get Ian Jarvis removed, maybe they were behind this too since they are so pro-subway.

I’m not sure I think that’s plausible. Vancouver already got a deal with the rest of the mayors to have a subway. If by some miracle those mayors manage to eke out a Yes vote in this plebiscite, would staff really be willing or able to change the parameters of something the public had voted on?

And if the vote fails, it will all be moot for a very long time whether Vancouver gets anything except more 99B buses.

One detail that will make the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation rub its hands with glee (now there’s a visual for you): remaining staff have been told that new people will be hired for those $180,000-a-year jobs, meaning that TransLink will likely be paying both hefty severance and a new set of hefty salaries.

Intrigue, intrigue.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Don’t worry. The new Patullo Bridge and the Light Rail into Surrey is promised no matter if the vote is a big NO.

  • Internet made me obsolete

    “I’m very, very sorry if I have ofended anyone in any way. I recognize that I have made mistakes during this plebiscite campaign. I’m only human. I promise to do better going forward. I hope I can count on your support to achieve our Greenest City goals and reducing congestion.”

    It worked once.

  • Internet made me obsolete

    All very fascinating, but you forget : this is a non-binding plebiscite. NON-BINDING. Nothing more than a ludicrously expensive opinion poll designed to duck political accountability for a tax increase.

    NON-BINDING. Multi-billion dollar decisions should never be left in the hands of the public. They can’t even handle their household budgets.

    Even worse is letting politicians poke their unqualified, hopelessly compromised noses into serious business. It leads to disaster every time they try to pick winners and losers. Look at the various gas and oil projects so popular with the political class in this country. Totally unprepared when prices crash. Nothing left in the Heritage Fund. Huge budget deficit. Time to hand the whole mess over to the NDP, let them wear the tax increases which are inevitable.

  • boohoo

    See how you’re ignoring my point?

  • boohoo

    I agree this is a dumb way to do this. But, this gov is on record as saying this is it, and a no vote doesn’t mean all this other stuff people want it to mean.

    In the end, we’re going to pay for this one way or another. At least with this we have some measure of knowing what we’re getting.

  • jenables

    It was a little surprising being called a boy, believe it or not.

  • A Taxpayer

    “I think govt employees should have higher pay and better benefits.”
    They already have higher pay and benefits than the private sector. This comment only makes sense if you are a public sector worker.

  • MB

    There is a planning process that you are obviously not aware of. Don’t be so sure that managers do the majority of the planning work. It’s usually staff who create the ideas, meet and discuss them with other staff, write them up, conduct interviews and manage consultants and researchers, and as a last step get their manager’s sign off. The planning staff are still there regarless of the politics at the senior level.

    You should also read Stehen Rees’s take. He worked in the TL planning dept and knew the managers who were let go.

    https://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/translink-pushes-out-senior-transportation-planning-veterans-tamim-raad-and-brian-mills/

  • MB

    You will note that the quote does not include the words “can do no wrong” but does refer to “performance metrics” which is a system of measure, not a rubber stamp shop.

  • MB

    Sure thing, Father Bill.

  • MB

    Better yet, have an elected TL board and Metro council.

  • A Taxpayer

    I did read the article that you linked to and this is how he characterized them:

    “Both were highly competent at what they did.”

    So what does that say about Translink’s decision?

    And if managers are just there to give signoff, maybe its a layer of management that is unnecessary. Are you sure you want to go there?

  • MB

    Most Yes supporters here would probably agree with you on the tax issue, but the plain, simple fact is that only one very modest tax is on the table because that is the only tax Mama and Papa over in Victoria would allow.

    These are the same folks who think nothing of putting billions more than the total value of TransLink’s proposal into freeways from every conceiveable tax without batting an eye or asking permission. Judging from history, going No on transit will result in more of the same.

  • MB

    I wasn’t referring to the No-siders.

  • Jeff Leigh

    “I did read the article that you linked to….”

    Excellent. Then you will have read this, from Stephen, discussing online posters on the subject:

    “Shielded by the anonymity of the comment process they can opine freely, even though there is not a shred of credibility in what they say.”

  • MB

    Having said that, the TransLink planning dept has a detailed roll out plan should Yes prevail.

  • MB

    As a commenter, yeah, absolutely!

  • A Taxpayer

    Perhaps, but posting under your name doesn’t give you a stamp of credibility, either.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Noted. So tell us where you think the errors and mistakes are in TransLink.

  • jenables

    Thank you, i agree.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    And not even Stephen Rees can speak freely because, as he explains, he has signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of his severance package.

    It’s the usual strong-arm hustle. “Here’s your fat wad of cash envelope. Keep your mouth shut or we will quickly sue your arse and get it all back.”

    And we are discussing credibility! And our money! What would Edward Snowden say?

  • AllThat

    I gree with your assessment. At least one of these two was not popular with his fellows (fellowettes?). I would say that the broom that is sweeping through the organization is cleansing the internal strife that exisits. Next up: a few more Exec VP’s?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Who has seen it?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    How much affect did those two have on the strategic plan?

  • Kirk

    And, so it has begun. Developers have started planning their profits around transit lines that they don’t have to have to contribute to.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=11056630&hootPostID=158324c2303b587f1b805d6053fab962

  • A Taxpayer

    It is revealing that you and your side kick, Chris, only whine about anonymity when it is directed at people who do not share your views, never fellow members of the tribe like MB or boohoo. I guess it should come as no surprise that your comments on this subject are not matters of principle.

  • Jeff Leigh

    You didn’t appear to read all of the article. The anonymity of posters was a secondary issue. The primary issue was libellous comments, the anonymity is just what protects the people or organizations posting them. The principle, just in case you don’t understand it, is that libel is bad. Stephen said it well:

    “Everyone is entitled to have and express their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts. They are not entitled to denigrate anyone, and they are also not exempted from the normal requirements of society by the facility of information technology which they apparently think shields them from the consequences of their actions.”

  • A Taxpayer

    If this was the point you intended to make then you would have referenced this quote in the first instance rather than the one you chose. And if you are suggesting that I libel individuals under cover of anonymity, then at least have the guts to say so directly with examples.

  • Chris Keam

    I’m nobody’s ‘side kick’ Factslayer. I post under my own name so that there can be no doubt about the fact that my comments are purely my own opinions. And I don’t have a problem with anonymity — until it’s used to propagate misinformation and personal attacks. Which I would categorize as your modus operandi most of the time. I guess it should come as no surprise that you haven’t actually read my repeated posts on this matter and that the idea of accountability for remarks is something you wish to avoid.

  • A Taxpayer

    So it is okay to propagate misinformation and make personal attacks as long as you don’t do it anonymously.

  • Chris Keam

    I guess you’ll never know until you try.

  • Chris Keam

    It means you have to stand behind your comments and be accountable. I imagine this strikes terror into the heart of some.

  • A Taxpayer

    So it is perfectly acceptable to propagate misinformation and make personal attacks as long as you are prepared to publicly stand behind your comments and be accountable?

  • Chris Keam

    Again, if you think that is the case then I encourage you to do so. I will be fascinated by the outcome.

  • A Taxpayer

    That is not my opinion, that is the implication of what you have posted. You would think that by now you would have learned not to paint yourself into a corner.

  • Chris Keam

    But of course it isn’t the implication at all. No surprises here. Faced with plain language and a call for honesty and accountability, you muck around with nonsense and rhetoric. Because it’s game over for you if accountability is the order of the day isn’t it?

  • A Taxpayer

    Of course you do not have to provide a seemingly straight forward clarification of your position and we will just have to decide for ourselves whether it is because you choose not to or you can’t.

←  Older Comments
 →