There is a certain logic to how bureaucracies work; there has to be, otherwise no organisation could function at all. While depending on its purpose, each institution will have its own requirements tailored to its operations, there are certain basic provisions which in general apply to them all. Firstly, the lines of authority have to be clear and secondly, employees’ specific areas of responsibility have also to be clear. In addition, there should be rules which are understood by everyone, as well as recognised avenues of communication between one level and the next, and different sections within an organisation. Lastly, there should always be some kind of formal record-keeping for the purposes of establishing beyond argument what has gone on, and for providing a framework for decision-making over time so that in instances where it is appropriate some level of consistency is maintained − among other reasons.
And now a section of City Hall has come to public notice once again because of a lack of understanding of how a bureaucracy should work, or a refusal to accept the basic principles which govern it. This time the spotlight was on Chief Engineer Colvern Venture who had his leave postponed because he had not yet completed the hand-over of his department and had not answered correspondence sent to him by Mayor Ubraj Narine months ago.
In addition to the fact that the Chief Engineer had not answered letters, the Mayor complained that he had been waiting about six months for a report from him that was to be forwarded to the Chinese Ambassador who wanted to “engage the city.” “I am fed up with the Engineer’s Department from head to the tail,” said an exasperated Chief Citizen. And he had every reason to be “fed up.” Leaving aside the matter of the correspondence for the moment, what kind of an impression is being conveyed to the outside world when by implication a senior city official can be so disrespectful to a diplomatic representative? Does it not occur to the procrastinating Mr Venture that his dereliction may have consequences in terms of securing foreign co-operation and assistance for the nation’s capital?
Where the Chief Engineer’s failure to respond to letters over a period of months was concerned, some of the other councillors at the meeting had suggestions to make. One of them asked if the report or the information the Mayor required could not be relayed through the Deputy Chief Engineer, who would be acting in the capacity of Engineer while Mr Venture was on leave. In bureaucratic terms that was not a viable suggestion, since as head of the department the Chief Engineer was obliged to fulfil his commitments, which should not be shunted off onto his deputy because he was not prepared to observe the rules.
Councillor Heston Bostwick had a better grip on what had transpired, and according to our report told the council that since it was recognised that the officers under Mr Venture were usually unable to provide relevant information, the Chief Engineer should have put some system in place much earlier. He added that the Town Clerk should be held accountable as she was the one responsible for ensuring that the officers under her control did what was required of them, and if it was that she could not discipline them, then the council should recommend discipline for her. As for the conduct of the City Engineer, he described it as “unacceptable” and said he didn’t know the reasons for it, other than “total disrespect” for the council.
Mr Venture was indeed showing disrespect not just for the City Council, but also the Mayor personally. The Mayor had the authority to make the requests that he did, and it was the City Engineer’s responsibility to respond in a timely fashion. In short, he was thumbing his nose at the rules.
In her own defence Town Clerk (ag) Sharon Harry-Munroe told the council that the matter was being discussed prematurely, as the Engineer’s Department was currently in the process of being handed over and that exercise had not yet been concluded. As a consequence of this she claimed she would not be able to tell the council what had been done or not done by the department. In the first place that was hardly an excuse, since ensuring that her officers carry out their duties should be her ongoing concern, not something which happens annually when the head of department goes on leave. In the second place, and as Councillor Bostwick wasted no time in pointing out, there can be no handing over if certain projects are not yet completed.
The meeting did produce one positive result from a bureaucratic point of view, and that was the decision to have an action sheet added to the council’s agenda for their statutory meetings. The Mayor said that the action sheet would provide updates to the council on decisions made from January to the present time, and the actions taken subsequent to the decision.
The one curious thing about the City Engineer and his failure to answer letters and submit a report which the Mayor had requested, is that two years ago Mr Venture accused five of the engineers working for him of neglecting their duties. They had failed, he said, to submit reports which had been requested, or respond to memos and directives.
They appeared before the committee for disciplinary action and four of them were suspended without pay while one was reprimanded. Councillor Noelle Chow-Chee was quoted as saying at the time, “The level of disrespect in their facial expression alone would have caused me, had I been the chairman, to say fire them now. But we do not have people to replace them.” We reported the council as stating that the men were being disciplined for remorseless neglect of duty. So here we have Mr Venture being accused of the same kind of dereliction that his own engineers stood accused of in 2017, after he had complained. One can only wonder whether City Hall has too many officers at various levels in the hierarchy who do not understand how systems work.
It seems the City Engineer found himself rather much in the limelight this month, since two weeks ago the Mayor and Councillors had expressed their frustration that his department had only been able to install nine manhole covers. The Chief Engineer told them that 23 had been made, but only nine installed, because the remainder had to be properly cured first. It was Councillor Bostwick who asked the inevitable question as to why only nine manhole covers were put to cure. He went on to request that the necessary funds be made available to cover all the manholes in Georgetown.
As for the Mayor, we reported him as saying that following several reviews of the Engineer’s Department, there appeared to be a deficiency in management there on a “huge” scale. He exhorted the Town Clerk to “sort things out”, and said that he was tired of their excuses. The citizenry of Georgetown would agree with him, with the qualification that they are tired of a few other departments as well.
