David Burt On PLP Election, Dispute, Party, More
“There is more that unites us than divides us, and I still believe sensible people can find a way through this,” PLP Leader and Premier David Burt said, explaining that while he generally avoids speaking publicly about internal party matters “there comes a point where remaining silent allows an incomplete picture to become accepted as fact.”
“Remaining Silent Allows An Incomplete Picture To Become Accepted As Fact”
Mr Burt, speaking in his capacity as PLP leader, told Bernews: “I very rarely speak publicly about internal Party matters, and throughout this process I have deliberately tried not to inflame an already difficult leadership contest. However, there comes a point where remaining silent allows an incomplete picture to become accepted as fact. I have a responsibility to the Party, to our members and particularly to the people who volunteer their time serving the PLP to explain what has actually happened.”
At the centre of the dispute are two decisions taken by the PLP’s Central Committee on August 24th, and the Premier said Central Committee “has long set rules and procedures for the Party’s internal elections and that this had never previously been challenged.”
He told Bernews, “Central Committee has made rules governing our internal election processes for years. That is how the Party has operated. What is now being challenged is whether Central Committee had the authority to make rules of this particular kind. Given that we were now in Court over that question, Central Committee decided the cleanest way forward was to ask the delegates themselves whether they wanted that authority to be made clear in the Party’s bye-laws.”
The Premier said, “The proposal was not to take the August 24 decisions and vote on them again. The original Court Order prevented those decisions from being implemented or reintroduced. However, that same Order expressly allowed the Party to use a lawful amendment process. That is what we were trying to do. The question we wanted to put to the delegates was whether they wanted to make clear that Central Committee has the authority to make rules in areas such as membership processes, delegate eligibility and the administration of internal elections.
“Let The Delegates Consider It & Decide For Themselves Democratically”
“I had no idea whether two-thirds of the delegates would support those changes. That was the point. Let the delegates consider it and decide for themselves democratically. We have democratic processes inside the PLP. We have Branches, Central Committee and delegates for a reason. They are there to make decisions on behalf of the membership.”
The PLP Leader said he has himself disagreed with decisions of Central Committee in the past, but said “accepting decisions with which one disagrees is part of leadership.”
“I have not agreed with every decision Central Committee has made over the years. But that is part of democracy. Representatives of the membership debate these issues, they vote, and a decision is made. People are perfectly entitled to disagree with the result. But disagreement with the result does not make the process undemocratic. Taking an internal PLP dispute of this kind to Court is, to my knowledge, unprecedented,” he added.
One of the August 24th decisions passed without a single vote against it, he said.
“People are entitled to disagree with that decision afterwards,” he said. “But it is difficult to portray a decision of the Party’s governing body, where nobody voted against the motion, as dictatorship or the suppression of dissent.”
“The Court obviously has a role where legal rights are in dispute. But I strongly believe that political parties should be able to use their own democratic processes to settle questions about how they govern themselves. That is what we were trying to do.”
The Premier then said that following Tuesday’s Central Committee decision to call the Special Delegates Conference, lawyers acting for MP Curtis Dickinson and the other plaintiffs “raised the prospect of further proceedings.”
Both Party Chairperson Dawn Simmons and Secretary General Patricia Basden have been named in the court documents. Mr Dickinson has publicly said that “those named in the action are named solely because of the offices they hold.”
“Dawn and Patricia are two women who give their time to serve the Progressive Labour Party,” Mr Burt said. “They have been sued because of the offices they hold in the Party, and I was simply not prepared to expose them to the possibility of increasingly serious proceedings while lawyers continued going backwards and forwards. That weighed heavily on me.”
“Proposed Changes Will Therefore Not Be Considered At Monday’s Special Delegates Conference”
Saying that it is on the advice of the Party’s counsel, the PLP agreed to the latest interim Order and the proposed changes will therefore not be considered at Monday’s Special Delegates Conference, with the Premier stressing that “this should not be interpreted as the Party accepting that Central Committee acted outside its authority.”
“We do not accept that Central Committee acted wrongly. The Party has not yet had the opportunity to put its case on the actual dispute before the Court. That is what we now want to happen. We could keep responding to one application after another, spending more Party money and creating more delay, but that does not help anyone. Our approach now is simple. Get the original case heard as quickly as possible, let both sides put their case, get a decision and allow the PLP to move forward with our Annual Delegates Conference and leadership election.”
Mr Burt also added, “This has sometimes been presented as though Central Committee decided that thousands of people could not join the PLP. That is simply not what happened. One decision created a very narrow process where an objection could be made to a new membership application in specific circumstances, supported by evidence, and ultimately considered through the Party’s structures. It did not automatically reject anybody.
“Set Reasonable Rules For That Process”
“The other decision dealt with whether someone who had been a member for less than twelve months should immediately be eligible to serve as a delegate or elected Party officer. It did not cancel anybody’s membership. Central Committee believed it had the authority to set reasonable rules for that process. That authority has now been challenged, and we want that question answered as quickly as possible.”
Mr Burt said he remains “particularly concerned about the personal toll the dispute is taking on Party volunteers and the wider damage being done to relationships inside the PLP.”
“Whatever disagreements people may have about decisions made by Central Committee, Dawn and Patricia should not be made to feel that they are standing alone. These are people who have given their time to the PLP. They did not go looking for a Supreme Court case. They were named because of the offices they hold in the Party.”
He added, “I am not interested in spending the next several weeks trading accusations through newspapers, radio stations and WhatsApp. We have known each other for years. We have worked together, won elections together and served this Party together. Whatever disagreements exist today, they should not be allowed to destroy those relationships or the Party that all of us say we love.
‘Hopefully Everyone Can Take A Step Back & Get To Place Of Resolution’
“Hopefully over the weekend everyone can take a step back and get to a place of resolution. The PLP has a leadership election to complete, an Annual Delegates Conference to hold and, most importantly, work to continue on behalf of the people of Bermuda. There is more that unites us than divides us, and I still believe sensible people can find a way through this.”
Matter Is Ongoing
Mr Dickinson has previously said, “Our attorneys obtained an interim injunction restraining executives of the Party from proceeding with a membership process that is contrary to our Constitution. This action was taken with great reluctance and only after genuine efforts were made to resolve the matter respectfully within the Party. Those efforts did not produce a resolution, leaving us with no alternative but to seek the Court’s guidance.”
As it stands now, Mr Dickinson’s campaign — which is being represented by Delroy Duncan KC – has been successful in obtaining a legal injunction to stop the changes going forward, however this is not a final decision, and the matter is due back in court.
Mr Dickinson along with Jason Hayward are the two candidates for the PLP leadership position, which will become available as David Burt will not stand for re-election, and as the PLP party currently forms the Government, the PLP leader will become the Premier.
“the Premier said Central Committee “has long set rules and procedures for the Party’s internal elections and that this had never previously been challenged.””
That is not entirely true. It may be that there has not previously been a challenge in Court, but there has certainly been challenges to the authority of the Central Committee when it insisted on a specific person representing a constituency rather than the person chose by the party members in that constituency.
I just find it so interesting how people who have never had an affinity for the PLP are on every blog and news sight commenting on party procedures and what is best for the party. It is so disingenuous. And now some of them are trying to assert some influence into the decision making of the Party.
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because the implications of those party procedures extend far beyond the party itself? Ah right, forgot you’re a PLP cheerleader that defends the party at all costs even when the party is blatantly in the wrong.
The fact you aren’t concerned about the country’s next Premier not being democratically elected in the public domain but instead is elected by a small, shadowy group of party delegates is beyond baffling, albeit not surprising.
Burt’s narcissism and gargantuan ego prevent him from acknowledging the simple fact that he has been caught… and that he alone is the very source of the PLP’s current debacle with itself.
It’s also hilariously ironic that Burt cites the need to prevent former OBA members from joining his party all of a sudden when it was a non-issue when Furbert, Simmons, and Swan all crossed the aisle from the UBP and sat as MPs within the party.
The fact that the PLP has Mark Pettingil, a former OBA MP and AG, as their legal attorney is just the icing on the cake in this self-flagellation ritual that Burt has caused.
At this point does anyone believe anything that Burt has to say?
He is an alien to the truth.