ODPM sidelining Met Service

THE EDITOR: My name is Robin Maharaj and I know a few things about weather warning and issuance of watches and warnings to the public. I note a story today (yesterday) in the Newsday headlined: ODPM warns: Do not go in the sea, under the byline of Stacy Moore. 

I am quite taken aback by the changing structure of the relationship between the ODPM and the Met Service. It is most amazing that ODPM in Trinidad has acquired so many forecasting and warning portfolios. One can hardly imagine where TT has reached when we read that the disaster preparedness authority now issues warnings. Reading this report it says that, "The warning was issued by the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Management after the TT Meteorological Service (TTMS) issued a hazardous sea alert...". The Met Service stands relegated, by ODPM.

He-l-l-l-llooo! The TT Meteorological Service is the only source of weather forecasts, watches and warnings to TT. Any person, authority and yes, the ODPM too, can only relay the Met Services' messages, with 100 per cent acknowledgement that it originated at the Met Office, the only authority qualified and legally licensed to do so. The Met does its duty and the ODPM does its duty and should not lay claim to a product they never designed, produced or issued, but are simply relaying. 

The credit must go to the Met Service. Staff there work hard to keep the nation alert and without being rude, I relay what I have heard, that the ODPM apparently barely services its tasks competently. Usurping the duty of the Met Service is odium. Correct this since people need to know, acknowledge and appreciate the work that the Met Service does on their behalf. The experts in meteorology, weather forecasts and weather watches and warnings exist at the Met Service. Staff there are being cheated of recognition when some other group, deficient in itself, lays blatant claim on the Met Service product, sidelining the latter. If there are issues still, it has to be coming from the inadequacy of odium. 

Things like this used to occur when I worked at the Met Service decades ago, but luckily I represented the Met in the disaster organisation, and always corrected the tendency, leaving both agencies separate and respected. When one agency acts as in the case I read today (yesterday) in the Newsday, it merely serves to devalue the product and image of the other agency, expropriating their due in the public place, while attempting to boost the own public persona of the usurper. Sadly, truth offends but gladly, one can learn from the opinion of others. This opinion comes from decades of interaction in a more global arena.

Finally, it is obvious that staff at the Met Services would write or even act to defend themselves in a case like this. How ee go look! It has happened too frequently, and I know my opinion represents those of serious Met staff. 

ROBIN MAHARAJ,

retired meteorologist

Minnesota, USA.