November 30, 2001

Dear Sir,

I have had several comments in regards to my expressed concerns about the PLP hierarchy.

1) It has been said that I am concerned only because my brother, Arthur Hodgson,was dismissed from the Cabinet.

2) I should not expect to be given an opportunity to contribute if I did not agree with, or did not have, "a special relationship" with someone in the hierarchy since it is only natural for people to want to only work with those who agree with them.

3) Both my brother and I should expect to be ignored if we were not loyal to the "core values" of the PLP hierarchy.

Please let me respond.

My personal problems with the PLP hierarchy are the same as with the UBP i.e. I am overt in my concerns about the continuing impact of racism on our society.

Many in the PLP hierarchy, having "internalised racism", or accepted the concept of the superiority of those in the white community, are as angry with me as those who support the UBP.

Hence, I met hostility and disregard from many in the PLP hierarchy as soon as they came to power, even though so very many of their supporters believed, and told me that they believed, that I had played a very significant role in helping them to victory.

When Randolph Horton, as Chairman of the College Board, ignored, and dismissed my request for a certain role at the College, which later went to Senator Patrice Parris, my brother was still in the Cabinet, and I, as a PLP appointee to that Board, was consistently propogating the PLP positions.

However, Mr. Horton, as Chairman, was, apparently, more concerned about making concessions to the then President, Dr. George Cook, who was certainly not a PLP supporter but was white.

I had repeatedly been refused appointment at the College under the UBP appointed Board and Mr. Horton was not prepared to go against the previous administration or Dr. Cook.

The PLP hierarchy came to power insisting that everyone would be given an opportunity to contribute.

They did not say that only those who "rubber stamped" their positions, or had a "special relations" with them would be given an opportunity.

However, since both my interest and expertise had to do with race relations and racism, and I had been responsible for the former Government establishing a Ministry on race relations, they, like the UBP wanted nothing to do with me.

The fact that they have not only not hired me but have not put any serious funds in CURE is a clear indication that they, no more than the UBP, are really interested in ridding this society of racism, or in ensuring that the black community, and the social problems arising from our history of racism, find any redress.

They are not seriously interested in narrowing the gap between the two communities any more than the previous Government.

No matter how often Senator Burch cries "racism", their actions, and their distribution of funds, show where their real concerns lay.

It also explains why the PLP hierarchy were not interested in the South African conference on racism and why they refused to give even token financial assistance to those of us who went.

For blacks to have to have "a special relationship" with the hierarchy in order to be given an opportunity is even more limiting and restrictive than under the UBP who only needed for you to be white or a supporter of the UBP.

Finally, it was not my lack of loyalty, or that of Arthur's lack of loyalty to the "core values" of the PLP.

It was the lack of loyalty of the PLP hierarchy.

1) Their Constitution said not to take Queen's Honours. They did.

2) They said that they represented the workers. They have had more meetings at the BUEI than at the BIU. The one meeting at the BIU on environment, the Premier ignored.

3) They said that they wanted to give first place to Bermudians. Dame Lois hired an expatriate rather than a more experienced Bermudian.

4) They said that they wanted every one to be given an opportunity. Now, they only recognise those who are "rubber stamps", or "have a special relationship" with the hierarchy.

I am not even going to mention their rhetoric, as the Opposition, on independence and income tax.

EVA N. HODGSON

Hamilton Parish