IN RESPONSE TO A GOOD MAN

May 16, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Admission is good for the soul. We were reminded of this adage this past week by the esteemed Vincent Alexander who outlined that when the PNC changed its name to PNCR, it remained separate and distinct from the Reform.
Further, members were given the choice of either belonging to the PNCR or the Reform or to both. No wonder there is so much confusion within Congress Place.
In effect, what we are being told was that if APNU had not been conceived, the supporters of the once ruling PNC would have been asked in 2011 to vote for PNCRR, which would have represented an alliance between the PNCR and the Reform.
Now that Mr. Alexander has straightened the issue of the distinct personalities of the PNCR and the Reform, it would be useful if someone can explain what the R in the name-changed PNCR stood for. Because if the Reform was separate and if members could choose to be part of either the PNCR or the Reform, or be part of both, then the R in the PNCR must stand for something.
It is not the policy of this column to reply to those who express opinions on the views expressed by its contributors.
The guidelines outlined by the publisher were quite explicit on this point. In order to encourage healthy debate on issues, persons should feel free to express dissenting opinions without fear that their views are going to be assailed by the contributors. As such, it is not the general practice for this column to respond to criticisms.
However, there are obvious exceptions to this rule such as instances where inaccuracies are alleged.
It has of recent been alleged that Peeping Tom in a column on the local government system was either being inaccurate or mischievous in contending that both the Town Clerks and the Regional Executive Officers were accountable to Central Government and not to their municipalities and Regional Administrations respectively.
This charge has come from no other than Mr. Vincent Alexander. And today’s response is primarily motivated by the great esteem in which Mr. Alexander is held. He is a man of high integrity and can be considered an authority on our system of public administration.
This column however respectfully disagrees with the argument that the Town Clerk of a municipality is accountable to the municipality alone, while the Regional Executive Officer is accountable only on financial matters to the Central Government.
It seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in respect to the latter argument. Mr. Alexander argues that the position of Regional Executive Officer is a composite of two positions. The REO acts as the Clerk of the Regional Administration and at the same time the Chief Executive Officer of the Regional Administration.
In both instances, Mr. Alexander argues, the Regional Executive Officer is answerable to the RDC. However as the accounting officer of the RDC he is answerable to Central Government for execution of centrally delegated functions. I would respectfully suggest that this explanation offered by the esteemed, Mr. Vincent Alexander is as confusing as the one he offers about the PNCR and the other R.
And I would go further to state that if the explanation offered about the reporting responsibilities of a Regional Executive Officer is to be accepted, all such officers stand in a conflict of interest because they cannot at the same time be serving two maters. On the one hand, they cannot be accountable to the RDC as Chief Executives and on the other hand be simultaneously answerable for the financial affairs of the Regional Administration to Central Government.
In support of his contention ,Mr. Alexander argues that municipalities are autonomous and independent because 1) they exercise devolved rather than delegated authority and 2) they are given a subvention and raise their own funds, quite unlike the Regional Administrations.
The idea that municipalities exercise devolved authority and the Regional Administrations delegated authority is not consistent with either the public postures of both types of local government organs. The municipalities have consistently argued that they are hamstrung by their inability to raise revenues.
In fact, under the law they cannot raise taxes without the consent of Central Government, they cannot authorize land use without the consent of the central planning authority and their applications for new sources of revenue have been denied. This is not what one expects of a local government organ that is said to enjoy devolved rather than delegated authority.
The RDCs are elected bodies and many of them are likely to take umbrage to the status of being delegated creatures of Central Government.
Many years ago, Desmond Hoyte proposed that RDCs have full responsibility for land selection, education and health within the regions. But he did not wish to go the full nine yards and argue for federalism.
If what Mr. Alexander is suggesting is accepted, then it would mean that municipalities enjoy greater autonomy and independence that RDCs which is supposed to be a superior local government organ.
To get to the bottom of the legal and constitutional relationship between central government and local government bodies, requires an understanding of the evolution of the system and how it has been constructed. This is beyond the scope of this response but can be undertaken in subsequent columns.
In the meantime, it is posited that a system of balance and counter-balance inheres in the administration of local government.
This is the underlying basis, has always been. The authority of the local organs are balanced and counterbalanced by regulations, laws and appointments that link these bodies to Central Government.   Local government organs, whether municipalities or RDCs cannot do as they please; they cannot carry out policies that are in contravention of the laws of Guyana or which in conflict with government policy.
Whether you want to describe their authority as delegated or devolved, it matters not because there is neither total devolution nor absolute delegation.

---

---