Grossly unfair response

April 19, 2008

Dear Sir,

After reading the grossly unfair manner in which you presented the Premier's letter replying to the international media watchdog to which you complained, you have forcefully made the argument for another daily newspaper.

I am shocked that you think that it is the Government's responsibility to subsidise your paper with my money. I buy your paper every day and that is by choice. I do not expect to have to buy it for the clerk at some Government Department.

It is equally appalling that you are so arrogant as to believe that it is the Premier's responsibility to approach you for discounted rates. In the business model I know, he who is selling lures the customer and not the reverse. Your ways reek of Trimingham's and Smith's whose method was to impose high duties on imported goods when they were in power and never improve their products.

Needless to say, there's a lesson in that for you and perhaps you might set aside your anger for a moment and be a businessman as opposed to the leader of the opposition. The employees whose job security you bandied about in your responses of today's bizarre Page 4 would thank you more for trying to save their jobs as opposed to pretending that your purported penetration equals belief.

In the meantime, it appears that you will continue to do what you do which is to write poorly and negatively about this Government and they will continue to do what they do which is win elections in spite of it. How very sad.

G.K. STOWE

Smith's

Editor's Note: We have never said the Government is obliged to buy advertising in The Royal Gazette. What we have said is that we think the Government should use the most effective means possible to get information to the public. We think The Royal Gazette is the single most effective means of doing so and have asked the Government to make public the methodology by which they have determined this is not so. The Government has not provided this information.

In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to find and expand other sources of revenue so we can continue to the provide the public with the quality of newspaper they deserve.

Teachers' expectations

April 16, 2008

Dear Sir,

I don't purport to be an economist, mathematician, educator, or an expert in anything, however I do believe that I have some common sense and can think critically at most times.

Hence, I feel it necessary to comment on the rationale given by Mr. Mike Charles, Bermuda Union of Teachers general secretary with regard to "assigned substitute" teachers. Mr. Charles contends that it is necessary for Government to have "assigned substitute" teachers at all schools at all times in the event that a permanent teacher cannot be in the classroom.

In other words, Mr. Charles is saying that Government (the taxpayer) should put substitute teachers on the payroll and at the end of each month these teachers should be paid whether or not they have actually substituted for an absent teacher. This makes no sense to me.

I agree that the Ministry of Education should have available a list of qualified teachers who at a moment's notice are able to fill in for teachers who are absent from the classroom for whatever reason. But to expect the Government to pay for teachers just to be on a list is ridiculous! I am certain that staff at the offices of the BUT sometimes call in sick or are unable to be at their desks for various reasons. But are there persons permanently available at the offices of the BUT, and being paid for being available just in case a staff member is unable to be at work? Is there another general secretary available, and on the payroll, at the offices of the BUT in case Mr. Charles himself calls in sick or is out of office?

I can only imagine the impact on the economy if all government offices and private enterprise took a page out of Mr. Charles' book and had on their payrolls "substitutes" or temporary staff just in case their staff called in sick or were away on business. For example, the Banks of Bermuda and Butterfield would have a number of tellers come to work every day and be paid, whether their services were required or not, just in case other tellers called in sick. Government would have a number of administrative assistants show up in each department or ministry every day, and they would be paid, whether their services were actually required, just in case permanent staff called in sick. How about magistrates and judges? Should we have on staff three or four magistrates and judges who went to Supreme Court and Magistrates' Court every day just in case Magistrate Warner or Justice Ground called in sick? Of course these magistrates and judges would be salaried. How about engineers at Belco and Telco? Should these companies have on staff salaried "substitutes" just in case of illness of permanent staff? I think not.

I do believe that our students should be supervised at all times and in the case of the absence of a classroom teacher for whatever reason, our students should receive instruction. However, I believe that the Minister of Education, Randolph Horton, has made the right decision to scrap the "assigned substitute" teacher programme as it makes not sense, economical or otherwise. I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that no such programme exists in the private school system.

If Bermuda has a shortage of teachers to the extent that we need to import teachers, how could the Ministry have access to "assigned substitute" teachers who can show up at schools every day just in case? Does this mean that some of these "assigned substitute" teachers are imported and may be sitting in school staff rooms with nothing to do?

Maybe it's because I'm not an educator or an economist and therefore I am unable to understand Mr. Charles' rationale in this instance. But I do await further explanation from him and the Bermuda Union of Teachers. In fact, I think that the country deserves further explanation from Mr. Charles on behalf of the Bermuda Union of Teachers.

LAVERNE FURBERT

Hamilton Parish