Dear Editor,
I read Mr. Winslow Parris’ letter in SN (29/01/11) and it is not customary that I rebut since I allow for different points of view and indeed these give perspectives which are sometimes not taking all the factors into consideration. As such I want to present the perspective of the Council in relation to that of Mr. Parris and many who may have the same position. Mr. Parris raises the poignant issue of the Town Clerk and IMC fighting to determine who the boss is. It is not quite accurate but somewhere in that matrix is part of the problem in the recent imbroglio in the municipality. In addition to the fact that the council has a responsibility to manage solid waste in the Town, citizens also have a great responsibility in the way they dispose of their garbage. Many times we dump indiscriminately and expect someone to clean our mess.
How do you account for so many plastic bottles, cups, plates and food containers on all the roadways despite a regular mess cleaning programme? As a nation many of us have grown dirty and uncaring to our environment yet expect miracles from authorities. We have to ‘own-up’, ‘man-up’ and ‘dig- up’ to change this situation.
The faster we have the change in our habits and attitude, the better we will get to the environment we so desire for ourselves and well-being. I found Mr. Parris making this claim but he was not bold enough to challenge the citizens to change their habits and attitudes. The point was clothed in a concealing way in order not to sound offensive to the average citizen.
What are the concerns from the IMC’s viewpoint?
That we do not have an administration with a vision of what the environment should be like as desired by decent citizens. There is also the capacity question on putting plans and systems in place to make this happen. The municipality is bombarded by demands from the citizens, an indifferent attitude to deliverables by the administration and a less than forthcoming parent Ministry whose support is essential in disciplinary and appointment matters. When I am challenged here, I will provide specific evidence.
Mr. Parris and residents should recollect that when the IMC started there were three, almost retired vehicles doing solid waste with an availability of less than 40%. The Town was expanding rapidly and so new areas were coming into the pool of areas needing service. Today we have four vehicles of fewer than 3 years in this exercise with three being enclosed and not having waste falling off as these travel to the dumpsite. So, the availability level has risen and coverage and capacity should have increased dramatically. Mr. Parris I say boldly that we have more than adequate capacity to cover the entire Linden and a spare in case of downtime. A community that generates no more than 8,000 kgs of waste per day has a vehicular pool capacity of over 20,000 kgs, then it should not escape us that we should cover the entire residential community once per week and take care of the downtown areas on a daily basis. The council has done its part with a very meagre resource base and expects the administration to carry out its functions. The recent problem came about because the administration was not executing these functions and we have a duty to the residents to provide service and not produce excuses on why these were not given.
Thus after six months of having the capacity increased way beyond requirement we should expect a clean town. This did not happen and the council made it clear that it had given enough time to put things right and moved to deal with the inefficiency. The archaic local government system does not provide for swift and condign actions to correct these inefficiencies and so there was massive dilation in trying to rectify this governance problem. Imagine you can blame us for lack of services but we have to go through a humongous, organisational blockage and maze to discipline people and to get them to deliver on what they are being paid to do. This is what Mr. Parris seeks to blame us for.
The matter mentioned about signing of documents is indeed germane to the problem because for sometime we have been requesting frugal management of the meagre resources and we have seen deliberate attempts to obfuscate and deceive in order to provide a means to cheat the system. Having seen the façade we could not accept this as a sane group; that we sit and accept such a situation. In other areas more financially endowed they can permit that but we have no tolerance for that sort of thing. Give my team some respect for this even though most of us are not looking for any, as we know this pro bono work comes with a minefield of ingratitude.
I also saw the snideness attached to the criticism about politics. For the information of most, Mr. Robert Corbin has said to us that the workers accused him of putting a council to harass them in a PNC dominated area. At least Mr. Parris again, give some respect to the body for not genuflecting to any particular interest but the extant issues hamstringing the general development of the Town. I would go further and state that by now Mr. Parris knows my stance on many of these issues which I have stated publicly and I wish to admit that Mr. Robert Corbin has not had a single moment at which he imposed any position or policy on the IMC. Not one. In fact I have heard fellows blame him for his hands-off attitude. Of course you do not please everybody in this political cauldron.
In our haste to make our points we do make some uncanny comparisons. For example the eminent gentlemen quoted in the letter in Messrs. Moseley, Sharples et.al read well for a history lesson but how is that comparison with today’s reality a good reference point. It is like saying that the British pound in 1960 was equivalent to G$4. 80 and now 50 years after the descent to G$360 says that we have descended into barbarism without considering the interregnum and the vicissitudes of life in the Republic from that era to now. Yes, we yearn for those days but there will be no company town scenario anymore and the bauxite industry will not return to such glory days, no matter how much we dream. In addition the Council continues to receive the general rate on a 1976 rental mode base line, no matter what is the value of the property. In order to compensate and have a realistic rate the local authorities will have to use a percentage in the thousands which the central authorities have shown no desire to acquiesce to. As an example there are properties in Linden worth $8m but pay a mere $1,500 general rate each year.
The general rate collected for 2010 for example would have only been able to suffice for 40% of employment costs in 2010. A study is ongoing currently in the council and it has shown from a preliminary standpoint that more than 1800 taxpayers have not paid their general rate for 2010 through from 2000. By the time the study is through the figure will be in excess of 2000 since 70% of the properties have been entered and assessed. So we need to be real and consider that the system is an anachronism and needs updating in order for local authorities to deliver on their mandates.
Mr. Parris raised the issue of enforcement. It is the same administration that I am lamenting on their performance, has to ensure enforcement. It takes little guessing to see that this activity will languish. For three months up to May 2010, the Council accepted a proposal for training by the Administration for its enforcement arm. In June 2010 we were promised a special squad which would have patrolled and bring in convictions for all breaches of the by-laws. We are still waiting for that team to be active, proactive and productive. Again, I make the point that local authorities are given the ‘basket to fetch water’, especially when they have a non-compliant administration.
I wish not to discuss the findings and understandings of the recent meetings with the major stakeholders. It is our duty to allow these to work despite whatever misgivings we have. These will be stated clearly in our statutory minutes. But at least we have not had a corruption scandal in many years and this is testimony that we have played our part in sealing some breaches which led to public misgivings. Yu should cheer fo dat.
Yours faithfully,
Orrin Gordon
