AGBU reply to Staff end of year message:

Dear MEI Teachers and Staff,

Once again and upon reading your "end of the year message," I continue to appreciate your dedication and commitment to MEI. Yes, it has been a challenging year for all of us. While the Central Board of AGBU took great care and engaged in careful thinking over many years to finally reach a difficult decision in March, at the same time, we certainly understand and appreciate your own feelings and loyalty to the institution. As we have said many times, the decision to close MEI in June, 2005, has no reflection on your own professional credentials and performance. Rather, our decision rests on the realities of the 21st Century and what our worldwide organization must do to remain current and relevant to Armenians everywhere.

When you return to MEI in the fall, we hope that the conditions and atmosphere will be condusive to fulfilling an academic year in which students can excel and in which you can take pride in your work as professionals in the field of education. As they and you consider new opportunities in years to follow, we will do whatever we can to assist and to ensure a smooth and effective transition to new positions and pathways you may choose.

Sincerely,

Berge Setrakian

MEI Staff reply 13^th July, 2004

Dear Mr. Setrakian,

There is little point in repeatedly assuring the staff, in private letters, that the decision to close the school is nothing to do with the performance of the staff, whilst the offending statements remain, unchanged, in the public domain.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, the relevant paragraph of your position paper is an unambiguous indictment of the performance of the school. The public at large is inevitably reading the statement and coming to the conclusion that subsidy is being withdrawn because the educational performance of the school is not as it was in the 1960s.

As a result, there is a public perception which assumes that recent standards in the school are not good and that this is a prime reason for closing the school. As we have pointed out to you previously, all the evidence about school performance over recent years is to the contrary. This is utterly unfair and tantamount to professional defamation.

Further, your reference to the commendable efforts of the staff only serves to further defame the skills and abilities of the staff. It is being interpreted as saying that ‘you did your best, but your best was not good enough (to warrant continued subsidy)’.

We understand from your recent letters that you may not have intended to make this assertion; nonetheless, the above perception is inevitably what has happened. We do find it difficult to accept that you could not have anticipated this, given the wording contained in your position paper.

Unfortunately, whilst your assurances about professional credentials and performance are welcome, there is amongst us a growing sense of frustration at the rather general and evasive nature of your replies and the lack of official public comment.

You must understand that, unless you give a full and public retraction of the offending parts of your position paper, along with a public clarification of your position regarding the school’s performance, the staff cannot be expected to be placated.

Might we suggest that an official press release would be an appropriate way to begin to correct your errors in the March 16^th position paper and restore our damaged reputation?

This may be one way in which you can truly ‘assist a smooth and effective transition’ to the ‘new positions and pathways’ forced upon us by your decision to close the school.

Yours sincerely,

MEI Staff

14^th September, 2004