Dear Editor,
In the interest of the truth, transparency and accountability, I wish to inform the public about a very worrying developing situation at the Mayor and City Council.
Last Monday, 26 October 2020, at a Statutory Meeting of the Council, a motion was put to the Council and carried to suspend the Standing Orders, to discuss, a letter of reply from the Local Government Commission to certain recommended appointments, including the Town Clerk, City Treasurer, Deputy City Engineer, and Legal Officer, by the Council, at the Georgetown Municipality. In part, the Commission informed the Council that after deliberations it disallowed the appointments. Further, the letter stated that the status quo must remain as is until a new Local Government Commission has been appointed. However, immediately after the Suspension of the Standing Orders, Councillor, Heston Boswick moved another motion on the floor to, among other things, encourage the Council to go ahead with the appointments without the required approval of the statutory body responsible for such appointments and further to instruct the Town Clerk (ag) and the Human Resources Manager (ag) to write and issue appointment letters to the candidates selected by a special committee to fill the vacancies. I objected and voted against the motion for the following reasons:
1. The motion was improperly before the House. According to Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, under Standing Orders Rules, under the Rubic: Motions and Questions it states:
“8. Except as hereinafter provided a member wishing to move a motion or to ask a question shall give notice in writing to the Town Clerk but a motion shall not become a subject of discussion, and a question shall not be answered, until the next ordinary meeting. The notice, if not given at a meeting of the Council, must be delivered to the Town Clerk at least ninety-six hours before the meeting at which it is intended to be brought forward.
9. The following motions will be made without notice-
a) A motion by way of amendment to any motion being debated in the council.
b) A motion for the adjournment of the Council or of the debate; A motion for the suspension of Standing Orders; A motion of the confirmation or amendment of the Minutes of the Council;
c) A motion for the withdrawal of the public
d) A motion that the Council resolves itself into Committee of the Whole Council.
e) A motion made when Council is in Committee;
f) A motion for the suspension of a member; and
g) A motion that the question be now put.”
The Act does not allow any other motion outside of those stated to be moved by a member on the floor.
2. Even if the motion had met the stipulated time as prescribed in the Act (ninety-six hours) it would have been improper because it sought to clothe the Council with powers and authority it does not have; it is ultra vires. According to the Local Government Commission Act 2013, the Commission has powers to approve or disapprove the notice, by the Council, to appoint any officer to office at the municipality. In fact, the Local Government Commission has powers to subject every node of the recruitment cycle, to its approval or disapproval. It is responsible for discipline, rewards, transfers and promotion of Local Government Officers, in the entire Local Government System. It is my considered view that any motion to disregard the authority of the Commission, particularly, in the extant circumstances, would be not only wrong and irresponsible but also illegal.
3. The motion sought to encourage officers to become embroiled in illegality. If the elected council (Mayor and Councillors) does not have the authority to make such substantive appointments without the fiat of the Commission, how then can it instruct the Town Clerk (ag) and the Human Resources manager (ag) to write and issue appointment letters? By what authority are the officers to carry out such instructions? And if they do then they would become embroiled in illegality, which of course could affect their jobs and benefits from many years of service at the Georgetown City Council.
4. I served as Mayor of the City of Georgetown for three years. Prior to that I served as Deputy Mayor for years, I could not, and would not, be part of any action that contemplates breaking the law, even if it is encouraged by the Mayor. I have a fair understanding of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Cap 28:01 and I am obliged to do the right thing and work in the best interest of the city and the citizens who voted for me in my constituency.
However, I have noticed, unsurprisingly and worryingly, that many of my detractors, including certain Councillors (some of whom neither attend meetings nor go to the trouble to read the Act Cap 28:01) on Social Media and elsewhere, have attempted to cast my voting against an improper motion put to the House, in a negative light; they are of the unprincipled position that you must condone wrongdoing even if you have to stifle your conscience. I ask them, my detractors, this question: if the Local Government Commission, Chaired, by an individual, who is a member of the Central Executive Committee of a particular political party, disallowed all of those appointments, how then is my action to vote against the motion, that sought to disregard the position of the Commission, deemed a “sell out”? I took a principled position on this matter; one that is not inconsistent with the Municipal and District Councils Act, Cap 28:01, and the Local Government Commission Act 2013.
Let it be known to all, including, my detractors, that for as long as I sit as a City Councillor, at City Hall, to represent the thousands of citizens who voted for me, I will entertain no fear in carrying out my duties and responsibilities.
The Council could not expect citizens to uphold the city by-laws, rules, and regulations but they themselves break them. It could not be right for the Council to insist that Officers respect and observe protocols, and standard operational procedures but encourage them to disregard authority, when it is convenient, and when it suits certain members of the Council. The Council cannot praise the Commis-sion when it dismisses certain officers but condemn it when it refuses to grant its approval to recommended appointments, by the Council, for another set of people.
The Council has to demonstrate that it is a responsible body and that it is carrying out its statutory responsibilities with all diligence in full and faithful accordance with the Act, Cap 28:01 from which it derives its powers and authority. It cannot do otherwise without inviting unnecessary criticisms and condemnation from all and sundry.
Yours faithfully,
Patricia Chase Green
