City Hall never ceases to amaze

Aug 07, 2012 Letters

---

Dear Sir,
The dynamics at City Hall never cease to amaze me. If it isn’t one thing it’s another.
Now, Minister of Local Government, Norman Whittaker has appointed a Carol Sooba, to the post of Town Clerk of Georgetown.
While the Minister has the authority to appoint a Town Clerk, it must be the case that there are certain standards and protocols which must be observed before such appointment are made. One such protocol ought to be a general assessment of the available skills and competencies within the organisation, and selection of the best person to carry out the functions of that office. After all, it is the most senior position in the City Council’s administration.
However, it does appear that, Carol Sooba was catapulted into the top position at City Hall by other considerations. It could affect the beliefs, assumptions, morale, behavior and actions of all the workers at the council.
But what about the Commission of Inquiry report which recommended that certain officers are relieved of their duties. Here is what it says:
“The conclusive recommendations that both the Town Clerk’s and City Treasurer’s services should be terminated and the vacancies appropriately advertised, indicated recognition of the inadequacies of the current acting incumbents.  The fact that both submitted willingly to the control of their respective superiors, and have been substantially influenced by the culture of mismanagement and malpractices, is precisely a reflection of the lack of the relevant technical skills., and therefore their inability to do the right thing-to the extent that they performed inadequately, even in the absence of the two substantive officers.”
“One of the concerns which surfaced during the Inquiry was the need for senior  officers to understand as fully as possible the legal implications of the work they undertake, i.e. the basic requirements as stated in Chapter 28:01.
The current capacity of the Legal Department does not appear to be disposed to contributing to such an awareness programme.  Nor is it organized to deal authoritatively with continuing number of legal issues with which the Council is faced- staffed as it is with one (under-qualified) employee.
Consequently the Council resorts to outsourcing most of its legal work-a process which is facilitated mainly by the Council’s ‘Legal Officer’.  The cost to the Council is sufficiently high to require the latter to reflect on the cost benefit of employing its own fulltime legal staff,  who can be more effectively directed, and who is likely to  perform in a more expeditious manner than the outsourced legal advisor whose retainer fee is not necessarily tied to productivity.  Additionally, such a skilled employee will serve the Council well as a mediator for settlements, thus reducing the incidence of litigation.
The employment of an Attorney-at-law offers the following advantages, amongst others:
The Attorney’s loyalty will be solely to the Council and thus advice would be available if and when needed.
This could be of tremendous benefit to the Town Clerk in the execution of duties of that office which , at the same time, help reduce legal ‘mis-steps’ which result in litigation against the council.
In terms of cost, retainer fees to the several external attorneys would be drastically reduced as well as payments made on a case-by-basis.
The Attorney will be on hand to give Legal counsel in any negotiations involving the Council
All contracts could be reviewed before execution at no additional cost to Council
The Attorney could be proactive in supporting the Council in the collection of rates and taxes  without appearing to be selective in prosecutions, towards personal financial gain (it is worthy of note here that fees of some of the Attorneys retained by the council amount to 10% of the outstanding rates)
There just may be opportunity to harness the seemingly wide-ranging powers of the Town Clerk by including in that officer’s conditions of service (as specific directions from Council which he must obey according to section 75 of the Act), that the legal correctness of certain actions must be pronounced upon by the resident Attorney, prior to implementation.
Our recommendation therefore is for the Legal Department of the M&CC to be upgraded to provide more substantive support to the Council, and in the process constrain the Town Clerk (and other officers) from taking certain actions, before prior advice and directions from the Department.”
Notwithstanding that, the very officers, who the Commission suggested should not be considered for appointment to senior positions were appointed, by the Ministry of Local Government.
Further, the officers who were sent off on leave were accused of inter alia not implementing the recommendations of the report while their very appointments seem to have disregarded the recommendations of that very report. Neither the government nor the Council appears to be taking the report of the Commission seriously.
It is unfortunate because the report in all of its three volumes seems to be aiming at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality and the improvement of the service delivery of the Council. Yet, important recommendations by the Commission are disregarded by the Ministry and Council. It is a serious contradiction that continues to confuse the public.
In the extant circumstances facing the municipality- lack of resources, poor image and reputation, allegations of corruption, lack of public trust and confidence and a host of other negatives- it is clear that something is very wrong with the decision made by the Minister. Surely, the Council must have policies and rules for recruitment and promotion and that these should be carefully followed to facilitate fairness and justice in the organisation and to put in place the best persons that can manage the Council.
Aubrey James

---

---