The newly installed City Hall has gotten off to a bad start. Given the years of political controversy and public ridicule that preceded the recent local government elections, City Hall deserved better. But then most objective observers would probably say that City Hall’s presence circumstance is largely of its own doing.
Mayor Patricia Chase-Green, Town Clerk Royston King and the other backers of the parking meter project in its present state must surely be afflicted with the most lethal strain of naïvety if they have not yet figured out the fact that the project has become an albatross around the collective neck of the council. If they are not yet seized of the extent of their dilemma then they need, urgently, to wade through the quicksand of public criticism into which the project is fast disappearing, to say nothing of the dismissive tirade of invective that it has been dealt by the private sector. Last but by no means least, the publicly expressed scepticism of President David Granger for what he says is an unacceptable financial imposition on consumers in its present state, is another consideration that City Hall surely must ponder going forward.
Another highly relevant point, indeed one that has also been made by the President has to do with the fact that democratic behaviour would appear to have been sacrificed at the altar of expediency, a circumstance which, arguably, has been exposed by the effectiveness of the lobby by Deputy Mayor Sherod Duncan against what he says has been a lack of broad-based consultation at the council level. What Mr Duncan has done quite competently is to put in the public domain the dichotomy between the focus of the recent local government poll on creating a more democratic culture at the municipal level, and what he clearly believes has been the complete absence of democratic behaviour in the handling of the project by its backers at City Hall.
There is really no reason, the Mayor’s unconvincing protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, why the parking meter contract ought not to be placed in the public domain. It is simply not acceptable to suggest that concealment is justifiable; and that would only be as a start. The viability of the project, its cost to consumers and, of course, the bona fides of the contractor are all matters in which a much broader cross-section of stakeholders should have a say.
To fast forward from the parking meter project, we are now hearing that the municipality is again in its familiar cash-strapped position. It is seeking a financial bailout from central government. That is not an uncommon situation for City Hall. The explanation provided by Mr Oscar Clarke, the Chairman of the municipality’s Finance Committee, is that City Hall, with the knowledge of central government, had overextended itself financially in its commitment to Jubilee celebrations projects and that there is, it seems, an expectation, that there will be some sort of reimbursement from the public treasury.
If there is one scourge that we desperately need to rid ourselves of, it is offcialdom’s inclination to play monopoly with the public purse. Mr Clarke’s account that a refund in the matter of spending on Jubilee projects was anticipated given the ‘understanding’ between the government and City Hall, is vague. It requires more details if the public is to be able to make a judgement on the matter.
Interestingly, it was Mr Clarke who, just recently, pointed out that the council was its ‘own man,’ so to speak, in the matter of the parking meter project, his point being that central government was not the one calling the shots here. No one is, of course, either suggesting or wishing to the contrary, even though one might argue that the extent of People’s National Congress (PNC) representation on the council more than equips the government (if it so choses) to influence the eventual outcome of the parking meter project.
In the matter of finances, of course, the real problem that the municipality faces is that historically, its lack of management acumen has helped keep the municipality poor. We must, of course, wait and see whether the present regime at City Hall can turn that situation around.
City Hall has two problems when it comes to the matter of seeking intervention from the public coffers to bail it out of its financial crisis. The first problem has to do with what has appeared, over the years, to be its propensity for profligate spending on the one hand, and serious accountability issues on the other. Even if one might argue that local government elections have brought in a new administration, it is apposite to point out that some of the functionaries on both the council and in the municipal civil service still function in sensitive positions, so that we are entitled to wonder just how much has changed.
The second problem reposes in its propensity to mishandle critical issues. In its handling of the parking meters project, for example, those City Hall functionaries who have been at the forefront of the exercise have not exactly covered themselves in thick layers of public trust. From their quiet slipping off to Mexico ostensibly to see how the parking meters work to the Mayor’s altogether unconvincing reasons for declining to make the parking meter contract public, there is, at best, good reason for public puzzlement. At worst, it raises questions as to whether the attendant secrecy may not point in the direction of some other ill-defined agenda.
Then, of course, there was the altogether quixotic and inappropriate no-apologies-to-make remark by Mr Clarke which only adds a further dimension of arrogance and absurdity to the whole affair, whilst doing nothing to burnish what, at this stage, is the tarnished collective image of the movers behind the parking meter project.
