City Hall amassed a whopping $1.29 billion in revenue for the first six months of the year but continues to operate at a deficit and some city councillors are frustrated at their inability to access detailed information on the city’s expenditure.
In the absence of Mayor Patricia Chase-Green and Town Clerk Royston King, who are in Chile at the Latin America and the Caribbean Mayors’ Pre-Forum, councillors yesterday voiced their frustration at being unable to readily access information about the decisions and actions being undertaken by the city administration.
Team Legacy Councillor Malcolm Ferreira, during the examination of the monthly report of the Solid Waste Department yesterday, noted that a request had previously been made for a report on the operations of the mechanised city sweeper, yet the council was still to be provided with same.
In response, acting Town Clerk Sharon Harry-Monroe explained that a request or recommendation from a single councillor does not represent a decision of the council and, therefore, the councillor should not expect officers to respond as if it were.
“A councillor’s recommendation or suggestion does not become a decision of council.
A councillor can ask to see a report and the officer will make it available through the Town Clerk’s office but unless the council votes to have the information presented at statutory, a councillor can’t come to council and chide the officer since it is not a decision of council,” she said.
Ferreira noted that these issues of procedure are consistently being used by the officers to frustrate requests by councillors and asked that council ensure that the necessary processes are followed so that their requests are fulfilled.
In the midst of the ensuing exchange on what exactly constitutes a decision of council, APNU+AFC Councillor Roopnaraine Persaud stressed that information needs to be more forthcoming. “This is because information is not forthcoming. If the information is forthcoming, we will not have to be drilling down. We are not drilling for oil. My policy is if we get this information, then we will have less problems. Let us understand what is going on. I have no doubt that the officers mean well when they get into a contract on the city’s behalf but once it is spending money, I want to have the information,” he said.
Data presented by the City Treasurer at yesterday’s statutory meeting showed that for the period January to June, 2016, City Hall amassed $1,290,812,534 in revenue. This is $400,000 more than the sum raised over the same period in 2015.
However, for the month of June, the city collected $135 million, which was $27 million less than the June 2015 revenues, but $53 million more than the sum collected in 2014, yet the month saw the city recording a deficit of $66 million.
In explaining this expenditure, the Treasurer’s report states that 48% or $76 million represented employment cost, while $18 million represented employment overheads, $90 million represented operating expenses, $15 million represented maintenance expenses and $1 million represented other expenses.
It was highlighted that this month has seen an increase in expenditure of $29 million over last month’s report and Treasurer Ron McCalmon was asked to explain whether any new projects were initiated which could account for the sum.
In response, McCalmon claimed that an increase in the expenditure of the City Waste Department to $40 million, due to the month being five instead of four weeks, partially accounts for the increase.
He did not highlight what the actual increase was nor did he identify other areas which may have accounted for the rest of the increase.
For PPP/C Councillor Bisham Kuppen, the obscure nature of these reports is problematic.
Speaking with Stabroek News after the meeting, he said it was not enough to say that “52% or 48%” of the expenditure was spent on employment cost. “We need to know more. We need to know what each project is costing the city, how many staff are employed in each department and what is the monthly expenditure for their salaries. They are spending so much on employment cost and stilling hiring contract workers,” he noted.
Kuppen has been attempting for the last two months to move two motions in relation to the city’s financial records.
One of the motions calls for a forensic audit to be done at City Hall, while the second asks for the City Treasurer’s Department to present a more detailed report during statutory meetings.
For the third time yesterday, Kuppen was told that his motions were not included on the agenda. The reason proffered this time was that they were “not worded appropriately.”
He had previously been told the notice of the motion was not submitted in a timely manner and that the motion itself had not been presented to the Town Clerk in writing.
Kuppen views these as attempts to frustrate him but maintains that he will continue to persist.
Asked if he had been given any advice during the orientation of councillors on how to structure and table a motion, Kuppen said no but noted that he had sought legal advice on both of these aspects and complied with the advice received from reputable legal sources.
