Dear Editor,
The chief executive officer of the Regional Democratic Council and his colleagues must not be looked upon as an executive arm of the ruling party, but collectively, as servants of the RDC.
The RDC is the supreme local government organ in each administrative region and has responsibility for the overall management and administration of the region, including for coordinating and supervising the activities of the NDCs within the regions. Recall that RDCs were established in 1980 under Section 73(i) of the constitution to manage the affairs of the ten administrative regions.
At the head of each RDC is the Regional Chairman who is required to exercise general direction and control over the affairs of the RDC as reflected primarily in its capital and current work programmes and economic ventures funded from its economic projects fund.
The REO must supervise the implementation of the RDC’s work programme subject to the general direction of the Regional Chairman acting with the approval of the RDC. In other words, the responsibility of the RDC is collective and a Regional Chairman must not act on his/her own.
Thus, funds entrusted to the REO (the accounting officer) are to be applied only for the stated purposes as approved by the RDC in the first instance, and in the National Assembly, and are to be spent in the manner set out in the various financial laws and regulations set out below. The Regional Executive Officer is duty bound on the one hand to question a proposal or decision that may, in his opinion, possibly or inevitably contravene any of the said legislation and/or regulations. On the other hand, he/she must accept that it is the council that makes policies for the regional administration, and provided that such policies are not illegal or ultra vires central government policies (which must also be legal), the REO must work in close continuous consultation and collaboration with the head of the council, ie, the Regional Chairman who is also the political head of the council. In this regard also, a special relationship can, and indeed, ought to develop between the Regional Chairman and Regional Executive Officer which enables them to work together in the best interest of the residents of the administrative region for which they have responsibility.
The Regional Chairman is politically accountable to the people and must ensure officers who are responsible for the delivery of the approved goods and services under the various programmes, function effectively and efficiently. To this end, the Regional Chairman is the link between the council (the political arm) and the administrative arm and must ensure these
officers present regular statements of activities and execution of functions relative to the policy guidelines the RDC would have established. The RDC standing committees, the Regional administrative committee and the RDC statutory meeting provide the primary fora for reporting on council activities. That is why it is imperative that the REO ensures that reports of work in progress under the various RDC programmes, viz, education, primary health care, public works, finances are prepared and provided to the relevant committees and the RDC statutory meetings. The REO must not do otherwise.
The hostile, arrogant attitude of some REOs who have undoubtedly been led to believe that they have a monopoly of knowledge and information which they must share with the ruling party only is, in my view, one of the major contributing factors to the poor performance of several regional administrations and the resultant return of hundreds of millions of dollars budgeted to provide goods and services to the Guyanese people during 2015 but which they were denied. This hostile attitude and behaviour is obviously contagious, and indeed, has spread among some RDC councillors who now disrupt council meetings where important matters and consequential decisions have to be postponed.
Let the government be warned that this attitude of some REOs does not augur well for the special work relationship that the latter ought to forge with the RDC Chairman in the broader citizens’ interest. In fact, it is for this reason that often, some regional chairpersons have a small cell of people seconded to him/her on a part-time or full-time basis and these persons are often viewed as political. This however raises doubts about the officers’ impartiality. Furthermore, the overtly disrespectful demeanour of some government ministers only adds fuel to an already volatile work climate and atmosphere that exist between some REOs and Regional Chairmen and contributes to these REO’s disrespect for the latter.
Not all REOs have been supporting or facilitating the work of RDC standing committees. The latter are organized to assist the work of the council in dealing with its responsibilities which are so arranged that each committee is responsible for specific areas.
Thus whatever the committee does, it does on behalf of the council. It is not by accident that the clerk/advisor to each committee which is filled by councillors is indeed the programme head or next most senior officer responsible for that programme. Furthermore, all RDC councillors have a right and duty to question at the level of the committee meeting and the council’s statutory meeting, the propriety of any expenditure authorized by the REO.
In addition also, all local authority staff have an indivisible loyalty to the council. Indeed, they are duty bound to provide information and other relevant forms of assistance to the council which information/assistance is necessary to advance its work.
The REO must ensure that the relevant officers attend RDC committee meetings and the statutory meetings where, inter alia, matters to treat with the implementation of the RDC’s work programme are discussed and recommendations made to the statutory meeting for consideration and implementation. Some REOs restrict RDC staff from contacts with PPP/C Regional Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen and other PPP/C activists and supporters. It is perhaps a mix of all these contributing factors that caused some of the ten RDCs 2015 annual work programme running into millions of dollars to be incomplete at the end of the financial year 2015.
The procedures for financial control of central government revenues are laid down in our constitution, in the Local Democratic Organs Act No 12 of 1980, the Procurement Act, the Financial Management and Accountability Act and accompanying financial regulations including Tender Board regulations and instructions and stores regulations issued by the MOF. These laws, regulations and instructions apply to all RDCs. The REOs must not change or circumvent them. When they engage in contract splitting and handpicking friends and political associates for contracts to supply goods or services without regard to the laws and regulations that guide how we deal with these matters, they are involved in financial improprieties, the penalties for which ought to be well known to them.
The laws dictate the manner in which money is to be collected and made available to meet expenditure. The law dictates through annual approved estimates for each ministry and each RDC, etc, the purposes for which money is to be spent and the manner in which it is to be accounted for.
The REO is charged with the supervision of the affairs of the RDC subject to the general direction of these laws and regulations and subject also to the direction of the Regional Chairman acting within the said legislation described above and with the approval of the RDC.
Let me, like thousands of affected Guyanese express my concern that for reasons adumbrated above, we are being denied at the regional level, many of the goods and services we need. If only the APNU+AFC government could appreciate the important role and responsibilities of RDCs, RCs and REOs and avoid being caught up in a cobweb of obstruction and interference at this critical time in our country’s history.
Yours faithfully,
Norman Whittaker
