City Engineer Colvern Venture has approached the High Court for protection from the Mayor and Councillors who have publicly declared their intention to dismiss him from his post despite not actually having the power to do so.
In a fixed date application seen by Sunday Stabroek, Venture, though his lawyer, Ronald Burch-Smith, has asked the court to grant an order of prohibition preventing the acting Town Clerk, Mayor or Council from exercising any disciplinary functions or imposing any disciplinary sanction against him or from terminating his employment without the approval or permission of the Local Government Commission or Order of Court.
Venture, who was suspended without pay from his post by the Council on January 25th, is also asking that the suspension by quashed.
The application, which is scheduled to be heard on Monday, is intended to forestall the tabling of a motion for the “Termination of Contract of Employment of the City Engineer.” This motion is the only agenda item of an Extra Ordinary Statutory Meeting of the Council which is scheduled for 2 pm on Monday.
The motion, seen by Sunday Stabroek, is premised on the Mayor and Councillors purportedly being empowered by Sections 74 and 75 of the Municipal and District Councils Act to employ officers to carry out functions and the contention that it is “in the interest of the Council” to terminate Venture’s employment.
Notably the motion, in violation of procedures, provides no reason for the termination beyond the “interest of the Council”. There is no mention of any attempt to exercise natural justice principles, including allowing Venture to respond to any accusations against him. In fact, there are no accusations made in relation to the officer’s performance of his duties.
The motion also misrepresents the Sections 74 and 75 of the Act. These sections do not grant the Mayor or Councillors any powers; rather they list the specific “Local government officers” which should be employed at the Council.
The duties and powers of the Mayor and Councillors are listed at Section 8A and include such things as developing and evaluating policies and programmes for the municipality as well as making efforts to raise the levels of civic consciousness of the residents of the municipality.
In fact, Venture, though his lawyer, has used the same sections in his application for relief as well as the Local Government Commission Act.
The application reminded that under section 13 of the Local Government Commission Act, the Commission exercises supervision over the employment, transfer, discipline and dismissal of staff of local government organs, which includes the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown.
It also notes that according to Municipal and District Councils Act, the senior personnel of the City Council are “local government officers”. Section 74 of the Act specifically identifies the City Engineer as one such senior personnel.
Additionally Section 120 of the Municipal and District Councils Act vests the power to exercise discipline over local government officers, including the power of dismissal, in the Local Government Commission.
“The Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown do not have the authority to exercise disciplinary functions over the Applicant as City Engineer or to dismiss him,” the application specifically reminds.
Venture has been at odds with the Council for years. While the politicians have blamed his department for myriad issues facing the city, including flooding, Venture has maintained that his department is understaffed and under-equipped to achieve the level of efficiency demanded.
Most recently current Mayor Ubraj Narine publicly declared that he would ensure the long serving officer was removed from his most.
“The engineer Mr Colvern Venture has embarrassed us not only now, but since 2019 when I took office. The engineer continues to embarrass this Council and I will not take it this year. I will find some way to send Mr Colvern Venture home before the year out,” Narine told a press conference on January 8th.
His comments, which were reported by several media house, were interpreted by the officer as a threat and he duly lodged a complaint with the LGC on January 18th even though he was officially on sick leave.
“I am concerned that, for reasons unknown to me, I am being targeted by Mr Ubraj Narine. This has been the case for the past two years since the Mayor assumed office. It is my considered view that the recent series of utterances in the media by Mr Narine are part of a wider, dubious plan to replace me with someone of the Mayor’s choice,” Venture stated in the letter.
He added that the Mayor’s actions have moved into the realm of obstruction, with his department being denied tools, machinery and building materials to complete assignments of the Council.
“It is to be noted that on numerous occasions, I have had cause to seek the intervention of the Town Clerk to implore the City Treasurer to consider, as a matter of urgency, the purchase of parts, components and building materials for my department to execute works. Even with her interventions, my department continues to be inadequately supplied with the necessary things to function effectively,” Venture claimed, before adding that is “near impossible” to attend to all issues affecting stakeholders with the prevailing negative financial circumstances.
While the Council did not address the accusations made by Venture, it seized on the date of the letter as a “procedural violation” and voted to suspend Venture for one month without leave.
Stabroek News has previously reported that Deputy Mayor Alfred Mentore as claiming that if Venture were on sick leave and a team member was acting in his place, then he had no right to write the letter when he was not on duty, but rather, should have done so when he had resumed work. There was no mention of where this procedural rule was ever codified.
Notably the motion, which was passed to suspend Venture, was moved without notice by Councillor Heston Boswick in clear violation of council practice. Venture, who was not present at the meeting where the motion was passed, was never granted an opportunity to respond to the accusation and was ordered to be sent home by an acting Town Clerk, who is his substantive junior.
In his affidavit in support of his application, Venture highlights these discrepancies and notes that despite receiving a purported suspension letter on January 27 he continued to work and attended meetings with colleagues, one of which was chaired by the Town Clerk (ag).
“By memorandum dated 4, February 2021 from the Town Clerk (ag), I was asked why I had remained on duty…I replied by memorandum dated February 5, 2021 that I believed the suspension to be ultra vires the powers of the office of the Town Clerk or the City Council and asked the Town Clerk (ag) to point out the statutory basis to suspend me. The Town Clerk has not responded to date,” he stated.
