Congratulations Rev. Niles! Some wondered why you became part of that ANGLEC Board in the first place – and how you worked with its members for so long. You will however recall the age-old adage that “a man is known by the company he keeps”. Your resignation letter confirms that. One can infer from the details of your letter that you quit because you could no longer swallow the nonsense. This is a clear example of your honesty and a protest against the way Boards are constituted in Anguilla in general – and their obvious lack of effectiveness.
But how can we cause change to happen? Sir, is that not the everlasting dilemma for ANGUILLA? What rules do we have other than do your own thing? It is cause for everyone to do his/her own thing. And when you are on a Board in Anguilla this principle seems to apply also. No wonder persons sometimes end up on Boards without knowing the core purpose of their existence or the subject matter that they are appointed to oversee. And, more than that, the “heavy hitters” in this cabal openly declare their disdain for the role of education and training in this society’s organizational advancement.
In many cases, it seems that trying to do what is right on Boards is like swimming against the tide. That is tough. You could sometimes, without fault of your own, find yourself in a situation where you must remind yourself that where ignorance is bliss — its folly to be wise. That could happen on appointment to any Board. But what sense would it make to resign from every Board to which you have been appointed? If the fault does not lie with the appointee it must be within the Board.
But how are Boards are constituted? Are they appointed based on ability to function? Or are they just simply “jobs for the boys”? You don’t want to be on a Board just to be on Board. And if that is what it is then it is wrong. Therefore it needs to be corrected! But how? That perhaps is the real problem — attitude! And attitudes die hard — ours is baked in the cake.
Broadly speaking, we say we function within a democracy. However, when close-up analysis of what we are is undertaken — we function like it is anarchy. So we have to find out what we got to address.
It seems that two half-baked concepts inadvertently got in the way. And, unfortunately, we are now dealing with a mind-set based on the use and abuse of the words “unique and elite”. It is a “tough row to hoe” so before we accept the prevailing usage we must replace them with the words “onwards and upwards”. These words signify positive movement and not to “downstrive” in order to defend or stay where we are.
Words are thoughts in action and can be rascals depending on how we use them. The meaning we attach to words determines behavior. For a long time there has been talk among us about building a new Anguilla, but our behaviour does not demonstrate a willingness to grow as a people. A compelling case is the role of the newspaper. We lamented when we did not have one. Now that we have one we berate persons for writing in it and raising issues with which we are at variance. And if you take the “high road on issues the question may be asked sarcastically: What are you, “elitist”?
Why are people in Anguilla referred to in a disparaging manner as elitist? Why the stigma? Do we not need elites in our society? Why did the Member for East End, in snide remarks, refer to the former elected representative for Valley South as a journalist? Can the complaining member write or speak better? We want the best.
Of course all men are born equal! But are we equally endowed, and do we have the same capacity in all endeavors? Why do we all have to walk like ducks — when some can soar like eagles? Is there a place for everyone and everyone, in his place? What do we mean by “nation building”? Are we afraid of those who aim for the clouds but reach the treetops? Or do we prefer mediocrity and look down and only see mud?
When you look at Rev. Niles’ catalogue of discrepancies it is obvious that in Anguilla the Government does not conform to the standards or best practices for being a Director on a Board. It seems therefore that it is necessary to set protocols and other criteria for the functioning of boards and the selection of boards. The appointment of boards, post the Reverend’s resignation, warrants a systematic overhaul of the constitution of ANGLEC Board in particular and, perhaps, boards in general. Perhaps we may, in our own non-elitist and unique manner, come to grips with the fact boards can be useful – and to maximize their benefits there must be capable people sitting on them.
But what is the result of the Reverend’s resignation? Are we going to say: “So Niles quit, so what? Put on “willow the wisp” it won’t make any difference. Or are we going check the merits of his complaints and do something about them? Brethren, was the Reverend right to quit — or is he elitist? I believe that by quitting he has demonstrated that that was not the kind of company he intends to keep.
