The facts Mr. Al Creighton left out

Sep 23, 2012 Letters

---

 

Dear Editor,
This is the second part of my reply to Mr. Al Creighton ( KN – Sep 16, “How truthful is Mr. Kissoon.” and SN _ Sep 14,  “Kissoon’s account of Academic Board meeting inaccurate.” I hope to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how deceitful has been Mr. Al Creighton in his explanations the past 15 years on the University of Guyana.
Let me remind readers what led to Mr. Creighton’s accusations against me. Two statements I made in relation to specific issues at UG to which I remain totally committed and will repeat them here. First a legal and moral depravity has been going on for years now and continues in the Academic Board at UG. A member or two out of fifty voting representatives would say something. It carries no discussion but when the minutes are written it reflects a decision of the Academic Board
I will prove, with graphic evidence, in this very letter here that the Academic Board has committed this very farce on the matter of the Chancellor’s resignation and Mr. Creighton quoted from this farce to prove me wrong. I will use the very document Creighton quoted from, (selectively, of course) to document this depravity and to prove Mr. Creighton is a stranger to the truth. My second statement is that the Academic Board never, I repeat, never rejected the resignation of the Chancellor.
Before I go further readers need to know at the last Academic Board meeting, the resignation issue came up again in which it was pointed out that the matter is in the public domain and the Academic Board need to definitely say if it rejected the Chancellor’s resignation. The Board declined a discussion. Now for the reiteration of my statement
Dr. Paloma Mohamed spoke on the manner in which the Chancellor tendered his resignation and called for his return. Dr. Patsy Francis, Chairman of Operation Rescue UG rejected this. There was an exchange between the two. There was no further audience participation and the matter ended there. Under “Any Other Business” when most voting members had left, Mr. Creighton rose to speak on the position of Dr. Mohamed with a view of getting a decision. tHere was no debate one way or the other. There was no audience participation on Mr. Creighton’s further intervention. Looked at from any angle this was not a decision of the Academic Board. Mr. Creighton quoted from the minutes. There is nothing in the minutes that points to him speaking on the resignation. So he concludes that there was no discussion under “Any Other Business.” But he raised it there and since the minutes do not refer to it, Mr. Creighton cannot supply proof to contradict my point. Let him do so
Mr. Creighton’s quoted from the minutes in his letter in which he chose to be selective. He deliberately left out the last paragraph which read; “Dr P. Mohamed and Mr. Al Creighton agreed to volunteer to draft the letter.” It was only these two persons who spoke on the need to have the Chancellor come back to UG, therefore it is dishonest, indecent and immoral for the Academic Board minutes to read as follows’ “The members felt that the Council should not accept the resignation.”
Here we see quite graphically the dishonesty of this man. He failed to mention that he was one of the persons that raised the resignation issue. He deliberately omitted this because the minutes didn’t reflect that and if it did not then it leaves open the question as to what the minutes actually records at these minutes. Creighton brought up the resignation letter under “Any Other Business” but since the minutes didn’t state so he claimed that it did not. I repeat – Mr. Creighton ventilated the matter under “Any Other Business.” The fact that this is not recorded in the minutes did not it did not occur.
I challenge Paloma Mohamed, Al Creighton and the Acting Vice Chancellor to name the other Board members that took such a position. I challenge them to state if such a decision had majority backing and if it was formally put to the Board. It was for this reason at its last formal session, the Board declined to hear the issue again. But there is a certain dimension of fraud in the recording of the minutes that needs to be exposed
Operation Rescue UG publicly rejected the Chancellorship of Compton Bourne. The organization publicly put forward the names of Sister Mary Noel Menezies and Yesu Persaud as alternatives. Since Operation Rescue UG has voting members on the Academic Board, how can the minutes state that the Board rejected Bourne’s resignation? The minutes are deceptive because Dr. Francis did not support Mohamed’s position. It was Mohamed versus Francis and the matter ended there with Creighton picking it up again under “Any Other Business”
The debate is finished because the last statutory meeting of the Board declined further intervention. This then is an account of what truly transpired. As for Mohamed, Creighton and Cox, the nation eagerly awaits an indepth assessment from them as to what Compton Bourne contributed to UG in the three years he was Chancellor.
Finally, Creighton wrote that I hardly attended statutory meetings of the Academic Board. That was and is true, the reason being I had total contempt for the administration of Messrs Rose and Creighton and Ms. Marlyn Cox. There was no way I would have lowered my dignity being part of should a farce. Just take a look at UG today
Frederick Kissoon

---

---