June 3, 2011Dear Sir,I take this opportunity to reply to the letter dated May 23, 2011 by Patricia J Gordon-Pamplin JP, MP entitled: “It Was Time To Move On.”My first comment is, if people decide to criticise individuals who disagree with them, it is incumbent on them to ensure that they accurately reflect the situation in their criticism. With due respect, the criticism that has been made in the above mentioned letter does not accurately reflect the position of the “handful of UBP members” who applied for the injunction.The eighth paragraph of the letter states:“Following the vote, an injunction was taken to prevent the merger of the UBP. The injunction was obtained by a handful of UBP members who felt that the voting process should have allowed the 47 percent of the electorate who voted for the UBP in the last General Election to have a say in whether to wind up the UBP”. This is not a correct statement.Further, in the next paragraph the letter states that “there are a few fundamentally flawed principles in this stand”. The writer then attempts to explain the fundamentally flawed principles in the next five paragraphs of her letter.The fact is that no one suggested that the process should have allowed “47 percent of the electorate who voted for the UBP in the last election to have a say in whether or not to wind up the UBP”. That was never our position. Our position was that the matter should have been taken to the UBP general membership by way of the UBP branches to allow the UBP rank and file to have their input before a decision was taken. This, despite promises that this would happen, never in fact occurred.It is recognised that under the UBP constitution a branch delegate on the Central Council is responsible to report back to the branch on recommendations and the decisions made by the Central Council. That delegate is also responsible to present to the Central Council the opinions and resolutions of the branch committee and the branch on these and other matters. I am not aware that any such meetings were held at the branch level to specifically discuss the dissolution of the UBP. Further, I am not aware that any resolutions passed in this regard were reported back to the Central Council. It has been argued and will continue to be argued that it is the branch delegates who have the responsibility to liaise between the branch and Central Council. However, in my opinion, due to the very critical nature of this matter, Central Council had a duty to ensure that the membership was well aware of the details of the merger/winding up and a duty to determine the disposition of members (in favour/not in favour) before the decision was taken.A most important point in this regard is the fact that under the UBP constitution the branch candidate selection committee has the responsibility of choosing the individual to represent the party in all constituencies. Under the constitution, the branch selection committee is comprised of five members from the branch and four from the Central Council. Under the constitution of the One Bermuda Alliance, the branches, if they do in fact exist, have no official role to play in the candidate selection process. This function is solely the responsibility of the Central Council. Without commenting on the merits of this situation, I can state that over the 17 years that I have been a member of the UBP, party members have repelled all attempts by the Central Council to dilute the duty and responsibility of the branches on this matter.Additionally there are other matters in the proposed merger/winding up that the rank and file should have been apprised of before a decision was taken. For example, members should have been informed of the status of their membership in the new party and the disposition of any outstanding business matters, including financial, before the merger/winding up.I also want to take issue with the statement made in the letter that said “If there was a feeling that the wind-up of the UBP was somehow not in the best interest of Bermuda, those handful of members ought to have made their voices heard well in advance of the vote rather than embroil people in litigation after being dissatisfied with the outcome of the vote”.On the assumption that the writer attended all or most of the meetings held to discuss this matter and I missed only one meeting, the writer should be well aware that I spoke out, not necessarily against the merger, but to emphasise that the input from the rank and file was essential before any decision of this magnitude was taken. I was given assurances at that meeting and subsequent meetings that this would in fact happen. It did not and has not happened, hence the legal action.In conclusion, while I accept the fact that some parliamentary members of the UBP decided “it was time to move on”, I must respectfully ask why these members found it necessary to attempt to destroy the UBP as they left? In my opinion, the decision to merge/wind up the UBP party was best left in the hands of the general membership to decide.ERWIN P ADDERLEY JPFormer Deputy Leader of the United Bermuda Party