Dear Editor:
I AM compelled to respond, very briefly, to a letter written by president of the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU), Mr Mark Lyte, and published in the Stabroek News dated March 3, 2016.Mr Lyte, in his missive titled “Letter on GTU full of misinformation,” took virtually one week to respond to a letter I wrote and was carried in the dailies since last Friday – a letter in which I discussed how preposterous and replete with self-interest is the proposal the GTU has devised to negotiate with the Ministry of Education . And Mr Lyte’s response is an inarticulate letter whose substancelessness would insult the commonsense of a simpleton, far more the intelligence of the faithful readership of the letter columns of our dailies.
The lacklustre content of Mr Lyte’s letter betrays the headline like Judas betrayed Christ. When I saw the headline, I started reading with interest to see how Mr Lyte would present an exposé of my misinformation, but alas, I was disappointed – and so the rest of the readership, I am sure – to see no substantive reference to my misinformation. Mr Lyte could not identify misinformation regarding my discussion on the components of the proposal, because he knows I was accurate in my reference. The proposal is not classified; it would bear me out. So Mr Lyte has sought to – most unintelligently – justify a few lofty demands of the infamous, preposterous proposal.
A man is entitled to defence, and when that man is seeking re-election to high office, that right to defend self becomes a compelling need. So I have no fight with Mr Lyte on this score. However, as Mr Lyte might soon find out, it is better for someone to keep his mouth shut and allow others to speculate about how dense he is, than for that someone to open his mouth and confirm how dense he really is. Confirmation of such education limitation is self-condemnation; auto-assassination.
It is laughable that Mr Lyte should investigate whether someone by the name ‘Anthony Nedd’ is within the employ of the teaching service. To actually google my name is flattering. But to conclude that I must be politically motivated, and that it is public knowledge that I am one of the two other persons contesting the GTU presidency at the upcoming election – writing under the pseudonym ‘Anthony Nedd’ – is slanderous. It borders on libel, and his character will be impugned by it. It is demonstrative of the idleness and infantile character of a person not worthy of high office.
What Mr Lyte should endeavour to do is disclose to the general membership of the GTU the current state of the union’s financial account which receives in excess of $58,000,000 annually from union dues, providing details of income and expenditure; clearly show how the union has worked in the interest of teachers, and how successful it has been; and ensure professional monitoring and evaluation of all aspects of the union’s operations. He has a fiduciary responsibility to head a union that embraces and demonstrates transparency and accountability.
So I end with some advice for you Mr Lyte: that your counterparts in the Region enjoy full-time release to attend to union duties does not mean you have an entitlement to similar facility. Such consideration is commanded by the evidence of your diligent representation of your constituents – and if teachers repose no confidence in the union and many are withdrawing their membership, how less impressed would the government be by your work and relevance to consider granting such request.
Additionally, whenever the union wishes to have the services of any teacher outside of Wednesday when such teacher (union executive) is released or loaned to the union, the executive must write the Department of Education requesting the release of such teacher. A copy of such request must be sent to the respective principal. When the release is granted or declined, official notice must be presented to same principal. You cannot barge into the school and demand of the principal the release of any teacher. It is unethical and not within your span of authority.
Finally, whenever you approach the bargaining table, present proposals that are reasonable, negotiable and sustainable. Unreasonable, unsustainable, untenable, unrealistic proposals result in unfavourable outcomes.
Now, Mr Lyte, you are evidently substance-light and not so bright, but you sure are heavy on indebtedness to me for sound counsel. When you are ready to honour your debt, the ‘real Anthony Nedd’ will show up.

Yours respectfully,
Anthony Nedd.