The Maryland Development Conference: Success & Failure – My Personal Opinion

In Occupational Safety & Health practice, when we do hazard analysis on a particular job, answers to the following specific questions help us most:

 

1.       Who knows best the hazards and problems of a particular job other than the person who performs that job each and every day as a regular routine?

2.       Who can better recommend possible solutions to a particular problem and/or hazards centered on a certain kind of job other than the one who works the job regularly from day-to-day?

 

The answer to these questions will help answer the questions emanating from the recently held Maryland Development Conference in Harper City.

 

Here are the questions:

 

Who best knows the problems of Maryland County?

 

1.       Is it those who live on the ground in Maryland feeling the brunt of the problem on the ground or

2.       Is it those living in the Diaspora who have not been on the ground over fifty years or

3.       Foreign visitors instructing and administering the affairs of The William V. S. Tubman University who come from different countries around the world and have not lived long enough in Maryland to know the origin and magnitude of the pressing problems?

 

Recently, a conference was convened in Harper City, the capital of Maryland, under the Theme: “Maryland County Development Conference…” Most of the influential Conference attendees came from outside Maryland. They came from Monrovia and outside the Country. And the actual planning of the Conference was done mostly by these persons referred to as outsiders. As a result, the end and result of the conference continue to trouble the minds of many Marylanders including myself. Up to now, no one can clearly say whether or not the conference was a success.

 

From what I have learned later, The William V. S. Tubman University facilitated and/or sponsored the conference (whatever that means).

 

I also learned that the conference was geared towards finding possible solutions to the current problems of Maryland including but not limited to infrastructural, human resource development and reconciliation. But those who designed the Conference definitively have limited or no knowledge of the problems on the ground in Maryland.

 

All things considered, the conference seemingly is one whose time had come - identifying burning issues and problems in the County and adapting a solution-finding approach is rather a fine idea. And this Idea justified the essence of the conference. Except for one reason: it started on the wrong footing!

 

Several questions abound therefore:

 

Who defined, organized and executed a conference and its agenda?

 

Is it the University staff which is composed of foreign nationals who have not lived in the County more than three years and have not developed any direct link and contact with the indigenes of the County and/or common people so as to know how the citizens and residents think and feel?

 

Or

 

Stakeholders, referred to as Marylanders on the ground, especially those ones who have been involved and roasted in the crises over-and-over, again-and-again without any visible solution?

 

Or

 

Diasporic Marylanders, some of whom have not been in Maryland on the ground over fifty years and have no clue what exactly Maryland looks like in terms of the prevailing situation and/or conditions?

 

The answer to these salient and unanswered questions set the basis to the conclusion whether or not the recently held conference was a success.

 

Let’s take this example:

 

One of the vice presidents of the University is from the Philippines. And she has not lived in Maryland long enough to know the name of the major streets. But she was given the responsibility to plan the conference and its agenda and then decide whom to invite and what to discuss.  THAT’S PROBLEM NUMBER 1

 

PROBLEM NUMBER 2:

 

The chair of the planning committee was born and shortly lived in Maryland. Meaning that he knows a little bit about Maryland. But whatever he knows about Maryland is as old as Methuselah or as old as the Book of Chronicles. Meaning that, he lived in Maryland long ago. Since his long departure and recent arrival, Maryland has dramatically evolved. He holds a doctorate degree and is a former diplomat. Evidently, he’s been away too long. Therefore, he cannot but be totally detached from the current problems on the ground from a practical standpoint. Academically, there’s no doubt in my mind, this brother can diagnose the problems in Maryland. But his approach will be unequivocally impractical in terms of solutions.

 

These concerns and analysis are just what they are.

 

The issues raised about the Vice president from Phillipines and the Chair of the Planning Committee is in no way to belittle their contributions and/or disrespect them in reference to the Conference. This concern should not be read negatively. It is positive! The truth is, both individuals cannot plan the future of Marylanders without Marylanders participating and/or taking the lead, especially those Marylanders who will remain in the crises when the proverbial bull hits the fence and everyone flees to his or country far-far away.   

 

Just imagine this:

 

Someone from Pleebo (the commercial capital of Maryland, Liberia) goes to the US; he gets to town; here he is; he doesn’t even know the immigration office; but he begins to plan and host a conference on how to solve the American people’s problems. He calls a conference. And mind you, he doesn’t consult with the Americans who have the problems that he’s attempting to solve. But he sends them invitation to attend. The invitation tells them they are “guests.” Evidently, the “guests” will not actively partake in the solution-finding approach during the conference. Can the American people not cry out loud against such an intended good that has the propensity to turned bad? I think they will cry out! But I’m sure they will NOT cry out in bad faith and bad minds for the visitor! But for heaven’s sake, they are the ones with the problem; and so, they are the ones who need to solve their problems. For only a people can liberate themselves. Nobody else can do so for them!

 

That’s the situation of the Maryland Development Conference.

 

Those who planned, executed and defined the Conference and the possible problems of Maryland are more alien to the issues of Maryland than anyone can imagine. The issues that haunt Maryland have no significant impact on these individuals who planned the Conference. And this is because, as I said earlier, when the proverbial bull hits the fence, all of these individuals from far-away lands will flee to their various lands leaving the common Marylanders on the ground to swallow the bitter pill of the situation.

 

So who needs to find solutions to the problems of Maryland? Is it not Marylanders?

 

I don’t know what you think and your what answers will be; but if you ask me what I think; I think it is whacked and dumb for others who have no proverbial fish to fry in a certain situation to start shedding crocodile tears! It is as wrong as it can be!

 

This is my opinion! What’s yours?

 

I am Thomas G. Bedell speaking and writing on the ground in Liberia