I REST MY CASE

Apr 24, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

It is not the policy of this column to reply to dissenting opinions. However, as previously indicated there are exceptions to this rule, such as when this column is accused of misleading readers, as was recently repeated in a letter to this newspaper by Mr. Vincent Alexander.
The charge of misleading the public has been levied at this Peeping Tom over the issue of the relationship of Regional Executive Officers and Town Clerks with their respective councils.
Alexander had argued in the past that Peeping Tom was either being inaccurate or mischievous in contending that both Town Clerks and the Regional Executive Officers were accountable to Central Government and not to their municipalities and Regional Administrations respectively.
He contended that the two positions are not analogous. In order to illustrate his contention he argued that the powers granted to municipalities are devolved, while in the instance of Regional Administrations, they merely exercise delegated authority.
But he compounded his analysis when he posited that the position of Regional Executive Officer (REO) is a composite of two positions. In his view, 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.
In response to this argument, I pointed out that if the explanation offered by Alexander 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 masters. 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.
Mr. Alexander has once again resurrected this argument and has retained his contention that municipalities are autonomous and independent because they raise their own revenues.
This is a very weak argument because Neighborhood Democratic Councils also raise their own revenues and they are parented by the very Regional Administrations which Alexander contends is not autonomous because it is responsible to some central ministry for every act it carries out.
I am sure that certain persons in Regional Administration of Region Ten who had indicated their intention to pursue their own development agenda will not share this opinion about the Regional Administration being a virtual servant of Central Government.
I had argued in the past, and I still do now, that municipalities do not enjoy the degree of autonomy that Alexander wishes to ascribe to them.
Indeed, the fact that they raise their own revenues hardly grants to them autonomy because they themselves require the consent of the Minister of Local Government in setting tariffs; they cannot authorize land use without the consent of the central planning authority and the Mayor and City Council of Georgetown has complained about not being granted permission to have new sources of revenue.
This is hardly consistent with the status of autonomy.
I had argued a long time ago that to understand 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.
The evolved system of local government is not as what exists in federal system whereby local government and municipalities enjoy relative autonomy.
In Guyana the system is one of balance and counter balance between elected councils and central government. The authority of the local organs are balanced and counterbalanced by regulations, laws and policies 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 are in conflict with government policy.
For those interested in understanding this system of balance and counter balance, I would recommend they read Carl Greendige’s work entitled Empowering a Peasantry in A Caribbean Context where in part he looked at the new local government system instituted under the PNC regime.
This does not mean that REOs and Town Clerks should not enjoy comity in their relationship with Regional Administrations and Town and City Councils respectively.
Indeed, these officers are required to facilitate the functioning of these elected bodies. However, as officers of local government, they are required to ensure that decisions of these councils are not in breach of statutory laws and regulations and they are more importantly required to ensure that no actions are undertaken that are inconsistent with the public interest as actuated in government policy.
Two examples perhaps would suffice. No Town Clerk can allow, even on the instruction of the Council, for the waiver of rates and taxes if such a waiver is ultra vires of the law. On the other hand, if Council takes a decision to not raise revenues on Easter Monday then that is a decision of the Council which unless it contradicts with national policy has to be complied with.
I understand the concern that has caused this issue to be resurrected. There is thrust towards arguing that Town Clerks are accountable exclusively to their Councils and therefore can be removed and sanctioned by Councils. This is not so.
The Courts have clarified the issue of appointment of the Town Clerk and have indicated wherein that power is reposed. It is not in an autonomous City Council.
If the good gentleman, Mr. Vincent Alexander, disagrees with the above arguments, I would respect his dissenting opinions. But I would equally take umbrage if in dissenting he labels my perspective as a case of misleading the public.
I rest my case.

---

---