THE EDITOR, Sir:ON MONDAY 1st September, I read an article in the Sunday Gleaner, dated August 31, 2003, headlined 'I got little support.' The body of the story is fairly accurate but the issue of support has been taken out of context. I made it absolutely and abundantly clear that I received strong support for the regular political and organising work of the Region, but in terms of the change/reform agenda, I got very little support.
Concerning term limits, I made it clear that we were advocating for positions within the regional structure,
meaning for the region, constituencies, divisions and groups.
We had hoped by adoption and practice, we could demonstrate the positive benefits for term limits within our region and our party.
It was specifically for positions of structures at the regional level, that term limits were rejected, as neither the Region nor I have ever advocated for this at the national level.
The facts are, that while there was some discussions in the party in the past, no such position or resolution has ever been put by the Region or by me at any national fora of the People's National Party.
I want to state the following:
1. On Thursday, 28th August, I was contacted by a Gleaner reporter, who informed me that she wanted to interview the three outgoing Regional Chairmen to find out how they felt about their tenure. She questioned me in that initial conversation whether or not I was being forced out by the leadership because of the losses at the June 2003 Local Government Elections.
2. The reporter already knew the name of the three Regional Chairmen who had stepped down. I told her that although I accepted ultimate responsibility for the state of the organisation in Region Three, in the same way a victory was not the result of one person's effort, similarly, a defeat was not one person's failure.
3. We did the formal interview at my office on Friday 29th August 2003.
4. We spoke about my not seeking re-election in 2001 and the fact that I eventually returned as Chairman. I gave her a copy of the statement which I gave to all members of the Regional Executive Council, on Sunday 27th May 2001, which set out the reasons.
5. In the interview I stated that in Region Three, we tried to change the political culture of the Party within our Region. We established guidelines for:
Internal democratic practices Gender equitySeparation of powers and rolesTerm limitsPerformance standards and minimum organisation targetsA leadership code of conductA community codeI explained that we were trying to implement these things in our Region first so that we could demonstrate a positive example and best practices to the rest of the Party.
Although we had a leadership conference in July 1999 (the actual date being Sunday 4th July 1999) and that these guidelines were approved, when it came to the actual practice there was little support and therefore, little implementation. I went further to explain that although there were no objections and approval in theory, it just did not happen because there was lack of meaningful support at all levels of leadership throughout the Region.
I pointed out that it was difficult to change the culture of the Party. On the issue of term limits, this was flatly rejected and we only approved the guidelines in principle.
In speaking to Ms. Anderson, I made it clear that I received the full support of the Party President, and the vice president were a part of the Region I called them by name. I would wish for it to be noted that I had strong support from the Party President, P.J. Patterson and from Vice Presidents Portia Simpson Miller and Peter Phillips. I expected this to have been included in the article.
On Saturday, Ms. Anderson called me about misplacing some information and about the same issue of support within the party. Again, I made it abundantly clear that I was speaking about support from within my Region and specifically about the reform and change issues.
I again reiterated that I received full support for general political work. She said that she had a difficult in finding adequate space for the article, and I again reiterated that there should be fair play and that the context not be sacrificed.
I am, etc.,
PAUL BURKE
