The main opposition PNCR yesterday dismissed reports of irregularities and fraud at its Georgetown District Conference as “baseless,” denying that party leader Robert Corbin had any involvement in the process and stating that no proof has been provided to allow for investigation of any of the claims.
Last Sunday’s Conference saw party executive and MP Aubrey Norton unseated as Georgetown Chairman and he later claimed that the vote was rigged, while accusing Corbin of trying to use the outcome to retain power. “The PNCR states categorically that these allegations are without foundation and rejects them as only intended to bring the party into public disrepute,” General Secretary Oscar Clarke told reporters at a news conference yesterday at Congress Place. The news conference sought to address the allegations made by Norton as well as what Clarke dubbed “misinformation” in the media, and in particular Stabroek News, about the controversy surrounding the District Conference. Clarke was accompanied by Corbin as well as party Chief Whip Lance Carberry.
Addressing the claims of fraud, Clarke said the party has always viewed public allegations made by any member seriously, particularly in the absence of any formal complaint internally or the failure by the member to avail him/herself of the procedures provided for in the party’s constitution to have the grievances aired and investigated. He said no formal complaint had been received from Norton up to yesterday.
Asked whether Norton had been given any notice of disciplinary proceedings being taken against him, he said the issue has been discussed by the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) and it was agreed that if it is found that any matters require disciplinary action, the party would so advise. Norton, a member of the CEC, was present at the meeting. “We would advise that such action would be taken, unless, of course, certain things are done,” Clarke explained, adding “If, for example, a person were to accept that they did do something contrary to the constitution or the rules that person should be big enough to withdraw and if the person were to do so it would not warrant disciplinary action.”
When contacted yesterday, Norton said the last decision the party had made was that it would not comment on the issue publicly, adding that he would seek to verify what has been said and would respond on that basis.
According to Clarke, the party does not normally discuss publicly its internal affairs since there are appropriate forums for members to raise concerns. Additionally, he noted that there are also processes provided for by the party’s constitution where any aggrieved member can have a complaint investigated. But he said the misinformation placed in the public domain, about the conduct of the polls prompted the party to provide a complete factual response for the benefit of the public.
Corbin added that the party has run off several District Conferences all over the country and last week’s was the first to have seen such behaviour. “It is highly unsatisfactory for a party expected to give leadership to this country,” he said. “It cannot be condoned by any respectable party and that is why I have insisted that unless you have discipline within an organisation you will have chaos. Whatever may be the complaint there are ways and means by which people who are aggrieved could have those issues addressed and if we breach those norms you are going to have confusion and chaos.”
He said it was unfortunate that the behaviour at Georgetown could do “so much damage” to the overall order of the party’s business in other parts of the country. He also maintained that there was wide acceptance of the results by those who participated at the conference.
Meanwhile, having met on the issue, the CEC has requested that Clarke prepares and presents an official report on the conference and, in particular, the elections, at its next meeting, scheduled for July 15. Returning Officer Robert Williams has also been asked to provide his report for the consideration of the CEC. “The Central Executive Committee has also requested that all those persons who wish to challenge the results of the elections should submit their allegations in writing to the General Secretary, so that these could be fully investigated and acted upon,” Clarke said, adding that as soon as the requested reports are available and any complaints have been investigated, the PNCR would release the results. He added that the CEC also discussed and agreed on the course of action to be taken, in circumstances where it is satisfied that the party leader, Corbin, has been libelled.
Stabroek News was present at the conference, when, as the ballot papers were being distributed for the voting for chairman, chaos erupted. Persons were heard shouting that they were not receiving any ballot papers while others claimed that some were receiving more than one ballot paper. This saw some of them jumping to their feet and engaging in shouting matches. One man who wanted to make his voice heard stood at the microphone screaming that the process was being rigged and he suggested to Williams that the delegates move by rows to the head table to vote instead of sharing out the ballot papers as that process was supporting rigging. “We cannot want to go to the PPP/C and talk about rigging elections when we are doing the same here, this must end now we must stop this and we must start doing things right now,” the man shouted into the microphone.
Norton and his supporters left the voting area and were overheard saying that the process was being rigged. And some persons produced ballot papers which did not have the standardised stamps at the back of them. Even before the elections some persons were openly heard voicing their objections to their names not being found on the list of delegates.
Overdue
The District Conference, Clarke said, had been long overdue, since it has not been held since 2004. He explained that on several occasions the party’s CEC and the General Council directed the District Committee under Norton’s chairmanship to convene its conference, but it was never done. As a result of the failure to comply after repeated requests, he said, a decision was taken by the General Council in March this year, to convene the conference under his supervision as party General Secretary. The General Council is the highest decision making body of the Party, between the party’s Biennial Congresses.
In accordance with General Council decision, Clarke held meetings with the District executive, to discuss arrangements necessary for the holding of the conference and Norton was among members who were assigned responsibilities. Clarke, however, said that he later discovered that most of those assignments were not carried out but a date was fixed for the conference. Consequently, he was directed by the CEC to take executive responsibility for convening the conference.
After the date for holding the conference was settled, 29 party groups and five Guyana Youth and Student Movement (GYSM) groups qualified to send delegates, in accordance with the party’s constitution. The various groups were entitled to send a total of 435 delegates and delegate cards were prepared for them in accordance with the group’s submissions to the secretariat. Clarke said that only 325 of the entitled delegates attended the conference.
Clarke said that on the day before the conference, he posted the Register of Party Members of the Georgetown District in the Hall of Heroes at Congress Place for inspection by all interested members of the district between 1 pm and 4 pm. He said the register contained financial members for the year 2008-2009. During this process, he said, some persons raised concerns like the presence of the name of deceased member Lorrie Alexander on the register. Clarke explained that there was no discrepancy since the register displayed the names of those persons who were party members for the period June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009. The official register, he said, showed that Alexander was “deceased” and therefore his name could not be submitted as a delegate or counted in the calculation for entitled delegates for that specific group. Another complaint was that in a few instances there appeared to be similar membership numbers for different members of the same group. Three such groups were identified and upon investigation they were found to have been typographical errors on the records displayed. A complaint was also made about the Brickdam group, but investigations revealed that the complaints were groundless, he added, while emphasising that all complaints were investigated.
‘Total control’
According to Clarke, Williams was identified by Norton as the Returning Officer. Williams was in “total control” of the election process and even identified his own assistants, he said. It had been reported that in the chaos of the vote Corbin had virtually assumed the responsibilities of the Returning Officer but Clarke was adamant that apart from being a guest, invited to deliver the keynote address and install the newly elected officers, Corbin was not involved in any aspect of the preparation and management of the conference. “Therefore, reports to the contrary, in the media, are at best mischievous if not libellous,” he said.
Under Williams’s direction, Clarke explained, the secretariat prepared ballot papers equivalent to the number of delegates entitled to participate. These were then handed over to Williams, who ensured that they were stamped with the four official stamps of the party to determine their authenticity.
At the time of polls, he explained, the conference was handed over to Williams, who was in charge of the proceedings. Williams subsequently asked all present to vacate their seats and proceed to the back of the auditorium, then called each group by name and stated the number of delegates to which that group was entitled. Under the supervision of Williams’s assistants, the delegates were then allowed to enter the section set aside for the seating of the delegates for that identified group, Clarke said. Williams recorded the numbers from each group after he received reports announced publicly by his assistants. “It appeared, from the responses, that not all groups had all their delegates present so that the total number of delegates present to vote, was less than the number entitled to vote,” Clarke said. He added that the excess ballot papers represented the difference between the delegates who were entitled to vote and those who were present at the conference to vote.
Meanwhile, he said, before the voting commenced, a few persons raised issues from the floor, including a complaint that the membership register showed that a few members had the same membership number. According to him, this same complaint had been made the previous day and had already been addressed. Nevertheless, Williams made a note of the complaints for later investigation. One objecting member attempted to use the reason to advocate the postponement of the election, which resulted in disorder as some persons refused to leave the microphone and were demanding that the elections be aborted. With opposition from some delegates, he said, it took some time before order was restored.
‘No proof’
There were no objections over the conduct of the election for chairman of the Georgetown District, Clarke said. Ballots were distributed to the delegates by those assisting Williams, who then asked that the ballot papers not issued be returned to him. The delegates were requested to vote for the candidate of their choice and, afterward, the assistants collected the ballots in cardboard boxes.
Williams, Clarke said, then asked each candidate to appoint a scrutineer to accompany the ballot boxes to the Hall of Heroes, where the votes were to be counted as well as to monitor the count of the votes cast. The scrutineers representing the candidates accompanied the boxes and were present throughout the count and until the votes were declared for each candidate, he said.
It was during the distribution of ballots for the voting for vice-chairman that pandemonium broke out at the rear of the auditorium, according to Clarke, who said some delegates shouted that they had received no ballot papers while others alleged that some persons received two ballot papers. Williams demanded that all ballot papers that were not issued should be returned to him and afterward instructed delegates to proceed with the voting and subsequently polling was concluded without any incidents, Clarke added.
He said he could not respond to allegations of persons receiving extra ballots or improper ballots without concrete evidence, which according to him would warrant an investigation. “People have made allegations–people who were at the back–and if you had a reporter, as I think you did have at this conference, the reporter can confirm that there were allegations made, that is all the reporter can confirm,” he said, “If the reporter has information that he or she actually saw and can say, I would like to get that information because these allegations have been made but there has been no proof to determine whether those allegations are true or false. And in the light of that I can’t say that there was fraud. I could only say that I expect to receive allegations of this kind in writing from those who say they saw. If I do, it will be investigated.”
