Opposition Chief Whip Lance Carberry told Stabroek News that key pieces of the suite of local government reform legislation tabled last year remains before a special select committee. He explained that the opposition had proposed amendments to some of the bills but the government has seemed reluctant to discuss it.
During the budget debate this past week, Local Government Minister Kellawan Lall said preparations have gone very far and GECOM has indicated that it will be ready very soon to hold elections. On Wednesday, GECOM Chairman Dr Steve Surujbally said if everything goes right, Lall, in his wisdom, would decide on a date some time in early or mid April.
However, AFC MP David Patterson, noted that the committee reviewing the local government bills has not completed its work and he blamed the situation on the administration’s “inflexibility.” According to him, all the suggestions raised by the opposition were rejected by the PPP and he said the fiscal transfer mechanism is a major issue that remains unresolved.
According to Carberry, in addition to the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Act, which provides for the new electoral system, and the Local Government Commission Act, which reforms the management of local organs, the Fiscal Transfers Bill is one of the crucial pillars of local government reform. And he added that if an agreed formula for fiscal transfers is not implemented, it would mean that local government reform would not be completed. “They have little interest in pursuing discussions to implement the full slate of reforms,” he said of the government.
Recently, PPP General Secretary Donald Ramotar, who is a member of the committee looking at the local government laws, said the withdrawal of the opposition’s participation is not justifiable. He also revealed that the committee is completing its work without the participation of the opposition. Asked to justify continuing without the input of the opposition, he said the opposition had already had significant input at the level of the Local Government Task Force. He noted that the opposition’s quarrel is the sequence in which the committee is dealing with the legislation, which the government insisted be dealt with in the order it was tabled. “I don’t see that as a big issue,” Ramotar said. “We are faithful to the agreements that have already been reached at the level of the Task Force that was set up and I don’t think the opposition could really justify not participating,” he added, emphasising that the committee has been “extremely faithful” to the prior agreements. “We have not put any impediment in their way to prevent them from participating in the select committee,” he noted.
The opposition has said that the completion of the reforms is a prerequisite for the holding of polls.
It has been argued that without a formula for the fair sharing of revenues between central government and local government the administration exerts undue influence in local government matters and prevents a flowering of democracy at the grass roots. In Georgetown, Mayor Hamilton Green has complained frequently that central government has thwarted the council’s efforts at raising its own finances and this is one of the reasons why the needs of the capital have not been adequately taken care of.
The provisions of the Fiscal Transfers Bill allow for considerable discretion by the Local Government Minister, which is among the concerns of the opposition. The bill seeks to provide for the allocation of resources to local democratic organs, thereby giving effect to Article 77(A) of the constitution. The constitution states that Parliament “shall provide for the formulation and implementation of objective criteria for the purpose of the allocation of resources to, and garnering of resources by local democratic organs.” In this context, Clause 6 of the bill sets out that the formula for fiscal transfers shall be based on “a set of conditions and stipulated performance indicators,” prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Minister.
According to the bill, “sets of conditions” means “the criteria used to determine the sum of money appropriated by Parliament annually to local democratic organs which are allocated equally among those local democratic organs with the remaining sum allocated to such local democratic organs in accordance to variables such as population size, geographic area or stipulated performance indicators which may be changed by the Minister from time to time.” Meanwhile, “stipulated performance indicators” are defined to include “the rate of collection of taxes by each local democratic organ.”
The bill also sets out proposals to ensure the ability of local democratic organs to sustain themselves financially. In addition to the authorised imposition of rates on immovable property within their boundaries, Clause 3 of the bill provides for each organ to increase revenues through measures. Clause 3(2) (i) proposes that with the prior written approval of the Minister a local democratic organ could approach donor agencies for financial and other resources in the form of grants, which may be used to fund capital projects or employment costs. Additionally, it is also proposed that local organs could negotiate with central government for specific revenue sharing contracts; establish vehicle meters to charge for parking, establish and charge for parking facilities and embark on revenue earning projects, agreed to by the Minister.
Clause 5 provides for the Minister to establish grants to any local democratic organ.
Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, the bill says additional revenues would be paid into the general revenue account of the local democratic organ, from which disbursements could be made in keeping with financial regulations governing such funds.
