Dear Editor,
Kindly permit me space to respond to Mayor Alfred Mentore’s missive dated September 2, 2024. Mentore’s argument that the policy “establishes a 25% institutional rate for non-governmental organisations and political parties” is misleading at best. The policy in question, pushed through the Council on August 26, does not mention non-governmental organisations at all. In fact, its express purpose, as passed by the Council, is to “guide the City Council on how to implement the exemption of political parties from paying rates and taxes in line with the provisions of the Municipal and District Councils Act 28:01”. Non-Governmental Organisations are conspicuously absent from this document. The reason for this omission is clear: Chapter 28:01 already empowers the Council to exempt NGOs wholly or in part from paying rates (A council shall have power to exempt from liability to pay rates either wholly or in part, in respect of the properties listed in this section, the owners of – (a) any property used for the advancement of religion, education, or social welfare, not with a view to profit).
Notably, Mayor Mentore failed to address the core question: why are political parties, entities deeply entrenched in our nation’s governance and often well-funded, placed on the same footing as NGOs that typically operate with limited resources and serve critical social needs? Moreover, while Mentore unironically claims the policy was designed with transparency and fairness, he fails to address legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues in the PPP. His accusation that we are “engaging in grandstanding” is an attempt to dismiss the role of every elected official to question policies that lack transparency, policies like this one that are designed to benefit the PNC/AFC at the expense of the citizens of Georgetown. Our critique is not an attempt to mislead but rather a call for greater scrutiny and accountability, which are sorely lacking within the Council.
Editor, the Mayor’s revelation that this policy was discussed and approved since 2009 under the mayoralty of Hamilton Green is shocking, to say the least. Policies should evolve to meet the changing needs and context of the community, and there is a valid concern that this policy, as it stands, does not adequately reflect the best interests of a cash-strapped city plagued for decades by poor governance and maladministration. Moreover, if, as the Mayor asserts, this policy was approv-ed and gazetted in 2017, why was it returned to the Council for further approval? Further, why does the document presented to the Council bear policy number P1/2024, indicating that it is the first policy of the year 2024? In any case, whether the policy was approved in 2009, 2017, or 2024 is irrelevant. What is clear is that the PNC’s scheme to shortchange the residents of Georgetown goes back further than previously thought. If Mayor Mentore is as committed to transparency and accountability as he claims, he owes the Council and, more importantly, the public an explanation as to why this policy was never implemented.
To further muddy the waters, Mentore goes on to argue that “…the national government’s strategy of granting extensive tax breaks and concessions to foreign corporations is both perplexing and concerning.” What is so perplexing about this? Strategies like this are designed to create jobs and drive investment in Guyana. For example, the addition of seven new hotels will create three thousand new jobs for Guyanese. Could the Mayor say how many new jobs will be created by exempting the PNC/AFC from paying their fair share of rates and taxes? Finally, in an attempt to scold me for “berating the media,” Mentore conflates an opinion piece with actual reporting. The truth is that neither of the two primary “independent” papers has reported much on this issue, and their silence is deafening. There are countless compelling reasons to cover this story, including:
(1) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on the City coffers?
(2) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on current real estate assets held by political parties and the classification of such assets in the future?
(3) Who sent Mentore the letter requesting rate reductions?
(4) What is the AFC’s role in this matter?
(5) Can the AFC provide details on any properties they own that would benefit from the proposed relief?
(6) What is the value of the benefits the AFC would receive from this relief?
Rather than answer these critical questions, Mayor Mentore ponders why we have not encouraged the government “to actively consider the fiscal transfer facility.” The Fiscal Transfers Act of 2013 makes provision for subventions to local authorities, but it also sets forth seven conditions that must be met to qualify. Under Mentore’s tenure, the Council has failed to meet any of these conditions, particularly the following two:
(1) The budget estimates of a local authority for the following year shall be submitted to the given Council by November 15 of the current year.
(2) Final financial statements comparing actual and budget expenditure shall be prepared and submitted to the Minister by March 31 of the following year, together with an audited report required by other laws relating to local government.
In conclusion, the issues surrounding this policy and Mayor Mentore’s deflections raise significant concerns about transparency, governance, and accountability within the Council. The public deserves clear and honest answers, not deflections or half-truths.
Sincerely,
Alfonso De Armas
PPP/C Councillor
