A majority of Georgetown councillors yesterday voted to allow the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) time to peruse a legal opinion before ratifying an order made by Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan directing that the Georgetown Metered Parking By-laws be suspended for three months.
In what acting Mayor Sherod Duncan has described as an historic push back against central government, APNU councillors including General Secretary of the PNC/R Oscar Clarke approved a motion which not only delays council’s decision indefinitely, but directs Town Clerk Royston King to forward to Minister Bulkan a legal opinion which states that his order signed on March 17, 2017 is “ultra vires, null and void.”
The opinion, presented to council by attorney Roger Yearwood, argues that Section 306(1) of the Municipal and District Councils Act which Bulkan cites does not permit the minister to direct the council to suspend any contract or by-law.
It also notes that the order itself does not suspend the by-law but rather directs the council to do so.
“As such, if the council accedes to this mandate, it is the act of the council that will be effective …and not the order of the minister…leaving the council susceptible to a claim for breach of contract by Smart City Solutions Inc,” the opinion states.
The same council, which did not review the May 13 contract with SCS and which voted to pass 17 amendments to this contract without ever seeing the original contract, one hour after being shown these amendments, yesterday argued that to immediately ratify the minister’s order was to act in a “hasty and precipitous manner”.
APNU Proportional Representation councillor Heston Bostwick first moved a motion to suspend the meeting so that councillors could study the four-page document provided by Yearwood and also have it forwarded to Bulkan so that both the council and the minister “would be in a better legal frame of mind to determine the way forward.”
Acting Mayor Duncan who chaired the meeting tried valiantly to return the meeting to its single agenda item, but failed when Town Clerk Royston King advised that once a motion has been tabled it must be dealt with before any other issue. Bowing to King’s advice, Duncan allowed APNU Councillor James Samuels to second the motion.
What followed was 90 minutes during which councillors displayed their ignorance of parliamentary procedure and King failed to offer advice in keeping with the standard operating procedures of Chapter 28:01 The Municipal and District Councils Act.
APNU Councillor Akeem Peter attempted to limit the time, which council would have to consider the opinion, to one hour and requested that King guide him as to how best to do so.
King then directed the young councillor to use the words “I move a motion to” before his request. Though it was clear that Peter’s intention was to amend the motion brought by Councillor Boswick, he was never advised that he could do so nor directed how to. Instead the council voted on each motion separately.
Once again flouting the customs which govern legislative bodies King directed that a vote be taken before debate on the merits of the motion.
Bostwick’s motion passed after 17 APNU councillors voted ‘aye’. Notably, however, for the first time, several APNU councillors voted against a motion brought by one of their colleagues; Peters, Alfred Mentore and Phillip Smith voted ‘nay’. AFC Councillors Duncan and Lionel Jaikarran also voted against the motion along with Benschop for Mayor Councillor Selwyn Smartt. Both Team Legacy Councillors Malcolm Ferreira and Carolyn Caesar were absent.
Peter’s motion was defeated by a similar majority.
It was not until after the voting that Mentore directed the council to Section 58 (4) of the Act which states that any motion to suspend the standing orders required a vote of 2/3 majority of those present.
He argued that since Bostwick’s motion was not on the agenda then pursuant for section 55 (2) it should not have been considered unless a motion was brought in keeping with section 58 to suspend the standing order.
Section 55 directs that only those items on the agenda can be discussed at a meeting. Yesterday’s agenda had one item, Minister Bulkan’s order.
King argued that Bostwick’s motion did not require the suspension of the standing order as it dealt with the handling of the substantive agenda item.
Clarke who stood to defend the motion after it was passed told the council that in passing the motion they were doing what they should be doing as responsible members of the council.
“We have to be able to have clarity. It is a council matter, the minister sent it to us to decide because it is a council matter. If he could’ve gone ahead and suspended the by-laws he would’ve done so but he knows that the decision must be taken by the council and the council must be advised by its legal counsel. When we got the minister’s order, we sent it to the lawyer because we said we not too sure about this thing. The lawyer advised us and on the basis of the lawyer’s advice, we are saying let us put this thing down until council can study the legal advice,” he said. “The minister would want to know what the council’s lawyers have advised them,” he added.
Jaikarran, who is the deputy mayor-elect, was not so sure. He argued that he could not support the motion since it made the council appear contemptuous of a Cabinet decision.
“Why are we going against Cabinet? President Granger, I would like to think, is also part of this decision to suspend this programme. Why are we going against this Cabinet decision? Are we being contemptuous of the Cabinet? I would not like to think so. I cannot support this motion for more time,” he told the council.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Duncan who told Stabroek News after the meeting that yesterday, “was a very sad day in the life of this new council and its relationship with central government moving forward.
“The last week is historic in nature as it may be the first time that a council aligned to the government of the day has basically disagreed with that government beginning with Cabinet’s decision to suspend the contract, and the council asking for clarification; then the Ministry of Infrastructure’s position on our use of its roads without permission and council’s push back; then today’s delay in ratifying the minister’s order, basically stalling for time. Any of those events isolated is historic and taken together I believe will add a new dimension to our relationship with out central government going forward.”
He noted that he convened the extraordinary meeting under the Town Clerk’s advice that the matter was urgent and he needed council to deliberate on the minister’s order, but the only item on the agenda was not discussed. The matter, he concluded, could not have been if council could delay discussing it. “So I will not be agreeing to call another meeting before the Mayor returns at the end of this week,” Duncan added.
