Dear Editor,
I welcome Mr Sherwood Lowe’s contribution to the discourse on the local government system (‘The Local Government Commission was set up to remove the minister…’ SN, March 30). These engagements are important as they often can lead to evolving approaches and laws that advance how our country’s affairs are governed in the future.
Mr Lowe views my reference to the fact that the constitution empowers the Local Government Commission (LGC) to appoint ‘all’ staff of the local government organs in Guyana as a “soft” one. By ‘soft’ I’m assuming that he means it’s no big deal.
He presents an argument of how the LGC can function as is done in other societies. His argument is based on an opinionated idealism of how the LGC should, or could, operate and not grounded on what the factual constitutional requirements of the commission are.
As Mr Lowe rightly pointed out, the establishment of the LGC was merely to exchange the authority of certain functions from minister to commission. Therefore it follows that the sitting minister could have exercised this authority, as envisaged by Mr Lowe, in a devolved “rule making, adjudicating and other oversight” manner.
Well, our contemporary history shows that this was not always the case and the minister exercised substantial hands-on and direct control over the process on a discretionary basis as empowered by law. The Sooba affair rings a bell and we all know the outcome of that. Why would it be any different with the LGC if this body is similarly empowered (by law) and appointed (by the President)?
Is Mr Lowe suggesting we leave this to chance and there will be a leadership team at the LGC that is certain to adopt his proposed approach?
I say give the power to the mayor and councillors, who were directly elected by the Guyanese people, to exercise the functions currently conferred on the LGC. Issues like these should be put to a referendum and included on the menu of the constitutional reform process.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
