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.
