Deputy Principal Beverley Neblett-Lashley (l) Commissioner Frederick Waterman (c) Former Secretary Merlene Sealey (r) – the two women at the centre of the ‘transcript affair’.
On August 25, 2012 BU family member, the venerable Yardbroom, a posted the following comment:
“Reports are that Mr. Vernon Smith QC “RECALLED” Alexandra’s Deputy Principal Beverley Neblett-Lashley and Former Secretary Merlene Sealey to give evidence again before the COI. It is alleged after which “Smith, who questioned the deputy Principal and former secretary, then submitted that there was no evidence before the Commission proving that the allegations against Broomes were true.”
Do you know what questions were asked of them and what their responses were?”
BU tapped its legal resources for an answer and the following is what has been reported to us.
-
In giving her evidence before the Commission, the deputy principal, Beverley Neblett-Lashley, who we will refer to as “Lashley”, introduced a certain document which was supported by the evidence of former secretary, Merlene Sealey, who we will refer to as “Sealey”.
-
This document pertains to an incident in 2003-2004 involving a certain pupil, whom we shall call “Miss X” and her transfer from Combermere to Alexandra.
-
In effecting the transfer, Principal Jeff Broomes (“Broomes”) sought the scholastic records of Miss X from Combermere and these he received by telephone and scribbled them down on a piece of paper, pending the arrival of the formal records from Combermere, which, in typical Barbados fashion, have never arrived.
-
Boomes handed the piece of paper, apparently yellow in colour, to his secretary, as the matter of the transfer of Miss X was to be of a temporary nature, she and her father having decided that she would be better served by going to live with her aunt in Boston and attending school there.
-
Miss X had attended 2nd, 3rd and 4th year at Combermere and came to Alexandra for year 5.
-
However, as a result of the transfer to Alexandra, which suited her better than Combermere, the idea of Miss X going to live and school in the USA was cancelled.
-
It is noted that in the third week of Miss X’s tenure at Alexandra, her form was set a test, which she failed with a score of 19 out of 50. The result of this failure was that the teacher refused to have Miss X in her class. However, Broomes instructed the teacher that she had no right to refuse to teach Miss X and that they were in the business of teaching children, so to get on with it.
-
It is noted (without observation or comment on the part of BU) that the subject failed by Miss X was Chemistry and the Teacher who refused to have her in the class and was corrected and contradicted and instructed by Broomes was Miss Amaida Greaves.
-
Miss X had enjoyed a spotty career with Chemistry while at Combermere, to the extent that her father had engaged private tuition for her in the person of one of the faculty of St Leonards. It was alleged that this spotty career may have been largely due to the conflict of personalities between Miss X and the teacher at Combermere, a person who is a very close friend of Miss Amaida Greaves.
-
Meanwhile, Sealey the Secretary took the paper handed her for filing by Broomes (please recall that this was a temporary note while the official record from Combermere was awaited) and did a transcription on to the letterhead of Alexandra. However, Sealey failed to record that years 2, 3 and 4 were at Combermere and instead entered them as having been at Alexandra.
-
Sealey claimed that Broomes had asked her to type up the Transcript to enable Miss X to go to university (not school) in the USA, a plan which, as has been said, had long been shelved.
-
Sealey and Lashley produced this transcript to the Commission to advance their claim that Broomes had acted fraudulently. It is noted that Sealey not only failed to get the name of the school (Combermere) at which Miss X had spent years 2, 3 and 4 right, but she also failed to get Miss X’s date of birth and her actual verifiable grades right.
-
Sealey and Lashley were recalled to confirm their previous evidence that:
-
Sealey said she gave the document to Lashley on her retirement in 2004.
-
Lashley claimed that she had received the evidence from Sealey in 2004.
-
Sealey claimed that Broomes instructed her to send this document to a school or university in the USA. Please remember that Miss X was in 5th year at Alexandra.
-
Upon re-examination by Mr Vernon Smith QC, Sealey claimed:
-
She did not remember the name of the school or university in the States that Broomes had instructed her to send the document to.
-
Broomes did not give her the name and address of the school or university in writing, but instead, had “told her” verbally. She had not written it down. Presumably because she remembered it, zip code and all, but has since forgotten it.
-
She had not given the document to Lashley in 2004, merely told her about it.
-
The document had been mailed to the unknown school/university in the States and she did not keep a record – and there is no record in the School’s Mail Book.
-
Upon re-examination by Mr Smith, Lashley attested first that she had been away from Alexandra for 4 years, commencing in 2004. She then contradicted her own previous evidence as follows:
-
She did not receive the document from Sealey. Instead she took it down off the school computer on August 3, 2012.
-
Thus, on the evidence, the document never existed at all until August 3, 2012. AND the document was never seen or approved or signed by Broomes and, as the name of the school or university to which Sealey claims to have sent it are unknown and there is no record for them, there is no evidence that the document claimed by Sealey and Lashley ever existed.
-
In the meantime, Miss X, having passed the required number of exams at Alexandra, attended BCC for her “A” levels, in which she distinguished herself. Miss X, having left school, now works.
-
It is noted that Miss X’s father has provided an affidavit and testimony in support of the evidence and the contentions of Broomes.
Thus the document designed to demonstrate fraud on the part of Broomes is, on the evidence before the Commission, itself a fraud allegedly perpetrated and perpetuated by Sealey and Lashley. Our legal eagles suggest that, subject to investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions for which there is now ample grounds especially in light of the status of the Commission, criminal charges of perjury, conspiracy and fraud may well have to be entertained and brought against Sealey and Lashley.
We also take grave issue with the comments of Commissioner Frederick Waterman on the subject of Broomes pitching marbles with the students at Alexandra. Waterman, with the pomposity that comes with age and self-consequence, admonished Broomes thus:
““I don’t believe in that. I don’t see a reason for that,” Waterman told the principal. “If something like that continues there is a possibility they [the students] could lose respect for you. You are the head. You are up there. They are the students, and they are down here,” the commissioner said while gesticulating with his hands in the air.” – Nation August 26, 2012
As Waterman indulged in his fit of pomposity, it was seen that Mr Vernon Smith QC (Waterman’s first cousin and older that Waterman) put his head down in his hands in what later turned out to have been complete total embarrassment as he, Mr Smith, a former teacher at Harrison College, used to stop and pitch marbles with his pupils himself and he doubtless remembers many members of the HC staff doing the same thing – people like Winston “Heads” Marshall and the like – without in any way impairing their authority with the student body. Quite the contrary as this sort of informal social exchange is proved by studies (obviously NOT read by Waterman) to enhance the effectiveness of teachers. Which, if he had any current first-hand knowledge of education, Mr Waterman would know. Obviously his own school days are now so distant as to be unremembered, if not illusory.
Follow the COI from the beginning (in descending order):
- The Alexandra School Commission Of Inquiry
- The Alexandra School Commission Of Inquiry – Part II
- Jeff Broomes Should Beg for Forgiveness
@ Brief .
Who said that the allegation ” was dismissed due to lack of evidence after recalling the witness for cross-examination ” ? This is an erroneous view . The witnesses were recalled by Broomes’ counsel in keeping with their discretion granted by the Statute for Notices of Misconduct ; the Commissioner still has to rule on his finding . Check it out is certainly getting himself all confused and confusing others in the process .
After reading Barbados Today, I am convinced that PM Stuart displays a strong naivete and absurdities that are truly the hallmarks of a man bent on supervision and not leadership. For some strange reason, Stuart’s chorus is riddled with unconcern, no interest, did not see, have not read, will not comment, silence, and all other lyrical content that speaks to procrastination and vision-less caution. PM Stuart, I am a strong critic of yours because you made it that way, not because I am a member of the main opposing party. Your behaviour to my mind is a dereliction of duty and I am sure that Barbadians will make you pay for your incapacity to lead.
Hi Checkit-Out August 27, 2012 @ 9:14PM
Thanks for your input and suggested Alternatives.
I am concerned that you wrote- and you could be right – in reference to the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations/report . . . . “but would this be acceptable to BSTU”
I thought the idea of the COI was to get at the truth with regard to Alexandra School and set a framework for the Education System in Barbados.
If it is just about what BSTU wants, could they not have been simply asked. . . . perhaps we know the answer to that. The central question to be addressed here is the Commission of Inquiry a vehicle to legitimize or rubber-stamp what BSTU wants? I simply ask the question I make no allegation.
It appears to some who have no Political axe to grind that the old adage runs true for Mr. Broomes:
“You may be innocent but innocence is rarely sufficient in itself.”
@Casewell. I think YOU are missing the fundamental point. You and ac are so damned busy trying to defend an indefensible position that you don’t seem to have got the message – we don’t buy your version.
And all the preaching about what the BSTU is prepared to accept would appear to me to ignore the fact that Broomes too has a union. A very large and very powerful union which, so far, has acted with the greatest discretion and restraint. But I am quite sure that this discretion and restraint will end if there is an unfair and biased ruling. So, yes I do believe that there will be seperation, but I doubt it will be Broomes’. In any case, despite the best efforts of people like yourself and ac, you must have registered that the general public is not on your side and sees exactly what the old hens were up to.
And what is this rubbish about a photogenic and persuasive witness? Are you suggesting that the COI ought to be swayed by some woman getting on the stand and displaying her assets? Are you suggesting that the COI will be swayed by the hope that, if they do as she wants, she will give them a taste of the assets? So, as criminal charges go, perjury is not enough for you?
What we have is one retired secretary who has committed perjury, one deputy principal who has colluded in or is also guilty of said perjury and one megalomaniac head of science who takes it upon herself to refuse to teach students (then when they are successful due to private tuition, to try to claim credit). And you think it is satisfactory that our youth should be taught by people like these? But, hey, why not? Look at the morons they have dispensing “justice” in our courts.
I am both amused (cause if you don’t laugh, you cry) and amazed.
these are the highlights in areas where Broomes perjured himself.
in the issue of teacher hiring. broomes denied he such after previously admitting to mr, king he had done so
in the issue of hair cut the teacher b=said broomes gave him the scissors , broomes denied doing so
in the issue of the transcript broomes denied that was is handwriting.
there are also unetheical practices and procedures which mr. broomes did as leader he tried to denied .
yes there is the letter which broomes claims he sent to the MOE has yet to give a reasonable and convincing explanation for and not being able to submit any proof of copies
there is also the controversial aspects to test marks being given to students in which broomes says it is procedure similiar to those in the usa.
there is also the issue of the log book.still not presented in evidence.
@Amused
we don’t buy your version
***************
Who or what is this “we”? I don’t buy your conclusions either, Caswell reported what he heard at the Inquiry is he perjuring himself on BU also?
Caswell, continue to report if you have the time some of us look forward to your first hand reports from the scene.
Sargeant
Thank you, I had just about reached the point of giving up, and then I read your last comment. I cannot understand why Amused and his ilk do not realize that I am not for or against Broomes. I try to be evenhanded by reporting faithfully what I see and hear. I can’t seem to get that through their thick heads. I don’t see them commenting when I write things that favour Broomes. I pointed out that the commission of inquiry has no jurisdiction to separate him. I suppose that they did not read my column (Frankly Speaking)in the Sunday Sun. From all the feedback I am getting, it was well received.
I was extremely pleased with mr gallop adamant interventing as broomes counsel in a last minute attempt to save broomes credibilty on the issue of the transcript revealing once again that broonmes had made several attempts in changing his story. as a counsler for broomes he should have left the issue as i did nothing but to get public attention and awareness of broomes as a manipulator and bon a fide liar capable of making wrong seems right.
@ ac | August 28, 2012 at 8:12 AM |
“and bona fide liar capable of making wrong seems right.”
I like it bad! An oxymoron that only “ac” can devise. It is like saying the man is a truthful liar. Or, in your book of lies and truth, OSA is an honest crook and FS is an effective leader who make decisions faster than Molasses Bolt.
Keep it up.! You are on a roll.
Is it a fact that Broomes authored, signed and transmitted a transcript for a student that he knew (or should have known) did not truthfully reflect the actual performance of the student?
If the answer is yes then this a serious case of misconduct for which he can be fired.
Also of interest is broomes strategy of”THEM” against”ME” which boder on theatrics and was designed to garnished support in the “court”of public opinion however it must be noted one that would not have stood well with COI as it took away the reasonand the importance for the inquiry setting up roadblocks and diversionupon which the commision would stumbled upon making them to look incompetent or baised as they tried to keep the relevant issue of leadership, goverance of schoo laws and regulations a priority
Look at all this nonsense the country is going thru though, which as Caswell has rightly said should have gone the way of PSC….(Caswell don’t mind those who have axes to grind)….Bare nonsense and wastage of money. This country definitely needs a new mandate……sooner now than later. Boo Boos after Boo Boo….stupes
The story is indeed a spin to discredit the witnesses and make Broomes look good. The girl did go overseas but for a 3-month stint. Initially at the enquiry it was questioned whether the document was indeed written/signed by Broomes. Subsequently, after having indicated that a handwriting expert would be summoned, Broomes admitted that it was indeed his handwriting. Now it is being made to look as though the secretary and deputy concocted this story to embarrass him, thereby denying that the written copy submitted as evidence was not his. The father of the child testified (under oath) that his child never went overseas to study and that he never asked for a transcript. Other sources have confirmed that the girl did go. It is also now being said that Broomes asked for and received the child’s grades from Combermere over the telephone, which he scribbled on paper and was awaiting the official transcript from the school. Mind you, he had said earlier that he got the grades from the child’s report book. Each time Broomes was questioned on this matter, something different was said, while the secretary and deputy’s stories never wavered. By the way, they had to be recalled since a notice of misconduct was served on Broomes and his counsel wanted the two witnesses to be questioned again on the matter. This was also why the father was called to give evidence in the matter.
Earlier in this blog I was beginning to think that people were using good reasoning skills in analysing the whole situation. Even when Broomes started his testimony at first bloggers were being objective and fair. I have since seen a change where most have reverted to insulting women, the reason I had stopped following in the early stages in January. Somebody said we are not on here to pull down anybody but based on the comments, I beg to differ. What I am seeing now is an all-out attack on women and anyone who opposes the views of those who support Broomes. Once again it has become a matter of “dem ole hens”, “menopausal and post-menopausal heifers”. Why? Can’t we respect each other’s views and agree to disagree? Some have chosen to remain neutral or fair by asking for balanced evidence but others have jumped on the “old hag”-slaughtering band wagon again.
Most know Broomes as a public figure who usually does good things for people but beyond that many people do not know anything else. I will say again that many people also do not know anything about the women at that school, only what they have heard and seen in enquiry. I believe there are some who teach at the school writing in this forum under pseudo identities in support of or against Broomes – it is clear. But I can tell you, especially from what I saw yesterday, that it is not only “old women” or old scholars that have a problem with how Broomes does things. There are young men and women who are included in that group of 30.
@Casewell. This whole blog is introduced with the words, ““Reports are that Mr. Vernon Smith QC “RECALLED” Alexandra’s Deputy Principal Beverley Neblett-Lashley and Former Secretary Merlene Sealey to give evidence again before the COI. It is alleged after which “Smith, who questioned the deputy Principal and former secretary, then submitted that there was no evidence before the Commission proving that the allegations against Broomes were true.” Do you know what questions were asked of them and what their responses were?”
That is the PREMISE of the blog. A clear answer to a question from Yardbroom.
And BU has answered it based on the recall of witnesses by Mr Smith and Mr Smith’s submission that, “there was no evidence before the Commission proving that the allegations against Broomes were true.”
Then along you come trying to divert the premise of the question upon which the blog is based by stating that Mr Smith gave the information and then, according to you, confirmed self-same information at the Commission.
So, in other words, you accuse BU of providing information as requested by Yardbroom, information that was aired at a PUBLIC COI.
Then, having confirmed that BU’s response to Yardbroom is correct, you and your cohorts try to have the blog removed.
There are times, Casewell, when I truly despair for you.
@ac. You are making yourself into an ever bigger ass. “……….broomes strategy of”THEM” against”ME” which boder on theatrics and was designed to garnished support in the “court”of public opinion……..”
So, tell me, ac, what the hell have you been doing since day one on behalf of Almaida Greaves and the Lashley woman? To the extent that some people think that you ARE Lashley or Greaves.
@Sargeant. Who the hell is “we”? If you mean “you”, say so……but no surprise there – if it was midnight and dark outside and I said so, you would automatically say it was broad daylight.
@miller
“It would show up how purposely incompetent our judicial system really is.”
We already knew this. If people in position WANT something done, it is done “with dispatch.”
The things that are dilly dallied with are things which clearly they do not want despite the hypocritical mouthings otherwise.
@check it out
I was penning a response and some questions but the I read your contributions. Nothing more needs to be said or asked by me.
@simon
“Academic administrators….know how to work fast and effectively…”
really? seriously?
@maxine
“Other sources have confirmed that the girl did go.”
Are “other sources” now our points of reference?
@Caswell
you have focused entirely on Broomes’ side of the transcript story but I have to ask….
was the unoffficial transcript given to the deputy in 2004 as stated?
was an official transcript actually sent overseas as the secretary said? who confirmed this? who signed and/or sent the official transcript?
did the father state that she did not study overseas? do we doubt him?
were you there for the secretary’s and deputy’s cross examination?
I accept your non-bias. Bear in mind though that your earliest comments back in December/January showed a clear antipathy towards Broome. Since then you’ve been rule/regulation focused. Good job.
Observing
@ amused no “ASS” bigger than broomes the one whom you have tried so effortlessly to defend vigourously even to the point of injecting * “conspiracy ” theory you ought to be ashamed of yourself for what,s it worth your effort have shown the level and the depth. width and height which you would pursue to defend illegalities and unethical practices.
Oh! So does it matter now if I had said “legal minds” as opposed to “other sources”? Or did I need to say “reliable” or “informed sources”? I see where this is going. Only certain people’s views are valued on this blog. I am not from the old school and I am not a man so wherever I get my information it must be discredited because it did not come from legal brains. Semantics. How do you know exactly how I got my information? That legal brain that provided the info on which this story was written, has presented a well-structured and believable interpretation, albeit biased. I shall not retreat into my corner as a woman and allow the proud, chest-thumping testosterone to shine in all its glory because what they say is gospel. I have no reason to fear about anything said on this blog because I know I speak he truth, unlike some who have sworn on the Bible to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and still keep changing their story.
@ miller you can slice it .dice it dissect my coments of broomes inany which way . broomes is still a liar and a “dishonest one too.
@maxine
“Only certain people’s views are valued on this blog”
Untrue. I’m a strong believer in letting every voice contend.
re “other sources”
The father stated under oath that she did not. Unless you can point to “other sources” at the Commission then I have to disregard them or allow you to lay an allegation of blatant perjury which you are free to make at this time.
Let me say that I am willing to disregard and discount David’s ENTIRE post here, if anyone who was at the Commission for the rebuttal can dispute it or point out where he or his sources are wrong and/or state unequivocally that
a) a transcript was sent from AX to a school
b) the girl studied overseas at the same school in a
c) that all the above was authorised, certified and signed off by Broomes and
d) that the deputy principal was given this “transcript” since 2004 as stated under oath
He was wrong for writing “wrong marks,” but his wrongness is at the point of initiation, not commission (based on available evidence provided so far). Let me also acknowledge that it’s clear he’s covering his ass (much like previous witnesses)…. the size of the ass or how much of the buttcheeks is the issue we’re debating.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Observing
Hi Maxine August 28, 2012 @ 11:14AM
I hear your voice loud and clear. On a public forum such as BU ( Barbados Underground) you will encounter diverse opinions, some bordering on being rude and disrespectful and not only to women. Never in the years I have posted on BU have I been disrespectful to women, neither men for that matter. Having said all of that, I understand your feelings.
I felt from the beginning of this dispute it was wrong of the BSTU to say Mr. Broomes should be “SEPARATED” from the school..and “I am not backing down”. You cannot negotiate from that position as there is nothing to negotiate. It appeard as only the BSTU way, nothing else would do. It is reasonable to have “grave justifiable concerns” that need to be addressed, but you must not always expect blood to be on the carpet in industrial relations.
You must remember some here say the same thing daily, as if that makes it true ” thinking” they are doing a good job representing their party or case. However, when there is predictability in ones pronouncements, they lose surprise and the necessary cutting edge to influence opinions, as they become mundane. It is against that background people get carried away.
I recall at he height of the dispute a contributor – who shall remain nameless – came on this Blog (BU) and said “Mr. Broomes was clearing his desk and his secretary was in tears.” That shows the lengths some will go to in making their case.
You have requested fairness and on my part it will be given. In the same way as Mr. Broomes deserves fairness as well. I hope that is also given.
@Maxine
Can give us details on the students 3 month overseas visit? You seem to know more than the student’s father so please tell us what school she went to in the US.
Amused, I am not amazed at how well you said the following …..
What we have is one retired secretary who has committed perjury, one deputy principal who has colluded in or is also guilty of said perjury and one megalomaniac head of science who takes it upon herself to refuse to teach students (then when they are successful due to private tuition, to try to claim credit). And you think it is satisfactory that our youth should be taught by people like these? But, hey, why not? Look at the morons they have dispensing “justice” in our courts.
@Yardie
Tell Maxine this is not Alexandra, she will have no measure of success in calling for a change in how we do things here.
@Amused “So, tell me, ac, what the hell have you been doing since day one on behalf of Almaida Greaves and the Lashley woman? To the extent that some people think that you ARE Lashley or Greaves.”
Impossible. Both Mr.s Lashley and Mrs Broomes can write well.
Poor ac cannot write to save her life.
Caswell Franklyn | August 28, 2012 at 1:27 AM |
Brief
I think that you and the others supporting Broomes are missing a fundamental point when you are discussing the secretary’s handling of the marks which are now reported to be Combermere’s marks.
I don’t know where I said that I am supporting Broomes. I don’t know where it is written that Waterman is supporting the BSTU.
In the beginning, way back in the strike YOU had first hand info of Broomes’ injustices, improprieties, illmanners, infelicities, etc, etc etc.
I am seeking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Sec and Deputy without concrete documented evidence (like any other witness) placed themselves as appearing mischievous and malicious. THAT IS A FACT.
Men and women have written this blog and called you names that indicate that you are contrary to the truth – I do not see where I agree with them – I did not even query their mouthings nor posits.
Sir, your identification is well known I shall not seek in anyway to discredit your postings. I am asking for clarification on statements made by witnesses and as one rightly corrected me – Misconduct was filed against Broomes and his attorneys requested according to law to cross-examine the witnesses. The Commissioner allowed the cross-examination and therefore this post is up.
Like any who is reading including Maxine beloved, the accuracy of the posting will have to be crystal clear and evidence diamond hard for a true conclusion to be made by the readers.
Some of us can analyse, some are slow – if I am slow – you are a responsible adult and fair and a teacher in your own style and should treat me with respect and lead me to the truth so that I can acquire the knowledge that you have to come to the same conclusion as yourself (if I would).
Here is a clarification statement especially to Caswell and Amazing.
From the beginning of the AX matter discerning BU bloggers/commenters have had to peel away the agendas being played in this forum by several sides – government, AX, Broomes, BSTU, NUPW etc. One thing we have been able to fine tune over the years on BU is to show the capacity to embrace ALL views and allow the BU family et al to draw their conclusions.
Oftentimes in the elucidation process valuable nuggets of information is exposed.
@simple simon good retort is that the best you can do to save BRoomes life just for the sake of clarification it is broomes expert handwriting that have got him in trouble and his driving inablity to “coverup” has not served him well fueling faceless attacks by you and others on thise who dare to disagree the contents of what i write delivers the intended message “broomes must GO” simply said.
@ ac
Shouldn’t Amaida go as well? She refused to take a student who achieved 38% and was determined to keep that child who was seeking to learn a most challenging subject. No one is trying to save Broomes – we out here definitely cannot save him – not even the PM can save him according to Caswell’s knowledge of the Act which we cannot refute.
I do not know if a teacher is allowed to refuse to teach a child that was illegal to the island. This child needed assistance – additional tutoring, encouragement and being transferred from a previous school a warm welcome not rejection.
If the way she was allowed into the school was by incorrect procedure Amaida had the right to follow due process to right the wrong. She eventually taught the child but she is not without sin in all of the problems.
Caswell asked that she be commended for a job well done … shouldn’t Broomes be commended for insisting that Amaida teach the student. Do any of you have the heart to say that this time Broomes made the best judgment call and commend him? ac, Maxine, Caswell, miller?
THIS IS FAIRNESS. EQUITY IN FULL COLOUR –
Maxine:
let us hear you on this one – you talk about treatment (ill-treatment) will you commend or condemn the initiator and the man who stuck to his heartfelt belief that the child should be given a chance?
Brief
I have no difficulty accepting that Broomes has done many good things in his career. I readily admit that, but for him, the child would not have taken Chemistry which she passed. He probably saw something that the teachers at Combermere and Mrs. Greaves missed. However, you must admit that Mrs. Greaves was right when she said that the child did not meet the requirements for fifth form Chemistry. Thankfully, Broomes made a judgement call that paid off.
ac:
Also, shouldn’t the Deputy go as well?
For the Deputy is not without sin either – the document that went to the COI by the Deputy should have been taken to the Board and MOE. I do not see how Keith Simmons would allow that to slide if it was drawn to his attention. The University did not seek verification. These women brought this up at this time to use it as a final straw to break the camel’s back.
Do you consider them warmhearted, loving, caring, competent, industrious women of whom we should be proud today. Of course they are – let us not take away from their stirling performance attention to children and detail and upholding the law. Did they portrait this in the hearing – they did not have to fight for their jobs nor for Broomes to be removed. Their own personal experience was enough.
However, as far as I am concern they are accomplices in the ‘transcript’ affair. If they had a problem they are various ways of using discretion. That child is a full woman today and her father was asked to a COI in relation to a comment of a Principal that a teacher did not teach for a term. Remember this was their final straw (Broomes comments at Speech Day), their backs were broken, they had enough of him and he must be exposed. Weren’t they exposed as well? They dragged in a child (now a full woman) to agitate the removal of Broomes through an act of misconduct which could have been used for less than $600,000.00 if they wanted him out.
They should have taken the evidence to their own attorney and asked to be guided. If they were not satisfied go to another Leroy Inniss QC is still alive, Cecily Chase Attorney Louis Tull, Richard Cheltenham all attorneys some QC’s even Freundel Stuart. Ed Bushell could have been asked a question AND THEIR VERY OWN KEITH SIMMONS.
ac: Would you trust these women after this? Step back, look, listen …
I repeat these women behaved mischievous and malicious. This post will stay until CLARIFICATION COMES.
My comments are based on what I read in media and what is placed here. My decision on the integrity of these parties is still ‘A man is innocent until proven guilty’ therefore as human beings they will get the utmost respect from me.
Always remember we have Garcia housing and feeding and he committed a criminal offence and will be granted free housing here in Barbados and re-initiated into our society. As I show him compassion, you my brethren have my compassion. Be it far from me to offer less.
Both the heads of departments and the Principal have shown that they are total men and women. They have spoken and made impressions of themselves which will cause some to stare in disbelief, look on with compassion, crucify without mercy, or ignore and say such as life, next.
@ David
“Oftentimes in the elucidation process valuable nuggets of information is exposed.”
Thanks David. When these nuggets have to go through the furnace even our learned colleague Caswell understands the finish product is worth the time spent in research and questioning. If burning results in ashes we dig again and that is never easy – the strongest of men can become disillusional.
Again, David thanks for the reminder.
So what now?
A whole lot of juvenile b e by egotistical simpletons masquerading as competent professionals.
Teacher refuses to teach class without a viable explanation. After 3 classes of her refusal to do what she is paid to do, the Principal,the board, the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education should have dealt with this matter.
The most important factor in this debacle…….
THE CHILDREN who did not get taught for a whole term by the teacher who was supposed to teach them. maybe they were pitching marbles with the Principal.
How can a Nation of intelligent educated people accept a system that allowed this to happen?
HONESTLY BRIEF
DO YOU REALLY HONESTLY EXPECT AC TO COMPREHEND OR FOLLOW YOUR ORDERLY.ORGANIZED EXPOSITION?
DONT YOU KNOW THAT WHEN THE LOWLY EQUINOIDS GO ON PARADE, SHE GETS TO WEAR A RED SASH?
SHE RANKS EXTREMELY HIGH IN THAT SORORITY
YOUR LOGIC IS WASTED ON HER
Brief@ac
Shouldn’t Amaida go as well? She refused to take a student who achieved 38% and was determined to keep that child who was seeking to learn a most challenging subject.
you see Brief i have a problem with the word “REFUSED” and the context in which it is used.and i do believe what Amaida said there was a policy at AX which did not allow students to move into a higher level if they had failed the required test and the child had not met the required standard. so i am not going to join with you or others circling the wagon highlighting the word “refused” knowing that she was in her right to do so govern by by school policy. However the father had the guts to challenge such policy and broomes as always never disappointing and knowing what might have been heading towards him by the father did Wat was best for himself and the child and buckled under pressure and amida was the fall gal..
To All—Broome has done some wrong and he has done some good things also –he has been beaten with many stripes over the pass few weeks ,the same for all the teachers do nt matter what school they work at primary secondard or University -that professional has been hurt real bad -let us all come together and try to rebuild and move from strength to strenght -the future of this Country depends on our techerrsand children –please do misunderstand me –the future depends on all of us young and old plus the unborn —so lets us all move on corregt our mistakes and go -some will have to say good bye but it may just be a blessing indidguise —-
DAVID -I have been reading this blog for along time it is educational and useful we the readers do get NEWS that the other media houses do refuse to carry -i wish to thank all who has been informing us and keeping us up to date —-i do have one lash for you i had posted some licks on balance and you took it down but thats ok with me -you are forgiven—lets forgive Broome and all the movie stars for the bad parts they played and thank them for the good parts —the loosers on both sides are the children .
Bush tea do help Caswell to develope that new party –may be i will run against the AG -should you and caswell need me
@erice
Several here post to the blog using the cloak of anonymity for obvious reasons. If in circumstances a comment is posted which challenges that position we feel obligated to intervene. Hope you understand.
As I said on many occasion, I am neither for nor against Broomes: I call things as I see them. I do not expect everyone to agree with me.
The Waterman Commission of Inquiry reminded me of an old western movie that I watched many years ago. An accused was in a jail cell awaiting a trial when the trial judge paid him a visit. The judge said to the accused, “We are going to give you a fair trial and then we are going to hang you”.
A commission of inquiry is not a criminal trial but I could not help but come away with the impression that Broomes was on trial. While I believe that he has a lot to answer, I do not believe that the process was fair to him but he is co-operating with farce that is being perpetuated against him.
All of the problems that were highlighted at Alexandra School is system wide and well known to the Ministry of Education. This country did not need an expensive inquiry to identify the problems. They were identified already but the officials who should manage the system failed or neglected to do their jobs for a number of reasons, particularly: political interference; lodge connections; friendship; and school ties.
Barbados owes a debt of gratitude to the BSTU for highlighting the infelicities at Alexandra School even though it was tardy in seeking to protect its members rights but at least it tried. The same cannot be said for the other teachers’ union: it only protects its members’ rights when the BLP is in power. The executive committee of that union over the years has been used as a stepping stone for promotion in the teaching service. Since its inception in 1974 only about two of its executive members did not attain promotion, in some cases undeserved, or they ended up in political office. Only the BSTU has remained true to its members. You may question its methods but not its commitment to its membership. BARBADOS UNION IF TEACHERS IS SERVING NO USEFUL PURPOSE especially with a DLP administration in office.
HANTS
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS SIMPLE
WE EXTOL MEDIOCRITY AND HATE EXCELLENCE
WE HATE AND DERIDE AND DENIGRATE THOSE WHO HAVE WORKED HARD TO ATTAIN AND ACHIEVE
LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION OF THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT
CONSIDER THE PETTY PUERILE PEDESTRIAN PITHLE PRESENTED IN THIS COI
@Hants & GP
Actually society now applauds form over substance when cultural norms, school tie, lodge and other fraternities override the imperatives of what is systematically required.
GP
IS THAT YOU? YUH KINDA LITTLE LATE FOR CLASS! DO YOU HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE? BTW YOUR ARE ABOUT SIX WEEKS LATE ! GO TO THE BACK OF THE CLASS AND DO ONE HUNDRED PUSH UPS! NO EXCUSES!
David –I do understand -thats why i said to you that you are forgiven –we win some and we loose some but we must be always be big enough to forgive and move on -that is what builds good relationships -respect due to you ,
@Caswell
Interesting statement, why should we (general public/members) not give more weight to questioning ‘methods’ commitment is a given. A little pedantic but a query nevertheless.
David
Many persons questioned why the BSTU did not follow the grievance procedure in the Public Service Act. I think it was a fair question from persons who only heard or did not understand the procedure. That is what I mean by questioning their methods. Mind you the answer to that question is that the Grievance Procedure did not apply in this case. It fought as best it could for its member. On the other hand, I am saying that BUT is committed to everything other than the best interest of its members. They seem to put commitment to party and commitment to ensuring promotion of its executive above all else.
brief @ ac Also, shouldn’t the Deputy go as well?
For the Deputy is not without sin either – the document that went to the COI by the Deputy should have been taken to the Board and MOE. I do not see how Keith Simmons would allow that to slide if it was drawn to his attention. The University did not seek verification. These women brought this up at this time to use it as a final straw to break the camel’s back.
if indeed she was in violation of any rules or conduct with intent to harm or show disrespect towards school or colleagues then she should pay whatever price necessary! only if proven. however her keeping a transcript for an extended period of time proves what and under what civil service act can she be dismissed it seems like all the excitement surrounding this teachers has lost sight of the fact that mr, broomes used illegal method to falsified a child’s progress record and as head and leader of an organisation he showed poor judgement and broke a law. however if any disciplinary action should be taken against the deputy it should be minor when compared to the actions broomes took when he knowingly and willfully falsified that transcript.the conspiracy theory is all hogwash as she be dismissed as such doesn’t have legs to stand on ground.
Brief @ ac: Would you trust these women after this? Step back, look, listen …
Aren’t these some of the same teachers who taught at AX prior to Broomes arrival. the record speaks for itself of all those years before Broomes arrival a school of clam and tranquilty a school where teacher principal and children got along . now we are trying to capsule the bad years under broomes management while we forget the good years of peace .so YES i will trust those teachers and not only Trust them but give them the respect they deserve
Many years ago,late 70’s or early 80’s,I was among a coterie of friends at an outing of a certain institution and it was held somewhere in the north of the island.I recall there was a young man in his 20’s,not part of our group but who appeared to be familiar with some of my group ,and who was very passionate in his topic of teaching, adamant that he so enjoyed that vocation that he would not want to do anything else.That surprised me and it left me with that memory to this day.I have wrestled with this memory in the past few weeks and I am convinced the young man was Jeff Broomes.He had said he taught at St Lucy Secondary.
“I felt from the beginning of this dispute it was wrong of the BSTU to say Mr. Broomes should be “SEPARATED” from the school”
What makes it wrong or right?
if in the opinion of the BSTU the only way for the school to function in a normal environment is for Mr Broomes to take exit, what is wrong with that or on the contrary if some of us in our opinion feel that the teachers should take their exit for the school to function properly- what would be wrong with that as well? opinions are like asses, we all have one.
@Caswell
You may have a point there.There are 2 current Principals who were of the BUT and who were thorns in the side of the MOE in the reign of the BLP.They were both kicked upstairs.
“shouldn’t Broomes be commended for insisting that Amaida teach the student”
Mr Broomes shouldn’t be commended for anything other than for dereliction of duty for failing to discipline Mrs Greavesas he was so mandated for her dereliction of failing to teach. Rather, Mr Broomes chose to use the forum of a speechday event almost a year after Mrs Greaves dereliction to grandstand the incident to his own advantage.
Caswell Franklyn,
IS REALLY PROVING HIMSELF AS THE FRAUD I KNOW HIM TO BE.
i AM STILL WAITING ON HIM TO PROVE TO US HOW THE GOV’T OF BARBADOS OWE HIM $ 16,000.00
these are troublesome and most profound issues heard in he testimony against broomes,
Derelict of duty. Broomes failure to report or to participate in any investigation surrounding a teacher for engaging in sexual assault of students . failure of not reporting a teacher for not going to class to which he says she was assigned to teach . Broomes taking control of the school treasury. misappropriation of school funds. using a public forum to address and discredit teachers . change the test scores or grades of students where they might have scored negatively. hiring teachers who were not fully qualified and assigning them to classes that they were not qualified to teach. refusing to implement the necessary recommendations requested by the BOI. refusal to have head of dept involved with school duties or curriculum.taken unusual disciplinary action which infringes on a students right these are the some of the burning issues which the COI would have to wrestled with and determine the best course of action one that would put an end to the long drawn out and hostile enviroment under which the school has endured and has left a principal battered and bruised and teachers asking WHY and children wondering what next.
in my closing on this subject : over the weekes and months i have read many comments in support of broomes the and i for one would not dispute them i do believe that the person broomes is very charasamatic lovable and likeable and those are the characteristics that must have endeared so many to him including children and parents as i close on this issues i would be hardpress not to agree even with all that i have said because there are those who might have engaged with him outside his professional life and see what those of us have never seen in his personnal life as i move away from this issue i wish nothing but the best for all the parties involved especially the children that a quick and amicable resolved would be found brining and end and closure to a school which only deserves the best .god speed to the Teachers principle and students . all the best!
the Commission is a fraud
the Commissioner -elitist
the Prime Minister- dont carish
I dont expect anything of substance from this $598,000 waste of time
@erice
Well said, well put
@ac
One of these days you’ll get it and be able to convey it. I hope I’m around
@caswell
You’ve been stable of late but you’ve introduced a googly without a decent run up. Promotions or elevations aside, can you give any instance(s) where the BUT has acted (or not acted) to the detriment or disadvantage of its members? Or how they’ve shown “non commitment” to them?
@ac
I just saw your last comment. I retract my previous comment…..
no hard feelings 🙂
Hi balance August 28, 2012 @8:48PM
You quoted: “I felt from the beginning of the dispute it was wrong of the BSTU to say Mr. Broomes should be separated from the school” you did not add” and “I am not backing down” which I also said.
I posted the above so may I address your comments.
Balance you appear to be in the thick of it, but I will only do as I have been taught follow the “EVIDENCE”.
If you enter a room to settle an industrial dispute and state your demands and then add” I am not backing down.” with an ultimatum there is really nothing to negotiate. You are saying to the other side you might as well pack up and go home, unless you accede to my demands.
It is that “attitude” which is at the CORE of the problems at Alexandra School. There is no flexibility in positions, the result of that inflexible thinking has been laid bare for all to see at the Commission of Inquiry. In a professional environment, representing professionals you are expected to be “Professional” and not try to bully others, particularly when you accuse others of such behaviour.
Another factor, infelicities real or imagined were stored or kept even passed around long after one had exited the school to trip the unwary or be used at an opportune time. They pushed out the train to oblivion, thinking I will take you to the furnace of fire even if I am not here, come what may. . . the Gestapo would have been proud.
@Amused
you have bowled some porkers at Caswell on this one and he has not recovered yet and he has not repsonded to the questions posited. I must admit, your submissions on this topic were excellent. I am awaiting the Commissioner’s report. My predictions are, either Broomes stay or there will be a court matter.
While we defend or chastise Broomes or the teachers or the ancillary staff or the Board of Management, It is my contention that the only group which is truly suffering a loss is the present students of Alexandra. With less than 2 weeks before the start of the new academic year, it appears that the status quo at Alexandra will remain.
This is depressing. The apparently moribund Ministry of Education with its attitude of assumed impotence has done nothing to bring any relief to the concerns or anxiety of students and their parents. Is it reasonable to assume that by holding a Commission of Inquiry and nothing else that all will now be well?
Whether it is to remove Broomes, teachers and/or the Board of Management, it is my fervent prayer that some decisive action is taken before the start of term to bring a settled atmosphere at that school which is conducive to students happily learning, playing and reaching their potential. The adults can continue to fight it out in the courts or wherever away from students.
The “real” issue as Bush Tea constantly reminds us is the absolute lack of leadership. When the craft is experiencing turbulence the autopilot is switched off and the captain takes over control. However it appears that in the Alexandra matter not only is the captain not taking control, the passengers on looking through the window are seeing to their horror that he has jumped craft and is parachuting to his own safety!
@To the point | August 29, 2012 at 7:19 AM. Thanks. I have made every effort to follow the lead of Observing and simply observe and follow the evidence.
And yes, you are right. Reputation-wise, even if the MoE was to offer Broomes a far more important job, he would have to turn it down and insist on continuing at Alexandra. If the MoE does not confirm his position, then it would be defamatory and he would have a massive cause of action. One which Messrs Smith and McCarthy have taken pains to ensure that he would win. If not in the moronic courts of Barbados, then before the CCJ. So yes, you are correct. But I note that only the BSTU, which is most assuredly behind the 8 ball on this one, is giving ultimatums.
I said from the very start before there was any talk of a COI that there is no evidence whatsoever that Broomes breached his contract in any way. I have also said that I consider the strike called by the BSTU to have caused a breach of contract on the parts of those members who went out on strike.
Since matters are so clear, on the sole issue in question before the Commission, now that the evidence is in, I can now say that my opinion, without reservation, is that Broomes has NO CASE TO ANSWER.
Therefore, now it is over (and the closing arguments are for the layman only, not for those of us who feel that we can work with the evidence) I have to say that the purpose of a COI escapes me totally. UNLESS the COI was called in order to carry out a general house-cleaning at the MoE, a house-cleaning that is several decades overdue. Well, the jury is still out on that. BUT, if that is not the reason, then it has been a monumental waste of money. There was never any case for Broomes to answer and the striking teachers should have been fired forthwith. Done wid dat!
Given the conduct of the Commissioner and his apparent lack of knowledge of the actual scope of his own authority and comments of such clear bias, I had to ask myself if the COI was not designed as a witch hunt to uphold the illegal actions of the BSTU, while finding fault with Broomes’ legal conduct. Of course, it might turn out that the COI was held so that Government could be given good grounds to fire the teachers and take sanctions against the union. We shall see.
Then, there is the phone hacking and finally the recall by Broomes’ counsel of Sealey and Lashley so that these counsel could show without a scintilla of doubt that Sealey had committed perjury and Lashley had conspired with her to commit perjury. Meanwhile, our resident wannabe lawyer, Casewell, with his buddies, ac and Amazing, made serious efforts to suggest that information in an OPEN COI reported on by BU ought to be withdrawn so that the general public cannot read it. In other words, to use the words of another member of the BU family, the public is to be treated like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed on shit. The fact that not a single other news outlet, including Barbados Today, would report what happened in the COI with the perjury is, frankly, disquieting in a so-called democratic society. And don’t give me no shite about sub judice. Sub judice does not enter into it – it is called “fair comment” and the fact that it is of public concern and interest means that there is no reason for the press to have failed to report fully.
And let us not forget the conflict of interest of Keith Simmons JuC. For a member of the inner bar to say that he does not agree that he is in conflict of interest, merely demonstrates how far the letters QC have been debased.
It is to be noted that the comments of Waterman on marbles, which comments were not illegal, merely pompous, stupid and ill-advised, were widely reported. But it appears that the press considers marbles to be more important than perjury. Let us see if the Commission takes its lead from the press on this was well.
@Amused
To be fair to the Barbados Today Editor in Chief Roy Morris declared early on he has a personal interest in the AX matter.
Amused
I must refer to your comment at 8:40 am and point out that they are not only erroneous but completely biased. Firstly the commissioner does not have a sole matter to determine: according to his terms of reference, he has to determine four separate matters.
The reason I asked David to take down this post was simple. The matters that he was reporting as evidence and as matters raised at the commission of inquiry did not happen up to the time that they were reported on BU. To my surprise the matters raised by David were eventually delivered as submissions of Vernon Smith the following day. By the way, he was the only one that had the same interpretation of the evidence as BU and it was comprehensively rebutted by Hal Gollop.
Yardbrom—balance is a friend of Dennis Clarke and Walter Maloney who are both drinking partners of Jeff Broome , these two had alot to say beforethe COI started -recall Deenis saying we were willing to go to the CCJ with this matter ,yet dennis nor walter lifted a hand to help him at the COI -but they were at the meeting with minister Jones lambased Phill Perry but they Wallter Maloney |Dennis Clarke
never took the COI stand to defend his drinking buddy -infact the NUPW was quiet but we can recall some time ago the it was stated by Caswell that Dennis and Broome had two (20 four hours meeting behind closed doors and that Dennis represented him at CTUSAB meetings yet they did not take the stand to represent him —
@David. I did not realise that. But, such a conflict merely means that he puts in place a Chinese Wall or Firewall between himself and the reports on AX so that his declared interest does not become a factor in fair and balanced reporting. The issue of the document was of great importance. As Observing (I think it was) said, this was the “smoking gun” to be used against Broomes. That it was completely discredited is very important news.
That said, I do admit that the Barbados Today reporting was very well done, except and solely for that one lapse. Pity it was such a major one.
Amused;
Good summation. But I note that practically everyone has taken the PM’s role out of the equation, as was eminently well designed in the TOR.
The PM, from early, demonstrably telegraphed that he was totally on the side of the BSTU even though he later moved back from that position.
He refused to follow the tenets of natural justice by refusing to hear Broome’s side of the argument directly (If he had heard the Principal’s side and the MOE side and he was minded to do the right thing perhaps the Commission might not have been necessary). He distanced himself from his Ministry and Minister of Education. He met only with the BSTU side, several times. Amazed (I think it was or it could be AC, who both seemed to be well connected) informed us that the situation had been essentially solved through the changing of the membership of the relevant Services Commission which would do the necessary in quick order.
That was not to be, and the COI was born with what, in retrospect, appears to have been the same objective that had been expected of the Services Commission. It was clearly suggested that, a-priori, the Commissioner might rule in a way that would disappoint OSA who was presumably one of the principal’s purported drinking buddies.
At this juncture the Commission of Enquiry (COE) appears to have been a different COE, a Comedy of Errors. But that may change. Sense may prevail. If it doesn’t and the Commissioner makes recommendations that appear to be in conflict with natural justice and that are acted on with dispatch or even prematurely, it may presage a turn of events that may not be too kind to the political ambitions of several people.
Checkit-out
You continue to make one fundamental error when you refer to the PM’s involvement. You keep saying that he only heard one side and hence denied Broomes natural justice. He could not have denied Broomes or anyone else natural justice because it was not his role to determine the justice of the matter. In essence the PM was acting ultra vires the Constitution. He was out of ORDER.
David
have you read page 4 of Barbados Today, headline “Books must be made available”?
I particularly note that part of the article which reads “Several parents also shared her plight, complaining about the implementation of fess at the Richmond Gap institution and other schools across the island.”
http://www.barbadostoday.bb/launch.aspx?referral=other&refresh=7i1Q03DbLc20&PBID=87ad6005-1972-4d63-92b0-8927eda53c7a&skip=
According to another poster, this story is completely untrue! I hope this is conveyed to the editor of Barbados Today.
Now my substantive concern: How can a Principal disobey the explicit instructions of the Ministry of Education and remain in the position? Isn’t this what got us in this Alexandra mess in the first place?
@erice
Once we hit the Commission stage Maloney and Clarke had no “purvue.” They became observers just like us.
@Amused & Check-it-out
Observing minds think alike 🙂 Despite all the evidence, revaleations and eventual report, the recommendations have to go one way (separation of Broomes, even with others behind him) or the other (he stays in some for with some professional support at the school). If he stays all hell will break lose from the BSTU end since they have accepted option 1 as the only one they will accept.
Collateral damage, precedents and political fall out will definitely come afterwards.
@Yardbroom
“Isn’t this what got us in this Alexandra mess in the first place”
You may be surprised at how many other messes are there lurking under the surface. Stay tuned.
Just observing
Can someone explain how the President of the BSTU could state that the former Chief Education Officer opposed the appointment of Broomes and the former CEO is not called to verify or rebut the claim? Is it because it is a hearsay statement that it was discounted? I am told (by some who claim to be “in the know”) that the then Minister of Education Greenidge and the Permanent Secretary also opposed Broomes appointment.
So is it germane to the issue to detail the circumstances of Broomes appointment?
If the situation that I have described above is true (and it may not be) would that have a political dimension in that it may be evidence of the unsuitability of certain persons for positions of high office? Once bitten…
@Ping Pong
“So is it germane to the issue to detail the circumstances of Broomes appointment?”
you are 24 hour too late. Commission dun. lol.
The raw political dimension was never allowed to play out, hence as Caswell has said from day one, the real problem still remains.
Observing ..
“Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want…
Sorry, my dear!
But where are the clowns
Quick – Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career.
But where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns…
Well, maybe next year. ”
From the song “Send in the Clowns” written by Stephen Sondheim in 1973.
@ Amused:
The issue of the document was of great importance. As Observing (I think it was) said, this was the “smoking gun” to be used against Broomes. That it was completely discredited is very important news.”
Maybe to onlookers it is important news, however, after the cross-examination on misconduct of Broomes, Waterman said that I would bear in mind what the witnesses said. I thought that Waterman’s tone appeared dismissive of the witnesses comments. The issue met dead end on four occassions waterman also commented on the last day of questioning when Broomes’ Attorney attempted to re-visit it.
Unfortunately the COI appeared to be placing Broomes on trial with predetermined sentencing. The BSTU did not meet with Broomes therefore they could not hear his side of the story and no-one acknowledged that. True, Broomes refused to meet with them – but hey there is no record nor news that suggests that PM Stuart heard Broomes’ exclusively either. So the COI was ordered and we heard all stories, good, bad and ugly.
The MOE, Board, Prinicpal and staff of AX have to continue seamlessly and work harmoniously to repair breaches in human relations, professional misconduct and distrust.
There is a song by Nicole Mullin … “When I call on Jesus, all things are possible, I can spread my wings like eagles and soar, When I call on Jesus mountains are moveable ’cause He’ll move heaven and earth to come rescue me when I call.”
Observing and Ping pong
At last I am beginning to see what Caswell often referred to as the aspect of the politics of inclusion in the broomes saga. That statement by Redman needed to be followed up to get at one of the basic building blocks of the AX problem. Omitted, the multidimensional picture, has been totally blurred.
It seems obvious now that the wider inter political linkages and possible infelicities on both sides of the political spectrum could not have been allowed to be ventilated in public.
Thanks! and thanks too Caswell.
I’ll hopefully return to this later.
Hello Caswell Franklyn,
You are yet to tell us how much money the Gov’t of Barbados really owes you.
$ 16,000.00 , $ 10,000.00 or zilch ?
At least your brother who works at the NIS Dept is not so deceptive like you.
How is your wife Rhonda ?
@caswell
“He was out of ORDER.”
Leh we separate he too den!
by twh way, David’s post says midstream that
“Upon re-examination by Mr Vernon Smith QC, Sealey claimed:”
Are all the statements that follow this statement untrue???
And are you saying that Smith did not reexamine Sealy or Neblett Lashley thus eliciting the information provided in this post and instead just provided a “submission”?
Or that the child actually did attend university overseas despite the father’s testimony that she didn’t?
I admit you have a wealth of knowledge at your disposal but methinks you conveniently leave “holes” in your explanations at times.
btw again, I’m stiil curious as to how the BUT has disadvantage or been a disservice to its members.
Just observing.
While we say in this instance that the BSTU was wrong to make one demand or ultimatum I think we ought to cast our minds back to the fact that the BSTU would have attended many meetings with the MOE, including at least one with the current Minister of Education, where they exercised good faith and believed that the problems festering at Alexandra would have been addressed. Unlike some people who are only now following the issue since 2011/2012, I have been looking on from as far back as 2006. If you check carefully you would realise that the BSTU is repeating itself all the time about the same issues that still plague the school and have not been addressed since 2006. I therefore humbly submit that the BSTU has made efforts in the past to avoid the situation coming to something like this, where they accepted the promise of the MOE to do something. It would appear that at some point the MOE tried but its directives were ignored. That begs the question, what next should have happened?
It was unfortunate that things got as bad as they did but I think the BSTU was not left with many options, if any, having gone to the negotiating table many times before. I guess if they were not adamant about his separation, more promises would have been made and broken, things would continue to fester at the school and the education system would be not better of, for there are many similar problems at other schools. In all fairness, the man issued fighting words, so the fight was brought on. And when you have two stubborn parties trying to prove a point this is what you get. It could have been The St. Michael School or even The Alleyne School. Strange way to bring about change but you know that we only take notice of a serious problem when something bad happens and then there’s a huge outcry. We put security measures in place after our houses have been burgled; we put traffic lights or a round-a-bout at a junction after there have been numerous accidents; we change the education act when we realise that there are flaws that are detrimental. I pray for the days when we are more proactive and not so reactive.
Maxine
I am sorry to tell you but your last comment, even though factual, will be disregarded by many on this blog because it is not what they want to hear. They seem to be saying, we are holding on to our positions no matter what the facts happen to be: we want it so therefore it is so.
@Ping Pong
Read the story this matter is yet another symptom of the kind of management in our education system.
David
Our educational system is broken and is in need of a complete overhaul. The situation at Alexandra is not the exception: it is just the most publicized. The bad things that go on at schools around this country that go unpunished would curl your hair. Right now I am checking some information about a primary school head that was required by the Ministry of Education to attend anger management classes.
Over the years, we have had cases of teachers including a principal impregnating students with no subsequent punishment. Now female teachers are getting into the act with little boys and everything is covered up.
@Caswell
Your comment is the only reason which makes publicizing this mess acceptable.
@maxine
” I pray for the days when we are more proactive and not so reactive”
hear hear. all parties should be given a scolding for this fiasco. let’s grab some popcorn and wait for the main event titled “the waterman report”
@caswell
we want to hear consistent truth. or at the very least, consistent observations rather than convenient or biased/skewed ones. Well then again, uh only talking fuh muhself, don’t know about the others.
@david
time to break out the surgical tools. Plasters will no longer work after this. Sit back, it’s going to be an interesting ride in many different “circles”
Observing
@Casewell. Let me get this right, okay? You, who purports to have legal training and were once employed by David Simmons when he was AG, attended (or did you actually attend it – you never stated that you did) the re-examination of Sealey and Lashley by Mr Smith QC. BUT, you (along with the entire press) failed to follow the direction and import of the questioning and needed to wait for Mr Smith to sum up what with your knowledge of law and experience with Simmons, must have been obvious. Mr Smith’s questions were very clear and if you had any doubt about the import of them, all you had to do was to look at the expressions on Hal’s face.
BUT, I have to ask if, in the same way you, Amazed and others tried to get BU to withdraw this report, there were others who were more successful with the press?
That said, Casewell, I urge you to follow through on your comment @Caswell Franklyn | August 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM. You are right to raise these issues. For Barbados to move forward, matters like these need to be ventilated and eradicated. You will need the active assistance and cooperation of the press in this venture – let us hope that you do not find that someone has gagged it. But if they have, fortunately we now have BU which, as you know, will not be gagged.
@ Justice Waterman …time to wind up now
@ Amused | August 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM |
“But if they have, fortunately we now have BU which, as you know, will not be gagged.”
But they (the BLP) tried in the past and this current lot with their “powful foolish” positions are trying the same thing. Clear instructions have been sent out to the ministers and other influential representatives like J R to cease and desist making contributions to BU. Ask the Don or his uppity sidekick Currants.
The VOB Brasstacks programme is also on the guillotine block by threats of withdrawing the advertising space and the station’s broadcasting licence unless the political content lambasting the present administration is eliminated. They want the programme to become a Clone (a perfect match to the one on this blog) of that which prevails at CBC morning PR broadcast.
Amused, we know where your sympathies lie especially with the current captain at the helm of the Ship of State. But we also know you- by professional training, intellectual capacity and moral position- would defend to the bitter end people’s rights to differ except in the obvious violation of the laws of the Land. We implore you, therefore, NOT to ever support or tacitly acquiesce to any attempts to muzzle dissent or critical analysis of any government’s statements or acts of commission or omission whether any D, B or Z party is in power. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
@ millertheanunnaki | August 30, 2012 at 8:26 AM. As you say, everyone knows which side I will be on in the next election. Unless Mia is leading the BLP and then I will re-think – and NO, a promise to stand down eventually in favour of Mia will NOT suffice to make me re-think or change sides. I realise that this puts us on adverse political sides. But I think you will agree that adverse political sides is really a very minor matter. It in no way affects (or will be allowed to affect) BOTH OF OUR overriding concern, which is fairness and justice for all, COMPLETE transparency, all aiming towards the good and health of our terminally stricken country. And I am quite sure, Miller, that we can completely rely on each other to keep each other honest – and I have no problem with that.
BTW, Miller, yes I do back Freundel. But your fears least I start to do so blindly can be greatly assuaged by my comments here on BU on two ministers, Lashley and Lowe, both of whom need to kicked the hell out of ministerial office as soon as possible.
@ David
Just one thing I wish to say here. I noticed some comments about “old hens” here on the blog. Why such derogatory remarks about our more senior women in the society? I must say that if it were not for these “old hens” (not my choice of terminology) amongst us then there would be no young “pullets” around to use such insulting terms about our older womenfolk. Think about it people.
I just wonder, in some Inquiries there is a rule which obliges the Judge to give those he intends “to criticise” a right to reply – through a private letter sent – before publication of his final report.
This gives individuals or bodies an opportunity to give reasons why criticism in the final report is not justified. Can anyone confirm if this situation pertains in the Alexandra School Inquiry. . .it could be very important indeed.
@yardbroom
do the reasons go to the commissinoer prior to the final report or is this process just to give the ones who have been criticised a “heads up”
Notice too that BSTU and BAPPS presidents made comments re improving education and moving forward after the Commission. Education is heating up.
This subject matter is interrupted to direct your attention to the front page of today’s Advocate reference meeting of Public Primary Schools Principals.
Dress code for a Meeting has not changed therefore I deem the attire of Ms Parris inappropriate at the head table and all. Beverley yuh coulda borrow a jacket – the man (President) was in suit show respect to the President if not yuhself.
I recently attended an orientation and saw a female parent wearing a back-out. Why are we then concern about the attire and behaviour of our children who are born to this type of parent and is therefore allowed to do as yuh please, wear wuh yuh want, wuh mek yuh comfortable.
There is no reason under this sun why Primary School children should witness this attire at a meeting public or private.
Parties at head table should be fully attired whether at public meetings or private meetings.
BU understands:
Minister of Education and tentatively representatives of unions (BUT, BSTU, BAPPS, APPSS) to address teachers. Unprecedented in recent memory.
Hi Observing (…)
The letters goes to the Commissioner it affords him the opportunity to modify what he has written, in light of representations made.. . . naturally any correspondence is confidential.
Continue your AX comments HERE.