I WOULD like to offer a couple of points in response to David Ross's article "Gaelic community rocked by the sudden resignation of the head of the statutory body set up to preserve the language in Scotland", The Herald, July 2).

Like many others, I regret that Iain Campbell felt he had to resign for personal reasons, but unwarranted aspersions should not be cast on the very people who had helped bring the organisation to the stage where he felt the post was worth applying for.

As Mr Ross mentions I was CEO of Bòrd na Gàidhlig for four and a half years until Mr Campbell took up post in March this year. I was accountable officer until the end of March and led the senior management team throughout that period. This team worked well together, and turned the fortunes of the Bòrd around in a period in which, as a matter of public record, it was chaired by no fewer than four different people in four years either in substantive or interim chair capacity. In so doing, the team achieved high standards of financial and corporate governance, as is recognised by internal and external auditors, and made considerable progress with the National Gaelic Language Plan, as is attested in the 2014/15 Annual Report laid before Parliament this week.

Against this background, I do not believe there is truth in "suggestions of divisions and tensions within upper management about the future direction and activities of the Bòrd" leading to Mr Campbell's resignation as posited in the article. The proposals by Mr Campbell in his plan for 2015/16 as reported were pretty much as anticipated by the senior management team. In my experience, upper management worked well as a team and reconciled differences of opinion in debate round the table, accepting corporate reponsibilty.

I understand that the two senior managers you mention, who resigned before Mr Campbell, did so to pursue other career options. having achieved much through giving the Bòrd - and Gaelic -sustained personal and professional commitment in challenging circumstances over an extended period.

It is essential for the future of the organisation that the proposed support team is of sufficient calibre and clout to support adequately the core of management who remain in the organisation - a small public body with a huge linguistic and cultural responsibility. This should mitigate against the potential risk of board members falling into the trap of micro-management, which would be detrimental to good governance in any public body.

John A MacKay,

Druimard, Arnol, Isle of Lewis.