Dear Editor,
The PNCR/APNU/ APNU+AFC’s hue and cry for local government reform over the past two decades can best be described as a call of convenience ultimately aimed at empowering themselves, and certainly not local communities as they would have the Guyanese people believe. Once they found out that the reform did not necessarily achieve the results they desired at the time, it could wait and be sacrificed at the altar of expediency. It is sad, moreso when one recalls the urgency with which the APNU+AFC would have us believe they wanted legislative reform concluded and implemented. Now there is no longer a display of urgency but rather one of expediency, or is it deception?
The Local Government Commission Act No. 18 of 2013 passed by the National Assembly on the August 7, 2013 and assented to by then President Donald Ramotar on November 6, 2013, is intended to provide for the establishment of the Local Government Commission as per Article 78A of the Constitution. The commission is intended to reduce the influence of the central government by placing the oversight of local democratic organs under the purview of the commission and not a government ministry, with citizens playing a more meaningful role in addressing local issues and solving local problems. Are we to believe that the APNU+AFC government that spoke so publicly and so frequently about local democracy is no longer excited by the establishment of this commission?
This Act and by extension the Local Government Commission “shall come into operation on a date appointed by order of the Minister”. Thus, while there is a Local Government Act 2013, a Municipal and District Councils Amendment Act 2013 and a Local Government Amendment Act 2013, there is no Local Government Commission, and the Minister‘s powers with respect to the administration of the Municipalities and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils are significantly curtailed by the repealing of several sections of the Municipal and District Councils Act (No. 15 of 2013) and the Local Government Amendment Act 2013 that deal with the Local Government Service Commission. Most of the functions of the commission deal with “the regulation and staffing, investigation, discipline, etc, of staff of the Local Government Organs”. There is thus, in my humble opinion, a legal conundrum which puts the Local Government Commission Act 18 of 2013 in abeyance, and repeals references to the Local Government Service Commissions in the Local Government Amendment Act and the Municipal and District Councils Amendment Act, under circumstances where the Local Government Commission does not presently exist. No wonder some Mayors and Town Clerks have been guilty of usurping unto themselves roles, responsibilities and authority that are undoubtedly not part of their remit.
There is an urgent need to activate the Local Government Commission and remove, inter alia, the apparent misunderstanding re the role and responsibilities of the councils vis-à-vis some staff of the councils. Is there a fear on the part of the government with respect to activating this commission? Is there something to hide? Are there benefits that would be lost?
Fiscal transfers
Fiscal transfers arose out of our constitutional reform process and aim at providing objective
criteria for the allocation of resources to local authorities as opposed to automatic allocations which see each local authority receiving the same allocation.
These resources are provided for in the local government budget which is itself a component of the national budget. Central government through the instrument of the national budget provides financial resources to local authorities to supplement their own revenues and so assist them to discharge their functions and responsibilities. These grants were until the assent of then President Donald Ramotar to the Fiscal Transfers Act No. 16 of 2013 on November 6, 2013 allocated equally among the NDCs without regard to population size, land mass, performance and ability to manage the financial resources made available.
A number of NDCs have expressed their concern that the grant allocation under the government remains the same for every NDC notwithstanding their population size, land mass, revenue collected set off against collectibles for the previous year. Recall that under the PPP/C government, the then Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development did activate the use of the fiscal transfer formula in 2014 much to the delight of those NDCs that performed exceptionally well. So while there is a minimum 50% of allocation that each NDC/Municipality would receive, the balance has to be earned by the NDCs. To each according to its work.
Not only must the Ministry of Communities ensure that the formula is used to determine what each NDC and each Municipality gets, but government is expected to place enough financial resources at the disposal of the local democratic organs to provide incentives and to reward good performance.
The Fiscal Transfers Act provides that annual subventions or fiscal transfers from central government to local authorities shall be based primarily on a set of conditions and stipulated performance indicators. In order to be eligible for fiscal transfers, local authorities are expected to, inter alia, submit by November 15th of the current year, the budget estimates of the local authority for the following year. Also, final statements comparing budget and actual expenditure for the previous year must be prepared and submitted by March 31st of the following year. Is there a fear that the fifty-three local democratic organs that supported the PPP/C at the March 2016 local government elections would access a larger slice of the financial cake?
The Fiscal Transfers Act of 2013, apart from permitting NDCs and Municipalities to garner revenue by way of the imposition of rates on immovable property within its boundaries, allows them, subject to the approval of the Minister, to approach donor agencies for grants which can be used to fund projects; approach government for revenue-sharing contracts; and embark on revenue-earning projects including bidding for works at the regional and ministry level; in short, sourcing revenue from non-traditional sources. Why isn’t the Minister of Communities encouraging the local democratic organs to make the fullest use of the opportunities provided herein? Is it that we want them to continue to be dependent on central government? That is certainly not the intent behind the PPP/C driven Fiscal Transfers Act.
Yours faithfully,
Norman Whittaker
Former Minister of Local
Government and Regional
Development
