Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter in the July 16 edition of the Chronicle under the headline: ‘Solomon, other official criticise Fyffe over accommodation issue,” in response to the letter I wrote to SN over the manner in which a worker of the Region 10 RDC was treated. As the headline said, I was criticized by the Chairman and “another official” of the RDC who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Now according to the article the Chairman said “an apology was made to the individual after the administration learned about what the man was put through.” Fine, and well in order; I see no criticism in that. In any event this failing was not within the quarters of the Chairman. The other anonymous official who claimed that “he and a team went to inspect the building…” admitted that things were amiss, “didn’t go… as planned… the place was not cleared for the individual living purpose” ‒ so what’s the issue then? How was “Fyffe pressing the matter…And trying to point out that dirty politics was involved, pushing it far beyond actually,” according to this “other official.” Why try to trivialize the issue dismissing Fyffe simply because it happened to someone of low rank? Though I was dealing specifically with the plight of this worker I was also speaking broadly about the behaviour of people, of human frailty, across narrow partisan lines so that we pull ourselves up. It had nothing to do with an attack on or promotion of a particular persuasion; it related to the behaviour of officials, of people in authority who often treat lesser, ordinary everyday people they see as unimportant. Come on! We see this every day. But as I mentioned, the deputy REO when she arrived responded favourably and corrected the worker’s situation. So too did the Regional VC who provided transportation for his return.
Now a simple admission along with an open apology would have sufficed instead of beating around. Obviously some subordinate whose duty it was didn’t care, or didn’t show much concern. Why can’t we be forthright and magnanimous, accept blunders, a wrong done to a fellow man and a promise to forever be vigilant to avoid a future occurrence instead of dismissing the person who highlighted it?
These are the little creepy things that are stifling the growth for better cooperation and advancement. Come on, it doesn’t hurt to be honest, and the comment, “first time it has ever happened over the years and none has ever had need to complain is” off key; it was not an accident or an oversight. I just don’t get it; Fyffe did something bad? It is things like these which we see as unimportant and allow to go unnoticed until they balloon and become the norm.
And by the way is there any need in cases like these for officials “to speak on condition anonymity”?
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
