Former members of the fledging political party Solutions Barbados have castigated the leadership style of their once boss Grenville Phillips II.
A statement, signed by past members Alan Springer, Paul Gibson and Irvin Belgrave, itemised other concerns such as a contract used “as a control mechanism for keeping candidates in the party, lack of a democratic process and being punished if they failed to sign the original contract”.
They said “there was no consultation process, members were simply given directives that had to be followed. Running of the party was subject to ad hoc personal decisions . . . . There was also continual refusal, in the face of requests, for the party to be opened up to membership from the wider public as is standard practice”.
The aggrieved former candidates in the last General Election also charged there was “a preponderance of religious instruction given by Grenville, which greatly hampered the work of Solutions Barbados as a political party . . . . This created a deep-seated contention, conflict and distrust within the party”.
Phillips’ leadership, “presented a certain stiffness, detachment and disconnect between the leader and the public at large. It was constantly made apparent that Grenville does not have the confidence nor the trust of the electorate”.
The signatories said a “final olive branch was offered by those having challenges with the leadership style, putting forward certain conditions for us to carry on under the Solutions Barbados banner . . . . Unfortunately, Grenville refused that olive branch”.
Phillips, in thanking all the candidates “for their brave decision to run with Solutions Barbados”, said the process and result affected people in different ways, “which is normal”.
He also said most of the candidates had committed to the next general election but others wanted “us to re-evaluate our mandatory contract requirement for membership”.
“I am only president for one year, and if the members are unhappy with my leadership, then they are free to vote for another to lead them.
“From the time that we had members, issues were discussed, and if we could not come to a consensus, then the majority vote ruled. Most of my positions were voted against and there was never any repercussions for anyone who voted against my position,” said Phillips. (JS)
