The Culture Department of the Ministry of Education has nothing to be proud about, and neither, it must be added, has the Mayor and City Council. As we reported on Friday, last week hundreds of documents stored at the former Bedford Methodist School were destroyed as a consequence of the irresponsibility of a group of workmen, and the lack of resolution and efficiency on the part of the two public bodies mentioned above.
The Bedford Methodist school building is one of many in a dilapidated state that dot the city. Having been abandoned for many years, the site was apparently bought by a businessman for the purposes of commercial development. Much of the news coverage in relation to the building concerned the removal of vendors for safety reasons while the demolition was under way, and their relocation to Orange Walk. There was little in the public arena about the documents stored there, except for a photograph published in this newspaper a while ago showing a room full of documents stored in the building.
The photo should have alerted the authorities to a possible problem, given the decision to break down the derelict structure, but even if the Ministry of Education in particular under whose remit such matters fall did not notice the picture, they became aware of the issue from the time demolition started, because enquiries about the matter were directed to them.
On Friday we reported that there had been talks between the M&CC and the Ministry of Education with a view to saving the records, but these weighty negotiations notwithstanding, the papers were still discarded and thrown outside where they were soaked in last week’s heavy rain. Exactly what the two sides agreed should be done has never been revealed; in any case, the precise level of responsibility of the city council depends on whether they were the ones who hired contractors to break down the building or whether this was undertaken by the businessman who bought the site. If the former was the case, then M&CC had no absolutely no excuse for not stopping the exercise until the documents were dealt with, and if the latter, they should have instructed the businessman and the contractor that the archives would have to check the documents before they were disposed of.
If it is that the council followed either route one or route two, according to the circumstances, and the contractor ignored them, then the latter should be held liable under the law, although the penalties are not likely to give him sleepless nights. However, he would appear in court and be subject to adverse publicity. If it is, on the other hand, that the M&CC did not do their duty, or were dilatory in taking action, then it is a total disgrace for which they should be suitably castigated.
Before the documents were destroyed, an archival assistant from the Walter Rodney Archives was sent – by the Culture Department of the ministry, presumably − to look at them, and last Friday we reported her as telling us that she had requested some of the documents from the contractors, since they were useful and there was no information on the Bedford Methodist School in the archives. She then proceeded to inform us, however, that the workmen insisted that everything had to be dumped; “It was heart-rending,” we quoted her as saying.
Well this is extraordinary. In the first place, if the contractors were hell bent set on discarding the documents anyway, it really should have made no difference to them if the lady from the archives had selected those she wanted and removed them.
In the second place, this must be the only country in the world where a group of workmen can overrule a representative from the national archives and by extension the Ministry of Education itself on the matter of whether documents should be preserved or not. We might as well close down these institutions and let the demolition men take over the function of archival experts. As it was, they acted in defiance of the National Archives Act, in defiance of the need to preserve the nation’s documentary heritage, and in defiance of plain common sense.
Exactly what the archival assistant did thereafter was not related. Did she immediately contact her superior or the Ministry of Education and if she did, to whom did she speak? And assuming they were alerted, to whom did they speak? Exactly what was the sequence of events which followed a demonstration of crass ignorance on the part of a group of workmen?
However, even if she spoke to no one on her return to the Walter Rodney building, the onus was on the Ministry of Education to follow up and find out what was happening to the records in the former Bedford school. Even the denizens of the Department of Culture who might not be noted for their celerity under normal circumstances, must have been aware that when you are trying to save something from the demolition squad, time is of the essence. Their seemingly dilatory attitude conveys a lack of interest in the nation’s archival patrimony, and even if they were to repudiate that allegation, they would at least open themselves to the accusation of incompetence.
Junior Minister Nicolette Henry is new to the post of overseeing Culture, and it seems she is in need of a crash course in what it entails. Perhaps it is time she retrieved the National Archives of Guyana Act of 1982 (Cap.40:08) from the shelves of the ministry, dusted it off, and familiarized herself with its provisions. (Arguably it might be in need of amendment in some parts, but for the time being it is the operative legal instrument.)
For current purposes she might like to turn to (among others) Article 8(1) stating “The Archivist or any authorized officer may examine public records which have not been transferred to the National Archives and select those which in his opinion should be preserved and transferred thereto.” There is also clause (3) of the same article which requires whoever has public records to afford the archivist or their representative the appropriate facilities for examination of these, and to provide for their safekeeping pending their transfer. Article 9 deals with the prohibition on the destruction of public documents.
There are two other points which could be mentioned, one of which is that for very many years no archivist was appointed, and under the act the archivist has considerable powers. If there is one now, they are very self-effacing. It needs someone with gravitas to stand up to the ministry, should that become necessary, the M&CC and destructive contractors. The latter should not have been allowed to push around the representative who was sent to inspect the records.
Finally, one cannot help but wonder if after the documents were soaked, whether anyone was dispatched to look at them a second time to see if any had escaped the drenching and were therefore redeemable; or if they were somewhat wet but were still legible and could be dried out.
Whatever the case, it is not a good start for a new government when the sorry tale of our archives which stretches back more than a century continues along the same well-worn path.
