Dear Editor,
It has been brought to my attention that certain members of the PPP/C party, who are also councillors of the City of Georgetown, have been disseminating grossly misleading information regarding a policy recently discussed and approved by the City Council of Georgetown (SN/31/08/24/ The new 25% payment of arrears for political parties makes clear that this PNC-led council always had ulterior motives by Steven Jacobs, councillor; SN/1/09/24/ Outraged at city’s decision to pass motion reducing rates and taxes for political parties by Alfonso De Armas PPP/C councillor).
To be clear, this policy has nothing to do with arrears; it is not 25% payment of arrears; it is a 25% institutional rate that factors in demand and interest (arrears); it is important to recognize and contrast the difference between payment on arrears and an institutional rate. Also, the utility of this institutional rate is available and accessible to a wide range of different non-governmental organisations and institutions; it is not merely to reduce the rates of political parties.
This policy, which establishes a 25% institutional rate for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and political parties, has been unjustly criticised by these councillors, who have attempted to distort its purpose and implications to the public. It does appear to be the case that the PPP/C councillors have been consistently trying to use certain sections of the media to demonstrate that they are more financially prudent than the rest of the Council. In this circumstance they would not have attempted to peddle the narrative that there is financial mismanagement at the council of which they are councillors. But citizens know different! They speak in terms of “we” and “them” because they do not understand the principles, practices, and general operations of the city council, and local government, for that matter.
One councillor, Armas has even stepped forward to berate certain sections of the media for “lack of coverage”, attempting, as he did, to locate a bias in the reporting of two of our dailies, on this particular issue (para 7 of his letter SN/1/09/24). Apparently, it has not dawned on him that the very letter in which he complains about lack of media coverage is in fact, the media coverage of the issue. Frankly, this outburst about lack of media coverage and the frequent rush to media, without all the facts, by those two councillors demonstrate that, they are more concerned about grandstanding or seeing themselves in the media and trying to create “party” relevance rather than presenting the truth to our citizens.
Interestingly, they did not rush to the media to encourage the current government to pay its rates to the city, to actively consider the fiscal transfer facility, to respect the concept, principle and practice of separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution, and to stop infringing on the rights and responsibilities of the council, but they run to media to misinform and mislead the public on a decision of council that would benefit residents and their local communities, in direct and indirect ways.
Let me unequivocally state that this policy was designed with transparency and fairness at its core; we have nothing to hide. It was carefully crafted, considered and approved with the intent to provide equitable financial support to NGOs and political parties, recognising their significant roles in our community. The 25% institutional rate is a well- considered compromise, ensuring that these entities can contribute to the city’s vibrancy while still making a reasonable financial contribution to Council.
Let me make this point: The 25% institutional rate was discussed and approved (subject to certain conditions and factors) by the City council since 2009, under the Mayoralty of Hamilton Green, when the late Robert Williams was chairman of the Council’s Finance Committee (the foremost standing committee of the council).
It was gazetted in 2017 when Mrs. Patricia Chase Green was Mayor and Royston King was Town Clerk. It is settled knowledge that the council has the authority to design, approve and apply such municipal rates under the Municipal and District Councils Act 28:01, at section 214. (1) (a) (b) (c) and has done so. It is in this regard that this Council has formulated a structure to capture and have all political parties and other liken organizations and NGOs fall within the scope. Further, decisions of Council’s and laws put in place are held and recognize in perpetual succession unless at least a 2/3 majority changes it.
It is very clear, that the attempt by PPP/C councillors to mislead the public are not only deceptive but fundamentally undermine the integrity of our city’s governance. These false narratives are nothing short of an affront to the collective effort of the City Council and a disservice to the people we represent. The public deserves honesty and clarity, not political gamesmanship and grandstanding that seeks to obfuscate the truth and being frugal with it for narrow partisan gain. Furthermore, it is important and necessary to address the government’s approach toward foreign investors and the giveaways, concessions and waivers which starkly contrasts with the policy under scrutiny.
Whilst the Council has made strides in supporting local entities, the national government’s strategy of granting extensive tax breaks and concessions to foreign corporations is both perplexing and concerning. Such concessions, while potentially attractive for foreign investment, must be critically evaluated for their long-term impact on our economy and the fairness of their implementation. It is imperative that the same level of scrutiny and accountability applied to local policies be extended to these national initiatives.
The juxtaposition of these approaches raises critical questions about consistency in policy- making and equity in our economic strategies. It is high time that all parties involved, including the PPP/C, engage in honest discourse and constructive criticism rather than resorting to misleading statements. The citizens of Georgetown deserve better – they deserve clarity, consistency, and integrity from their elected officials.
As Mayor, I urge the PPP/C councillors to cease their continuous grandstanding and misleading campaign, to besmirch the character of the Mayor, and certain councillors, and to join us in a constructive dialogue, and action aimed at fostering trust in our collective effort to improve the condition of the Georgetown municipality we all love. The integrity of our governance and well- being of our city depend on it.
Sincerely,
Alfred Mentore
Mayor of Georgetown
