The Alexandra Matter: The Role Of The CPO and NUPW

Dennis Clarke, General Secretary (l) Walter Maloney, President (r) NUPW 'Big Boys'

Nearly two weeks have passed since the BSTU instituted action against the principal of the Alexandra School Jeff Broome. Up to late yesterday [14 Jan 2012] there appeared to be no resolution to the matter. A meeting held under the chairmanship of Minister of Education Ronald Jones only served to proved BU’s position, management systems in Barbados have become seriously compromised as a result of incestuous practices by  stakeholders.

It is clear the BSTU Executive believes so strongly in their cause that they are prepared to disrupt the relatively calm industrial relations climate in Barbados even if the children have to be made to suffer in the process. Their position is further demonstrated by a deliberate move away from following ‘normal’ grievance procedure. Regrettably the matter is deliberately being waged in the court of public opinion. While there are advantages to enticing public support sometimes, it should be done based on the full facts of the matter being revealed. It is evident that the cause of the industrial action by the BSTU is as a result of grievances which have been poorly managed over the years and left to fester. The speech day incident appears to be the straw which broke the camel’s back.

If we are to believe the underground chatter there is more to the mortar than the pestle. If local media intends to give honest coverage to this matter the public deserves to be seized of relevant information. If this is not possible because of legal considerations then the honourable thing is to avoid inflammatory reports like those we have been reading in the NATION for the past week.

Two peripheral issues created by the Alexandra matter, the roles of the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO)  and the ailing General Secretary of the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) need to be given more public scrutiny.

The role of the CPO has not been given a lot of airplay except by Caswell on the blog  Alexandra School Impasse: A Massive Failure Of Public Service Administration. Most public opinion has followed a predictable political discourse by calling for the head of the minister of education. We can agree however that the office of MOE should have been used to exert more pressure on the parties to clean up their act. We have already discussed how incestuous relationships affect how we do business as a country and here is a classic case.

The other matter is the role of Dennis Clarke, NUPW’s general secretary reported to be on leave until May because he is recovering from haemorrhagic fever. Although not unprecedented it is unusual the NUPW would seek to represent management [Broomes] in a matter against labour [teachers]. It is even more unusual that a senior principal in the union [Clarke] currently on sick leave would seek to undermine the person [Smith] appointed to act in the position. Again if BU chatter is correct the council of the NUPW has not met to approve the decision taken by Clarke. What is going on at the NUPW anyway? Is the membership not aware of how union business is being managed?

On the sidelines looking in what is a public ignorant and starved of the facts  suppose to think or say? The time has come for Barbadians to wake up and fully appreciate how they are being ‘played’ by the many interest groups which run things in Barbados.

301 thoughts on “The Alexandra Matter: The Role Of The CPO and NUPW

  1. @ole oinion

    Arrest for any union leader or teacher who defy the imposed solition”

    What are you smoking ? LOL

    Answer: BROOME STRAW.

  2. Wait ac, you like you got a problem with men yuh. That would explain a lot.
    You know that BBE designed and made women to complement men? Being without a real real man can be quite frustrating…

    Maybe that explains “a woman scorned…”

  3. @Bushie

    Yeah the key word being “Complement ” but wunna men changed it to “DOMINATE ” and we ain’t having that. that’s why Broomes a….sss is grass.

  4. Barbados has many well educated intelligent people. They are some like BushTea who will be provocative for his own entertainment on this blog.

    The fact is that Broomes is “the boss”. If a teacher refuse to teach a class for reasons unacceptable to him, he should act immediately within the constraints of her contract.

    How could a competent BushTea MAN allow a teacher to disobey the Boss’s instruction for a whole term?

    Truth is that some things that happen in Barbados are controlled by “diabolical forces” (credit to my friend Rawle East).

    Imagine the PM of a self proclaimed almost First world country has to intervene in a this drop of molasses rolling down a hill.

  5. BushTea

    Your views of employee putting up with a DIFFICULT boss are relic.. to say the least.
    If he is owner manager maybe,,,but with large organisations today ..he is considered as team leader (japan)…old school thghts >>>out thru the window

    Modern OTB theories speak more of TEAM and Team leader as it has been proved thru synergy ,organisation can achieve more

  6. Bush

    If AX had any REAL men to throw sum good lashes in Broomes OLD ASS , You think things wudda reach this far.??

    A real man would dun got he …..hiding and puttin a guard outside ee door regerler….eek

    Cuz fa all D shite dat man did gettin on with….I wud got HE ASKIN FOR A TRANSFER eva sense

  7. @ole onion bag

    Yuh got me laughing real hardddddddddd! i agree dat Broomes needs a real good cut a…….ss, I hope afta dis Mary madgelene and her thirty disciples throw some serious locks in he backside.

  8. Frundel better keep he outta this……remember Sandi

    11 just in waiting for a mistake…TEK MY FOOLISH ADVISE

    Julius Ceasar…..them stabb up my back whn I thgt dem did wid me.

  9. @ ole onion

    Well then maybe Marymadgelene and the thrty disciples can go for the next best thing and kick Roland Jones backside

  10. @ac
    hooooooooy hoy…you askin fa treble.

    nuff treble…….upset the boy’s club status quo….hoy hoy

  11. 1. I detect a healthy dose of misogyny in a number of the comments here and in the media. If Redman were male i wonder if comments and views would be different?

    2. Given the availability of the science head, precisely why a lesser qualified teacher would be sent to prepare the o level class is completely beyond me. How is that acting in the best interest of the students?

    • Businessman

      I tend to agree with both of your points

      To garner sympathy, everyone in this fiasco is invoking this so called best interest of the children. As far as I can see, the only parties involved in this dispute that really demonstrated care for the best interest of the children are Mrs. Greaves and the BSTU. Mrs. Greaves, in particular was trying to ensure that the children were not taught by Broomes’s duncy friends.

      If the Minister and Ministry of Education really cared about the best interest of the children they would not have allowed this dispute to drag on for six years. Also whenever Broomes got involved in any confrontation that could have resulted in disciplinary action being taken against him, the Ministry cared so much for the children that they promoted and transferred him so that he can continue caring for other children. It appears that ministry, BAPPSS, Clarke and Maloney are more concerned with the best interest of Broomes.

      In the Public Service, an officer is allowed to be accompanied by a union representative,or a lawyer or a friend, but in the interest of the children the Ministry has allowed Broomes to be accompanied by two lawyers, his union BAPPSS and two clown-friends masquerading as NUPW representatives. In any other case, an officer would only have been allowed one representative, not all three. That really speaks to the best interest of the children.

      If Broomes had the best interest at heart, he would have ensured that they had the best qualified teachers: he would not have recruited his unqualified friends, unqualified family and unqualified good-looking young women to teach the children that he cares so much about over the years.

      The media certainly do not care for the best interest of the children, if they did they would not slant their reporting to favour Broomes. While most of the media refuse to adequately put the BSTU’s position, the Barbados Today and the Nation have deliberately omitted information that would assist the union.

      If the Government had any interest other that lifting its profile, they would have allowed the well established industrial relations practices to deal with the matter. They are seeking a boost at the expense of the children.

      In the 14 years of the Arthur Administration, the unions refused to settle disputes unless the Prime Minister intervened and came out smelling like roses. That was staged managed to make Arthur look good. Now they are asking Freundel to Stuart to participate in a charade. However, this time around I do not believe that those calling on the PM mean him any good either.

  12. @ Caswell.
    Caswell , you are incorrect about receipt of the letter; you have been misinformed. The letter was not received on 6 January as you stated, it was received in the Ministry of Education on 9 January 2012. Please make the correction Caswell in the interest of accuracy.

  13. Watching Carefully and Listening

    I stand corrected. I took a 9 for a 6, thank you. My problem is that so much information is being passed to me for dissemination since most people involved do not trust the media to report accurately or even to be fair and balance. I hope that I did not get the part about the letter being unsigned wrong.

    • @Caswell et al

      What conclusion can be drawn from an unsigned letter being received by the MOE on the 9th of Jan?

      Yet another case of a draft letter!

      Will most people apply the same interpretation as was done in the case of the Eager 11 letter?

  14. @Businessman

    Given the availability of the science head, precisely why a lesser qualified teacher would be sent to prepare the o level class is completely beyond me. How is that acting in the best interest of the students?
    Now why did you have to ask that question? The Principal is the boss and how can he be seen as the boss if he doesn’t exercise his power? Even when your directions don’t make much sense, when you put square pegs in round holes who dare question your authority?

    Some of the support that the Principal has garnered in the face of his actions is proof that there is “education” then there is Education and never the twain shall meet. It reminds me of earlier days when I was in Elementary school, if you told your parents that the Head Master or Teacher had flogged you, you could be sure to get another flogging. Why? No matter how undeserving the beating (and some were beatings) there was the belief that the teacher was always right and you had to be doing something wrong so you deserved whatever you received . In those days just like today the Head Master is always right for some people.

    If the calendar didn’t read 2012 I could swear that we just entered the 1960’s, as a matter of fact the Mobile cinema will be on the pasture tonight, perhaps I can catch “Bud & Lou”.

  15. @David

    what conclusion can be drawn that Mrs. Greaves had received the letter and refuse to carry out the principal’s instructions?

    What conclusion can be drwan from her not teaching?.

  16. @Caswell

    you speak with forked tongue, it has been reported that you have said that Mary hasnt got a clue about IR, I ask you again, are you denying having made that statement?

  17. When all is said there has to be negotiated solution. By the way the older teachers are appointed to the school and hence that is why i daid there must be a negotiated solution. As I have said on another blog Ms. Redman has no authority to request the removal of the pricipal, which she later stated as separtion and because of her lack of ir knowledge, caswell advise her not to call for removal, you cannot negotiate in bad faith

  18. in my view the only way out to satisfy the immediate interests of the children in the bsence of immediate intervention by me stuart is the immediate removal/transfer of the aggrieved parties to other areas of their respective disciplines and commission an immediate enquiry to investigate the events and then let the chips fall where they may by instituting immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent of the public service disciplinary action on those who have been found to be responsible for the impasse.

  19. @Balance

    You cleary dont underdand the rules governing Public Officers. Go get a copy of the Public Service Act. Natural justice must prevail.

  20. the conclusion have been discuss over and over again by some blogger go back and read most people have said that mr. broomes administrial style or lack of became a challenge and one that Mrs. Greaves met head on .

  21. @AC

    I consider you to very stupid, dont normally say so about people, your reasoining can be compared to that of a KID.

  22. @balance
    I agree

    So many rules and regulations have been broken or ignored that we may have to “persuade” all the entrenched parties (2 or 31)to shift their position (physically and metaphorically) until an investigation can be done, in the interest of children and country. It may not have precedent in the act or law, but may be the only solution given the peculiar circumstance.

  23. @ac & Bush
    If AX had any REAL men to throw sum good lashes in Broomes OLD ASS , You think things wudda reach this far.??

    Seriously now..
    I have been made to understand from a teacher that a AX school boy had sought to chop up Broomes for some flogging he inflicted.

    ..the out come was that Broomes did not attend school until 4.30 pm that evening..

    Broomes is alleged to have been seen peeping around the bamboo area saying ..”stuppes where is he , where is he. ?..See he only got nuff mouth”

  24. @ Caswell .
    You were most gracious in admitting your error that, like several commentators on this impasse you were being led into TAKING A 6 FOR A 9. The problem however with the others is that they continue to refuse to acknowledge that they have been the victims of mass deception, the technique used by Broomes in this whole Alexandra matter. The letters UNSIGNED AND DELIVERED AS POINTED OUT ON 9 JANUARY have been the most insidious examples .
    @ David
    ” what conclusion can be drawn from an unsigned letter being received by the MOE on the 9th of January ”
    The conclusion is obvious. Broomes is more concerned with using public relations techniques aimed at influencing an unsuspecting and uncritical public than addressing the issues raised by the BSTU which hold up his total lack of professionalism in the management of the Alexandra School to public scrutiny . His approach has been that of the POLITICIAN and NOT the PROFESSIONAL TEACHER . Regrettably, he has had some measure of success with a gullible public who seem to be holding on to ” the children not being taught ” as the only relevant issue at stake.
    The ” letter ” of the ALEXANDRA SILENT 22 ” is also worthy of serious scrutiny if it is to be held up as being of any worth in bringing objective discussion into the ongoing saga. The letter is littered with the same emotional language that has confused the issues.. Broomes’ ” kindness and generosity; we must respect positional responsibility and authority ” ( whatever that means ! ) ; ” the principals positive relationship with the children is well known and MAY even upset some of the older teachers…..” Horror of horrors !!!! since when did this become an exceptional quality for teachers? Is this not accepted as an automatic requirement for ALL TEACHERS anymore? This is a puerile letter, unworthy of teachers.
    One sure thing that this letter has done is to show that there is a fracture in the staff at the Alexandra School; half of that staff seems to be in support of Broomes while the other half seems to be against him . We must therefore ask some questions surrounding that fracture.
    1. When did the fracture first begin?
    2. who was the principal involved in the fracture?
    3. when did the fracture worsen?
    4.who was the principal involved in the worsening of the fracture?
    5.who is the principal now that the fracture has led to a breakdown in the school government?
    An honest response to these questions would assist immensely in helping the authorities to find a solution for the problems at Alexandra.
    I shall continue my watch.

    • Watching

      You asked, “When did the fracture first begin?” My information is that it started at a reception to welcome Broomes to the school when he was first appointed.

      Broomes was being introduced to the staff, and when it came to a particular lady Broomes said that he was not shaking her hand because her father cut his ass everyday when he was at school. He then went on to say that the father should have been dead long ago. Needless to say everyone was in shock.

    • @Watching Carefully and Listening

      Thanks for your commentary.

      You should have been able to deduce by now that BU is not likely to go with the flow and trys to bring a little critical analysis to the issues.

      It is also interesting that the views of long time IR practitioner and former civil servant Ellsworth Young as expressed on the weekend have not gained any traction in the discussion so far.

      This is a man who worked in the system and therefore had a birds eye view of the system as a whole.

  25. I am made to understand about to print is a book called

    Character list

    JeFF……..D now uncomfortable man
    Mary……..D embattled pitbull
    Teachers AX….D Spot lighters
    MOE……..D Body shifters
    Dennis…..D one foot Swordsman
    Walter…….D waiting to Raleigh
    BUT……….D lost ma voice…am mm
    Media…….D feeding frenzyers
    NUPW…….D unable to Dock sick-leavers
    Caswell…..D looking for an opportunityer
    Students …D Catcher-upers
    Parents……D Perplexed
    Bloggers….D Unresolved

    Did they leave anybody out ?

  26. I am pulling my hair out in anticipation of Freudel’s handling of this matter, for it is certainly not a simple one. Fire Broomes; he has to, and remove some the teachers; he has to. Remember Broomes and Greaves are two DEMs and Freudel has to choose which DEM he shall disappoint. Oh how these political parties and lodges have been a disservice to Barbados.

  27. “I am pulling my hair out in anticipation of Freudel’s handling of this matter, for it is certainly not a simple one. Fire Broomes; ”

    Lemule …please do not do that! Baldness goes well with only good looking men! 🙂

    Someone was told to do the job that they were put to do or else! So Jonesie has to go back to the table and work. I wonder where dem DEMONS gone? He had seen them in the children ah wondering wha he seeing now? Soucouyants?

  28. To David:
    Between Ellsworth Young and Freundel, I would rahter Freundel. Those who know Young well would agree with me.

  29. To David:
    How do you analyse or respond to a bluffer, for Young is only a big bluffer who complained until he was made a Permanent secretary. He will find himself incapable of giving something to chew on.

    • @lemuel

      Again the question is repeated to you.

      Did you read what he shared in his interview and can you give any critical analysis coming out of it.

  30. To Island Gal;
    These are not my words, but I have been told that I am a good looking man. But remember there are not my words. The bald head would do fine.

  31. David, you asked for comments on the letter so here goes;
    The interpretation that Caswell sought to suggest for his inside information that the letter from Broomes to MOE only reached MOE in January 2012, while dated sometime in June 2011 is not necessarily the correct one.

    The original letter might have been actually lost. This would not be an uncommon situation in the Public Service.

    The original letter might have been intercepted by an interested party in MOE or one of his / her agents long ago. Again, not an uncommon situation in the Public Service where very inefficient registries exist and the imputed interrelationships between one of the parties and persons at MOE suggests that such a possibility is not necessarily a totally remote one.

    Someone at Alexandra could also have intercepted the letter, along with some of the other letters that Caswell tried to build his circumstantial case on, if such is indeed true.

    Caswell’s suggestion is also that Broomes normal modus operandi with sending out memos was to put cc’s on the memo indicating that it had been copied to the MOE, without actually forwarding those memos to the Ministry. Is he saying that it was Broome’s job to actually send the ccs to the intended recipients? Or was that his Secretary’s role? If a system is set up for dealing with ccs should the boss be held responsible for the ccs not being sent on? A thorough investigation at both ends, MOE and Alexandra, should determine where the truth lies in this matter. It should be easy to examine the general paper trail for letters going between the Alexandra head and the MOE.

  32. Blogger call me stupid all you want but how many of us would be willing to substitue quality over substance

  33. Check it Out:
    Please spare me that foolishness that you are expecting us on this blog to believe. You speak as if only you something about the Public Service. If there is a messenger at Alexandra, there would a book where that messenger would have dates when the letters were received at the MOE. Don’t blame the secretary. I could agree with you that the letters could be intercepted, but Broomes could again produce his messenger’s book and someone at the MOE would have to explain why those letters were missing.

  34. To David:
    Having read Elworth Young’s piece again; I am again saying to you that he is not bringing any new that has not been said here on this blog. Notice that 90% of what he said is found in the distant past; he did however admit that he knew little of this particular issue.

  35. Many things here to my simple mind do not add up, I find them difficult to grasp.

    (1) How can this be a men vs women dispute on the simple basis that Mr Broomes is a man and the leader of the BSTU is female and most of the striking teachers are.

    As I understand the situation the students who are still attending Alexandra school – and most seem to support Mr Broomes – have mothers whom they would be loath to go against. Those who attended the recently held parents meeting and appeared to support Mr Broomes were well populated by women as are some teachers still teaching and not on strike. I therefore believe the issue cannot be reduced to a simple men vs women.

    (2) How is it possible to enter negotiations in “good faith” and say before the meeting “you are not backing down”; that implies either your way or no “negotiations” will take place.

    (3) It has been reported that a meeting will be held between the BSTU and Mr Broomes with an input from selected cabinet Ministers and The Minister of Education participating. If a solution is not found a later meeting will be held with Prime Minister Freundel Stuart.

    If the participants know there is a “possibility” of a further meeting with The Prime Minister after this initial meeting; there will not be an urgency to setttle the dispute. The proposed meeting with The Prime Minister should not have been mentioned “now” this should have been a fall back this is not a normal situation.

    To reduce the issue to men vs women is just a fabrication and although in some instances it solicits amusing blogs, it is not near the “root” of the problems; which are misplaced loyalties, perceived injustices and an unwillingness to accept the directives of a person with the authority to give them.

  36. None of us knows the true story and I THINK WE SHOULD all shut up and let the process work.Some of us are looking for notoriety so we pretend that we know.

  37. Sigh, the BSTU is now once again struggling to put together a “cohesive, clear case” to justify their demands. On top of that, there are using two (2) cases of “separation from the past as precedents, when in reality one of them was an admitted case of resignation and the other was a law matter that theoretically was never concluded or decided upon. Stupse again. Someone needs to inform them that sour grapes will not win them their case nor achieve them their ultimatum, and, if they take the road they are taking (my way or the highway), they should be prepared to accept a separation of one or more teachers from Alexandra and the setting of a dangerous precedent

    I’ll try to scan and send you the latest explanation from the BSTU.

    btw, does anyone know where the Deputy Principal is on this matter (physically or figuratively)?? A word form him/her would be instructive.

  38. @ David .
    I warn you ! Hearing from Mr Keith Simmons would not help Broomes’ case.

  39. Lemuel; I agree with you about Elsworth Young’s piece.

    Re. your reaction to my post above, I was not expecting anyone on this blog to believe any of the scenarios I presented as a response to David’s request. I don’t have a clue as to what really happened. I merely presented what I thought were possibilities, remote though they might be, that could be added to the possibility that Caswell hinted at.

    Of course, I could not be the only one on this blog that had some experience with the Public service. Several persons have given insights into various aspects of the civil service that are / were deeper than anything I can offer.

    Read my post again and see if I was saying categorically that any particular one of the scenarios I mentioned was likely to be the true one. Indeed, I suggested, as I think you did also, that a simple investigation should arrive at the truth.

    Yardbroom; I totally agree with your post above.

    • So far we have had dismissals of Young’s view of the civil service and the need to revamp some legislation to ensure better management of the IR in the public service.

      Will leave it me because it seems it is personal with your guys.

  40. So Parliament today, and no meetings (or promise of one). Contradictory or diverging , statements (or actions) from the PM, MOE and Maloney over the past 48 hrs; the BSTU’s ultimatum, withdrawal of teachers and this evening’s deadline still stand; and expectations among all parties so varied that no middle ground can be found. These are our educational leaders, political leaders, teachers and labour representatives.
    Added to that now 0.5% growth, slight uptick in unemployment, tepid expectations at best for 2012 and another “hopeful” 4 seasons date from the MoF.

    Where there is no vision, the people perish. Where there is no leadership, the people flounder about hopelessly, erroneously and misguidingly for an infinite period of time.

  41. So little Dave says:

    “Education is regarded as a fundamental human right”.

    Really? By whom? Have you been keeping up with the last five decades of literature on international law?

    Education is not a right, “fundamental” or otherwise. In international law, you have a basic human right to life and liberty. You have no other “rights” guaranteed by law, for reasons so inescapably obvious that only the dull can’t see them.

  42. David; Hope you’ve calculated and provisioned for the long haul re. your gesture of not updating new blogs until the AX matter is settled. Also hope that you recognize that the environment we are in is likely to bring up some very interesting and bloggable topics before settlement.

  43. @Luke Awyer

    i don’t know where you get such information but “Education” is a fundamental right just like marriage and the right to vote. I also noticed in your tirade on :basic Human rights” you did not include” The pursuit of Happiness. of which education falls under as a personnel fulfilment. You need to do your homework before you misinformed people on such on important issue. Speculation or opinion would not do !

  44. A lot of people are talking about the children suffering, but I remember the teacher’s strike of May 1969. I recall that the teachers stayed out for 4 weeks.

    I was at school then preparing to write my GCE.

    I don’t recall that I suffered.

    In fact I rather enjoyed the teachers being on strike.

    I did slightly better than expected in my exams.

    Have done much better than expected in life.

    Maybe schools/teachers/principals are just not that important.

  45. @ David
    ” Does anyone know where the deputy principal is on this matter..” ?
    It would not be hard to guess EVEN IF one does not know. Broomes in his typical confrontational style and aggression LOCKS HER OUT FROM ANY ACCESS TO HIS OFFICE. There is NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BROOMES AND HIS DEPUTY. Maybe the teachers who wrote about Broomes generosity and kindness would explain this OBVIOUS irregularity. Or maybe this is an example of Broomes’ insistance on respecting ” positional responsibility and authority.”
    This, David, is a fact THAT MAY BE CHECKED. Maybe the ” Alexandra’s silent 22 ” can assist with its authenticity.
    The half has not been told about this man’s folly.

    • The Chief Education Officer confirms in the Barbados Today that the letter that was published in the Sunday Sun, purportedly written in June 2011, was only received in the Ministry of Education on January 9, 2012. That does not surprise me. Broomes has a management style of terrorism by memo. Very often he writes to staff and indicates that the letter was copied to the Ministry but the copies are never sent. In one case a temporary teacher received 59 memos in one year: they have not been destroyed and can still be produced if necessary.

      The obvious question must be: How did the memo reach the Nation? It was not in the Ministry and it certainly would not have helped Mrs. Greaves’s case so why would she release it. Now ask yourself, who was the only other person with access to the letter, and the answer is the same person who would benefit from the public opinion that was generated by its release.

      These silly meetings where the Minister presides are an exercise in time-wasting. Everyone is shedding crocodile tears about the best interest of the children but are not taking any meaningful steps to get them the teachers that they really need.

      The Minister should order an investigation into the operations at Alexandra, and Broomes should be separated from the school while the investigation is on going. The teachers would go back to classes; the children would receive the necessary instruction; and Sanitation could be called in to remove the filth that would be discovered.

  46. You should be wondering why BAPPSS is so solidly behind Broomes. Is it a case that some of them are not much better when it comes to their management style and it is only a matter of enlightened self interest. Some of the same defenders are openly critical of Broomes in other fora, and have even rescued a number of students from Alexandra by finding places for them at their schools because of the toxic environment that surrounds that St. Peter institution. I challenge the principals to deny: I can produce names so be careful in your denials.

  47. @ Barbados Today
    This happens to be the headline of the story in which the Chief Education Officer refutes the claim that the MOE received a complaint , by letter from the principal Mr Jeff Broomes in respect of a teacher, believed to be , and widely publicised to be Mrs Amaida Greaves , refusing to teach a class at the Alexandra School for a complete term. Mr King informs that a thorough investigation within his department revealed that an unsigned letter, believed to be the one referred to and printed in the Sunday Sun of 15 January 2011, reached the Ministry on 9 January 2011, i.e. AFTER THE STRIKE ACTION BEGAN AT THE ALEXANDRA SCHOOL. There was therefore NO COMPLAINT from the principal as was widely publicised.
    This revelation underscores the fact that the teacher Mrs Greaves has been silently suffering from the barbs thrown at her by an ill-informed and mis-informed public that rightfully attaches great importance to the education of the nation’s children ,unjustly ; horrible to tell , her suffering has been brought about by a story that lacks a substratum of TRUTH..Maybe, just maybe, the Law Courts of this country will be called upon to provide the necessary vindication for this unfortunate , and reputedly dedicated teacher. In this whole saga, DECEPTION has taken centre stage;
    TRUTH AND HONESTY have been driven underground.
    The ensuing events have created a sizable fracture in staff relations at the school; the principal Broomes is at the heart of the fracture. Can that fracture be corrected while he remains there ? the BSTU says emphatically, NO ! Reason and commonsense seem to support that stand. BROOMES MUST GO. How this is put into effect is a matter for the Public Service Commission, but it must act expeditiously to repair the fracture. In the meantime, BARBADOS OWES MRS GREAVES AN APOLOGY.

  48. To Mrs Amaida Greaves.

    I hereby tender to you my unqualified apology for the vilification you have suffered at the hand of a hostile public over these past weeks. I enjoin you to take comfort in the principle that ” TRUTH WILL OUT “. Maybe you will find the capacity to forgive those who so readily rushed to condemnation and will continue in the pursuit of practising your vocation with sincerity and consideration for those who come under your charge.

  49. The letter written to Mrs. Greaves is clear, she flouted the authorit of the Princiapl, that cannot be disputed.

    There are a number of factors could have occured in the MOE, specificaslly the CEO not receiving it.

    The Secreatry could have forgot to send the letter to the MOE or deliberatly not send it.
    Could it have been delivered and disappeared, that is posted and or deleivered to the ministry, but was not recorded in the deliverye book and signed for.

    The normal prastice is for correspondence of this nature is to be recorded qnd receipt acknowledged, the signing for a letter does not mean that you are signing for the content of the said letter.

  50. We might at last be seeing the light; but we should not be quick to judgement.

    If the letter was written in June and not received before January, I ask why not look for “evidence”.

    (1) What is the mailing procedure at Alexandra School?
    (2) After Mr Broomes wrote the letter what did he do with it?
    (3) To whom was the letter given as per procedure?
    (4) What did they do with the letter as per procedure?
    (5) Where was the letter between June and January?

    Look for “evidence” that is the key before judgement.

  51. In a report by Ricky Jordan in the Nation News wednesday 18, January, 2012.
    Mr Jeff Broomes is quoted as saying:

    The letter was hand-delivered to officials in the Registry at the Ministry of Education.
    “I don’t know what happened after it got there, but this is the third piece of correspondence that I have had to re-submit which they cannot find.”

    He said ” the other two letters related to payments made for summer school and the school position behavioural programme”.

    Who received the letter/s signed for it/them, and what did they do as per Official Procedure?

  52. Hereis a man whois about to challenge the honesty of the MOE with his brazen declaration of a LETTER which apparantly was not EVER written or delivered in June 2011. The evidence is clear that MR. Broomes is a habitual LIAR Now How can anyone believe what he wrote in the Letter about Mrs. Greaves is TRUE.Further Proof for Mr. Broomes dismissal. He is not TRUSTWORTHY..

  53. checkitot soory my friend you are catching at straws. do not blame mr franklyn, blame mr broomes for misleading you.

    • A letter mailed in June 2011 as reported which records such a serious matter of indiscipline by Greaves there should be active records of followup by Broomes.

      As Yardbroom states, the evidence.

    • Bear in mind Chief Education Officer King has indicated that the records at the MOE does not show evidence of the letter sent by Broomes.

      The ball has now been tossed back at Broomes.

      It is time to dispense with generalities and establish the facts of the case with clear timelines of events and causes.

  54. David don’t hold your breathe! There is only one letter and that is the one The MOE recently received. Anyhow knowing Mr. Broomes he would figure his way out by deceiving the public and blaming others .

  55. @ caswell.
    You are so true in your assessment of some of these BAPSS principals. The president, the principal at Harrison College is at present having an all-out war with his deputy, a man of longstanding commitment at the same school going as far back as 1979. So we must not be surprised by anything said or done by this insecure, new breed of principals. Have you noticed how the males all seem to have this fetish for bright coloured shirts ? Whenever I see one of them in a RECENT photograph he is wearing a red shirt. ” so may the outward show be least themselves”….Shakespare.

  56. @ David and ac.
    I will continue to hammer home the point that because of the interest the public holds in the delivery of education to the nation’s children they have forgotten ALL THAT IS KNOWN OF THE RECORD OF JEFF BROOMES. This has been the plank on which Broomes has built his most recent act of deception. Broomes has been a deceiver for a long time and he has not changed over the years.
    I wonder what will become of him when reason and sanity are returned to the assessment and the longstanding record of excellence which the teacher has starts to inform future discussion. HE MAY BECOME A VERY LONELY MAN.

  57. @Jeff Broomes
    Enter next Blog and …Stand up and TELL THE TRUTH….
    seems like your slip is showing
    If all else fails…… take the $ 2million and RUN, come on time to finish this fiasco now.

    Has anyone in here started a count down clock of how long now this AX matter is going on ?I think it would be a good reminder for the PM’s swift action promise.

  58. Balance;

    I really don’t understand what you are talking about. perhaps you were responding to Blogger 2012 who was also trying to bring some balance to this situation.

    In the absence of facts a truly balanced individual would either wait until a thorough investigation is completed or not comment in a way that supports one of the parties. You do not do justice to your avatar / penname.

    I never said that I supported Mr. Broomes re. the letter. I presented a number of scenarios that tried to balance caswell’s apparent leaning.

    Let me give you some other scenarios;

    Apparently Mr. Broomes is now claiming that the letter was hand delivered to officials in the MOE registry. Is there something wrong with that if it is true? Have the Ministry’s release covered that possibility?

    Would an investigation that did not find the letter in the CEO’s office or anywhere else in the registry negate Mr. Broomes recent claim?

    Why did/nt the “MInistry” or the CEO come out and say something like “we have thoroughly investigated Mr. Broome’s claim that he submitted a letter to this ministry in June 2011 related to an alleged refusal to obey orders and insubordination by Mrs. Greaves and have found no evidence that such a letter was delivered through the normal channels to the CEO or to anyone charged with receiving correspondence in our registry. In addition, our checks have found that no letter was hand delivered to anyone in the Ministry. Mr. Broomes has also not verbally communicated this problem at any time to any official in this Ministry”. Such a letter would have totally demolished Mr. Broomes latest claim. Instead Mr. King’s release only relates to one aspect of the putative letter.

    Do you not think that hand-delivery of a letter of such import would be the most appropriate way to deliver such a letter?

    Did they look in other offices for the letter?

    Is it true or not that many pieces of correspondence get lost at various ministries of Government?

    Did they check with any other officers to determine if Mr Broomes had at any time since May 2010, verbally or otherwise communicated with any official at the Ministry about the letter and indeed about the Greaves matter? Isn’t this just as germaine to the problem as the disputed letter.

    The responses on this board looks like a lynch mob to me and are definitely not balanced.

    Is it possible that a hand delivered letter could have been misplaced or intercepted, especially since its contents might have been inimical to some Ministry relationships?

    A thorough transparent investigation is likely to determine all the facts surrounding this putative letter. The release by the CEO of the MOE does not appear to have been thorough since it did not touch all the bases related to the case and indeed could have been self serving, by seeking to exonerate the Ministry from any blame in the whole matter.

    Who really thinks that the Ministry did not know of the matter?

Comments are closed.