Who is guilty of spreading misinformation? LAST Friday The Gleaner published an article in which I stated that based on information that I had received, it appeared that the WICB planned to dismiss its chief executive officer, Gregory Shillingford. According to the information, Shillingford heard about his planned dismissal from marketing manager Chris Dehring who had been asked by two members of the Board's management committee if he would act as the CEO until a replacement was found and from other members of staff, and Shillingford had written a letter to members of the Board seeking clarification. The article was written after I had spoken to Shillingford, who confirmed that he had written a letter to the Board members, to Dehring, who confirmed that he had spoken to Shillingford, and to Board member Jackie Hendriks, who not only confirmed that he had received the letter but also said that he had written to members of the management committee seeking clarification. On Tuesday The Gleaner published a letter from the Board in which it stated that Shillingford can only be dismissed by the Board, and that although the management committee had held discussions with a wide range of persons involved with West Indies cricket as directed by the Board following the resignation of the president and the vice-president, although the management committee was concerned about issues that emerged from that process in connection with Shillingford, and although it was the intention of the management committee to hold discussions with him on those matters, it had taken no decision to dismiss Shillingford. In emphasising that only the Board can dismiss the CEO, the letter said, in one paragraph, that "there was never any decision by the Board or the management committee to dismiss Mr. Shillingford within 30 days or otherwise", that "the management had, however, considered the option of discussing an amicable separation agreement if this was felt to be necessary and appropriate following discussions with Mr. Shillingford", and that the Board's ultimate approval would have been necessary to implement such an agreement. No problem with any of that. Apart from a little gymnastics here and there, including the part where it says "we therefore appreciate Mr. Shillingford's concern about reports of comments that were allegedly made unofficially to certain staff members", Tuesday's letter certainly did not deny what was written in Friday's article. The letter also said, however, that "in order to minimise discord and the spread of misinformation, the WICB would like to set the record straight on this matter and address issues publicly that would normally be handled internally between the parties involved". Based on the article that appeared on Friday and the response that followed on Tuesday, the question, therefore, is this: what does the Board mean by the spreading of misinformation? If in talking about the spreading of misinformation, the Board is addressing the two members of the management committee who talked to staff members about the CEO going in 30 days and nothing like that was planned even though, based on its own response on Tuesday, it obviously is or was so, then it must dealt with it. If, on the other hand, it is talking about what was contained in Friday's article, it must be joking. Nowhere in the article of last Friday did it say that Shillingford was dismissed. The article simply said that there was a move on to do so, and it was written after speaking to Shillingford and Dehring, after the letter was sent to the Board members by Shillingford, after reading the contents of the letter, and after confirmation by Hendriks that he had received the letter and that he had responded to it. Everything in the article was gospel. It was, so to speak, from the horse's mouth. Based on what is happening in the WICB, one can understand its attempt to minimise disorder, and in the interest of West Indies cricket, the hope is that it will be able to do so and quickly at that. If, however, the Board is saying that Friday's article was nothing but the spreading of misinformation, that is nonsense. In fact, reading between the lines, especially where it said that it was the intention of the management committee to hold discussions with Shillingford and where it talked about an amicable separation agreement, the letter confirmed that something is going on. As skilfully written as the Board's response was, it was nothing but an attempt to explain what happened, and based on the apparent reason for the quarrel that led to the resignation of the former president and vice-president, probably also an attempt to cover itself.
|
