PNCR NY group issues disclaimer over nomination protest

Chairman of the New York #1 PNCR Group Carlyle Harry is disassociating himself and the membership from a complaint about the party’s nomination process, which was made public last week by Group Secretary Eustace Hall.

In a December 10, 2010 letter addressed to Beryl James, Secretary (ag) of the North American Region (NAR) of the PNCR, Harry stated that they were not part of the letter of protest against the NAR which was circulated by Hall.

Harry stated that no report, written or verbal had been relayed to him or any other member of the Group from the December 8 teleconference to which Hall referred. As a result, they did not have the opportunity to assume or adopt a posture on decisions from those deliberations.
“Comrade James as an active member of the New York #1 PNCR group, you are aware that our private and public positions have always been “do not wash our linen in public,” he said.

Harry continued that as far as the selection of the presidential candidate goes, they have done their part in terms of submitting their list of nominees and shall await the outcome of the process.

He apologized for any embarrassment Hall’s complaint might have brought on the NAR and the party. “…The New York #1 Group subscribes to the strength and unity of the [PNCR] and its various vines, hence, we shall continue to be a member and supporter of the North American Region,” he added.
A copy of Hall’s letter, which was sent via email to members of the Presidential Candidate Process Committee last week, was also sent to the media.

“The  members  of  the  New  York  #1 Group  strongly  object  to, reject and  condemn  the  decision  taken  at  the  extended  Regional  Committee Meeting  of  the  North  American  Region  held  on  December  8,  2010 to jettison  the  list  of  groups`  nominees  to  four (4) instead  of  all  the nominees  on  the  Regional  Priority  List to  be  submitted  to  the Secretariat,” the letter said.

According to Hall, this was done “in  the  presence  of  and  active participation and  involvement  of  two  members  of  the  “Presidential  Candidates  Process Committee”  whose  mission  was  only  to  observe  the  process. “Our  Group  contends and  rightly  so,  that  that  decision  taken  by  way  of  a  motion, which  our  delegate vehemently  opposed, is  in  complete  violation of  articles 2.12 and 2.13  of  the  systems and  procedures  approved  by  the  Central  Executive  Committee  for use  in  the identification  of  the  presidential  candidate,” he continued.

Further, he stated, the action is tantamount  to  the  “denial  of the  facilitation of  maximum  inclusion  of  party  members  in  the  process  for  the nomination  of  the presidential  candidate.”

The letter described the situation as “ partisan  behaviour  by  a  few  to manipulate  and subvert”  a  “not  perfect  process”, calling it “troubling  and  highly reprehensible  and if not  rectified  immediately  can  further  disunite  the  party.” It added that the Group was contemplating  swift  and  decisive  actions, including   temporarily  suspending  contacts  on  the issue  with  the region  until  this  matter  was  fully  ventilated  and  amicably resolved.
Convener of the Presidential Candidate Process Committee, Oscar Clarke refused to comment on the issue when contacted by this newspaper.

Around the Web