At the beginning of this month President Irfaan Ali attracted criticism for saying that it was no longer realistic to wait on the City Council to undertake important works in the various wards. “It’s hopeless,” he was quoted as saying, “we have to do it directly from the central government.” On a walkabout in the Kingston and Alberttown wards the President referred to a decision to have the Ministry of Public Works together with councillors organise a group of residents to clean all the alleyways and drainage in the area. “We are going to work in the community,” he said.
An editorial from November 9 in this newspaper described the President’s approach as the “epitome of divisiveness”, which was hardly in tandem with his ‘One Guyana’ ideal. It was the M&CC, it was said, which was intended to run the city, and “[s]ingling out wards and engaging with councillors outside of their statutory office is interference …”
It might be added that Georgetown still votes in an opposition majority in local government elections, and by making it difficult for the Council to function, the assumption is that the ruling party hopes the citizens of Guyana’s capital will change their votes. So far they have not obliged to the degree which would accord Freedom House political dominance around the horseshoe table. For its part the opposition controlled City Hall has repeatedly accused central government of deliberately withholding resources from the Council, so that it cannot discharge its mandate.
The criticism which emerged following the Pre-sident’s walkabout was addressed in a November 10 letter from all eleven PPP/C Councillors on the M&CC. They insisted that the central government harboured “no animosity toward the M&CC and would indeed relish the opportunity to work alongside the Council to improve our City.” Challenging Stabroek News on whether it had investigated what went on at City Hall and whether it was really convinced that the APNU Councillors were “genuinely interested in cooperation”, they pointed to the composition of the Council’s committees which they said would reveal not inclusion but exclusion. The example cited was the case of the refusal to appoint a PPP/C Councillor as Vice-Chair of the Finance Committee.
Assuming that the Council indeed lacks inclusiveness, the charge is nevertheless something of a double-edged sword. After all, there is the central government itself, not to mention the President, refusing to work with the opposition even when the Constitution requires it, such as in the case of the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice. If anyone should set the example of inclusiveness, therefore, then surely that should be the central government, and if the City Council is also derelict in that regard, then the PPP/C Council-lors are hardly the ones to be pointing fingers.
The matter of funding for the Council is an issue going back many decades. Echoing the frequent assertions from various PPP/C governments, the Councillors said that the Council received “substantial yearly revenues generated from taxes and various fees, amounting to billions.” What was really at issue, they claimed, was the “chronic mismanagement” of City Hall. They went on to write that it was time for “rigorous accountability, transparent governance, and a sincere commitment to fiscal responsibility.”
No one would dispute that there needs to be total accountability at the M&CC, including, as the Councillors said, an updating of the assets register and a forensic audit. At the first meeting of the newly installed Council in August, PPP/C Councillor Patricia Chase-Green had raised the matter of the Assets Register, and Mayor Alfred Mentore had agreed with her, saying that there was need for a full-fledged audit of the assets, along with one relating to the previous Council’s financial transactions. Since there was total accord on the matter of an audit by both sides of the divide, why has one not been arranged?
It is true that the Town Clerk acknowledged the urgency of a full audit, but said it could not be undertaken by the Treasury Department of the M&CC because it was severely understaffed. However, there are possibilities outside the Treasury Department where audits can be commissioned, so one can only ask why this has not been done. Have the PPP/C Councillors made any alternative proposals, such as approaching the Auditor General’s Department? If the government is so insistent on purveying an image of corruption and mismanagement at City Hall, then it should be more than willing to facilitate an audit in the interest of ratepayers. The Councillors who signed the letter waxed lyrical on the subject of financial scandals at City Hall, so surely it is also their duty to the citizens of Georgetown to apply maximum pressure to secure a forensic audit, otherwise they open themselves to the charge that their real interest lies not in accountability, but in scoring political points.
As for the matter of the Council receiving billions in revenue each year, the Councillors must know they are being disingenuous. Central government has traditionally been dilatory at best, if not downright uncooperative about meeting its financial obligations to the City Council. In an invited response to what the President said on his walkabout, Mayor Mentore commented that the government “owes the M&CC over $1.9 billion in taxes… the Council and I could only operate with the tools that are given.”
The M&CC did not have much funding he said, and what they had came from rates and taxes. It has to be acknowledged that for a long time there has been a problem getting citizens to meet their obligations where the rates were concerned, and for many years there was effectively no sanction in operation because of a change in the law of parate execution. It had become the norm for the Council to periodically grant amnesties on the interest of sums owed by defaulters, so more funding could be generated to meet some of the M&CC’s obligations.
On the last occasion, however, when the Council voted at the end of September to offer a period of amnesty in order to raise funds to clear PAYE debts to the GRA, this was disallowed by Local Government Minister Anand Persaud. He said that according to the law it should be accompanied by financial regulations and should be placed on hold so that its lawfulness could be investigated. This was despite the fact that the Mayor and executive finance members had first met with Commissioner-General Godfrey Statia of the GRA.
This is all in addition to the fact that the rates are years out of date, and take no account of the rampant development in Georgetown where property is concerned. Yet the agency to bring some order into that disorder is not the City Council, but the central government, whose Ministry of Finance has the obligation to undertake the valuation of properties. It has shown no inclination to embark on this task, leaving a situation of great unfairness for much of the citizenry unremedied, and City Hall with considerably reduced revenue. So where is the cooperation from central government the Councillors are referring to?
But the Councillors did not stop there. They alluded to a “vacuum of initiative” on the part of the M&CC to explore alternative possibilities of revenue generation. Here they are treading in very unstable terrain. Nearly all of the innovative schemes for generating more funding were disallowed by the government, and the one which wasn’t – a parking meter project ‒ resulted in something of a scandal. That occurred not under the PPP/C, but under the coalition, and the person particularly associated with it is the former Mayor of Georgetown, Patricia Chase-Green, who has since changed sides and is now one of the signatories of the letter. It appears to be a classic case of double think.
There is too the writers’ complaint about the fact that although the acting City Treasurer has retired, the Council has done nothing about it although they did have warning. Ultimately, of course, only the Local Government Commission can appoint senior members of the M&CC bureaucracy, and that body is not noted for its efficiency or punctuality. Last year, for example, the Commission appointed various persons to fill vacancies at City Hall, but then dallied about issuing letters of appointment, even although the Council had written them on the subject. It was reported that they received no reply.
It is true, of course, that the City Council lacks the capacity to run the capital effectively, but the “chronic mismanagement” to which the Councillors refer, will not be ameliorated by starving the M&CC of funds. The political games in relation to Georgetown which have been going on now for several decades have done nothing for the city, and President Ali may rest assured will do nothing for it in the longer term. City Hall needs adequate funds, and these have to be regularly audited, and the decisions taken by the Council constantly monitored. The laws have to be adhered to, and be seen to be adhered to, such as in relation to the submission of the budget to which the Councillors referred. With ongoing accountability and transparency it may then be possible to achieve an improvement in how the capital is governed. But most of all, for there to be any hope of advancement, the central government, especially the President, has to learn to work with the City Council.
