Dear Editor,
Mr Clinton Urling fiercely rejects the idea of the Local Government Commission (‘The Local Government Commission is an insult to the local government electoral process’ SN, March 29). His beefs are on two fronts: (i) the legislated power granted to the Local Government Commission (LGC) on staffing of local councils (to hire, fire, discipline, promote, etc) undermines “democratic accountability”, and (ii) the formula to compose the LGC will make the LGC “a creature of the sitting government”.
Mr Urling’s first concern is on soft ground, but his second has firmer footing. On his first complaint, the LGC was set up to remove the responsible minister from exercising direct political control over administrative and executive personnel in the local councils, such as town clerks and overseers. Because these staff members were direct appointees of the minister, they were beholden to that office and not to the elected councils. The situation led to much dysfunction and dissatisfaction.
The amended local government legislation has removed the minister from the decision-making chain and has transferred this responsibility to the LGC. It is here that Mr Urling fires his first salvo, for he believes (wrongly) that this function can only be exercised directly hands-on. On the contrary. One effective approach commonly used by similar bodies elsewhere is for the LGC to exercise a rule-making, adjudicating and other oversight functions over staffing matters, allowing local councils to retain a respectable degree of direct executive power. If we take hiring of staff as an example, the LGC can stipulate clear preset rules on vacancies, applications, interviews and appointments for all councils to follow to ensure uniformity, transparency and fair play. The commission can then exercise an oversight role (for instance, by monitoring or observing the short-listing and interview processes) to ensure rules compliance. There is no need, as Mr Urling fears, for the LGC to become the de facto human resource department in the municipalities and NDCs.
Mr Urling’s second complaint is, however, warranted, but not his solution. The formula to select commissioners does somewhat favour the sitting government. The LGC legislation was passed and signed into law in 2013 under the previous administration, but with the then opposition having a parliamentary majority. As far as one can discern from the minutes of the debate and the select committee reports, the concern then of all parties apparently focused more on the size of the commission rather than on its selection mechanism. Be that as it may, Mr Urling’s second objection does not provide grounds to scrap the LGC, but only to tweak the selection mechanism to inspire more public confidence in its operations.
Considerable strides have been made towards making local governance more independent in Guyana. The LGC, properly understood and administered, facilitates that movement and improvement.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
