Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by former local government Minister Mr Norman Whittaker, captioned, ‘A guide for citizens, local gov’t officers on the budget process for municipalities, NDCs,’ (SN, Oct 21).
I thank Mr Whittaker for raising the issues he has introduced as this can kick-start meaningful discussions. Many points were made. I wish to respond to some of the matters raised, now, and will address others in a subsequent letter as well as other misleading statements made by Mr Whittaker in another letter published in the SN on October 31.
While his contention – that budgets (estimates of income and expenditure) – should be in place by the end of the year is essentially correct (see Section 54 of the Local Government Act, Cap 28:02, for NDCs, and Section 155 of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Cap 28:01, for municipalities). Mr Whittaker’s letter contains misleading assertions which I will attempt to address.
Mr Whittaker introduces an important element in the manner in which local government organs (LGOs) view or approach their responsibilities by stating that the, “primary source of revenue are rates (on properties) and (other) taxes paid by residents who own properties situated within the Municipalities / NDCs.” He then refers to “scarce financial resources,” and how to allocate those resources in the budget process. The starting point of his contention is, “scarcity of resources.” Based on the law, I beg to differ with his view, though agreeing that resources are always scarce.
I wish to inform Mr Whittaker that Section 54 (1) of the Local Government Act, Cap 28:02 clearly states that local organs have the authority to fix their rates (on the appraised value of properties,) “to meet [their] expenditure needs.” This means that when those needs are identified, a council has the power to set the level of rates on properties and other taxes to garner revenue to meet those needs. Therefore, Mr Whittaker’s emphasis on the “scarcity of resources” is misplaced, since the legislation (28:02) by which our actions must be guided, focuses not on scarcity but on the authority of the organs to set their own rates to meet their needs.
Editor, we are at a crossroads; how does a council see its role? Does it view itself as having a minimalist role in the governance of its area? A wide, deep, self-assertive role as is permitted by law? Or, one somewhere along that spectrum? Those are important questions because the answer determines how a council will act.
Following the historic local government elections on March 18, 2016, President Granger said that the elections will change the face of local government forever. Clearly what the President was alluding to is that with the elections, the entire construct of local government will change, not just the election of new councillors. The clear thrust of the President’s statement was that under his administration local government would become relevant as it is restructured to maximise functionality. And that it would be supported to be effective in the discharge of its responsibilities.
Mr Whittaker, in his letter, stated that the budget must be, “presented to the Minister of Communities for the Minister’s approval. Without this approval the Council could not levy and collect taxes let alone expend those taxes.” This particular statement shocked me since it is not true. And I am surprised at Mr Whittaker’s ignorance.
Again, permit me to inform Mr Whittaker: Sections 157 and 158 of Cap 28:01, which mandated ministerial approval were both deleted by the Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Act No 15 of 2013 which was passed by the National Assembly on August 7, 2013, and assented to by President Ramotar on November 6, 2013. Editor, my shock at his ignorance stems from the fact that at that time Mr Whittaker was a member of the National Assembly and actually took the floor and debated the Bill. Even more shocking: at the time, he was the subject Minister!
Therefore, as things stand, Section 155 of the Act applies. According to the section, the authority to approve estimates of the revenues and expenditure resides in the councils alone. Ministerial approval is not required. I urge councillors and citizens not to be misled by Mr Whittaker’s obvious lack of knowledge.
In relation to Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) the legislative provisions are the same.
It will be recalled that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2012 – which freed local government from central control – was passed in the National Assembly on August 7, 2013. President Ramotar refused to give his assent. Again, we see evidence that the PPP regime has a philosophy of centralising power in the executive branch of government and denying people their constitutional right to enjoy local democracy and to manage and develop their communities.
Correcting this wrong, the new administration brought back the identical Bill to the National Assembly and following its passage on July 30, 2015, it immediately received presidential assent. Editor the difference in political philosophies could not be clearer.
The Local Government (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act No. 5 of 2015), signed into law on August 5 by President Granger, is proof positive of the administration’s desire and determination to ensure that the system of local government is enacted and rehabilitated.
I cannot over-emphasise the extent to which the administration is committed to the empowerment of local government organs.
The Local Government (Amendment) Act 2015 is revolutionary in scope. No longer do NDCs require ministerial approval to employ their own staff (officers and servants) or to approve their budgets (amendments to Sec 42 and 54). Furthermore, the obnoxious and offensive provisions that allowed a Minister to remove an elected council and appoint an Interim Management Committee (IMC) have been excised from the legislation.
Mr Whittaker’s letter, perhaps unwittingly, reveals the mindset of the former regime: one of hoarding power at the centre while keeping local government weak. On the other hand, this administration is committed to empowering local democratic organs so that they can function maximally. Although we know that this cannot be achieved overnight, because it is required by law and it is the correct way to go in order to push development, the administration is bound to this strategic direction.
I wish to iterate government’s commitment to working with all stakeholders, including the parliamentary opposition. I interpret Mr Whittaker’s letter to indicate a willingness of the opposition to discuss the issues faced by Guyanese. I welcome such discussion and assure that the administration remains receptive to dialogue.
There is much to be achieved by us working together and there are many constructive suggestions in Mr Whittaker’s letter that can lead to better management of communities.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Bulkan
Minister of Communities
