June 7, 2011Dear SirThis is in response to Erwin Adderley’s letter in the June 7, 2011 edition of your paper.I tried to read his letter with an open mind but I kept coming back to the sense that Mr Adderley was standing on ceremony; living in the past; rationalising everything by using the Constitution; and engaging in a violent personal battle to avoid change. There’s always an argument for a point of view but let’s be real here ... and maybe even honest.I am well aware of the situation the UBP found itself in during the past few years. I absolutely guarantee you that the UBP in 2008 and in the years since would have struggled to (a) find anyone under the age of 50 actively involved; (b) been able to determine whether a person was a member, paid up or not, (I know — I asked and I couldn’t get an answer !!!); (c) find more than maybe two or three branches that were actually formed and possibly active — and those would have been in absolute-lock seats; and (d) had any chance of raising a dime in donations and, more importantly, paying off a $200,000 debt that was at least four years old.The only realistic thing that was working at the end of the UBP was perhaps its leadership body — the Central Executive. It’s all well and good for Erwin, Kim and Charlie to tell us that they should have followed the letter of the Constitution but the truth is that they couldn’t have found a quorum or a branch or anybody who cared to make this decision by the constitution.Leadership means making tough calls and, in this case, I think the leaders of the UBP (those who were constitutionally elected to represent the branch members, Erwin) made a call. You may disagree with the call but all this other malarkey is just that ... malarkey!POLLYSmith’s