Ambassador Charles Maynard Responds to Article by Frank Baron

Dear Mr. Editor,

I have had an opportunity of reviewing this front page article by Mr Baron.

As one of the four ministers who served for the full fifteen years in the cabinet with Dame Eugenia, I do not recall Frank Baron playing the kind of role of oversight and ‘overseer’ which he claims to have exercised.

I find a number of his comments and statements are both ill advised and lack any foundation or merit.

I find particularly distasteful the innuendos implied in his warnings to Dame Eugenia concerning “her selfish ministers”.

The records will show (in fact in the words of Michael Douglas) that when Dominica was in trouble in the late 1970’s, people left their jobs and their professions to go and serve in the government.

I have discussed the unfounded statement about selfish ministers with some of my colleagues who served then. They are quite alarmed at this unfortunate and unjustified outburst.

It is a pity Mr. Baron did not state what he meant by selfish ministers. I am convinced that those of us who left our business and professions did so at great personal cost to ourselves and our families and that is well known.

As one who has devoted a very large part of my life to public service I find it difficult to understand what could have prompted Mr. Baron to make these allegations against Prime Minister Skerrit, because they are mere allegations.

Allegations no matter how often repeated cannot thereby become facts and Mr. Baron ought to know this. His repetition of these allegations does not make them become facts.

Mr. Baron would have been aware of the many unfounded allegations made against Dame Eugenia. It seems therefore highly irresponsible that without resorting to any facts he has sought to tarnish the image and reputation of the Prime Minister.

It is not clear to me why Mr. Baron found it necessary to say that “Eugenia Charles was virulently opposed to any of her ministers profiting at governments expense”

Why does he find it necessary to refer to ministers and not to the cabinet as a whole, including Dame Eugenia herself. This seems a rather strange conclusion.

There is much more that one could say about Mr. Baron’s tenure as ambassador and his relations or lack of relations with cabinet .One thing that needs to be reversed is any suggestion that Mr. Baron was in the forefront of advice and knowledge of how the Eugenia Charles administration was run.

There are many questions here that can be raised about the code that ought to be observed between a minister of foreign affairs and an ambassador representing Dominica.

The most unfortunate stricture in Mr. Baron’s comments is the reference to “the rapid accumulation of wealth by our young Prime Minister”.

What exactly does he mean by this? Is it because he is young that he should not have any wealth? Is it because he is in the public life of the state that he should not gain wealth as long as it is legitimate and proper? Does Mr. Baron share the view that people who serve in public office should have nothing? Should they die poor? Or should they merely rely on the state to officiate at their funerals? What kind of country do we want to develop if we are not concerned about proper returns to persons who put themselves up for public office?

All those are questions that we ought to discuss and debate in a mature setting and environment because all of us have a stake in ensuring that the country is properly managed. And one cardinal requirement is to have persons with the knowledge and skills and commitment to carry on this task.