While the governing PPP/C did make some political inroads into the councils of Georgetown and New Amsterdam following local government elections in June, they had no success whatever where Linden was concerned; that municipality remained uncompromisingly in opposition hands. Their losses there notwithstanding, it is apparent they have no intention of allowing the local Council any freedom of action. This was demonstrated last month, when Lennox Gasper, a prominent PPP activist who had played a leading role in the June campaign was appointed the Town Clerk of Linden.
Technically speaking the central government has no control over local government appointments; that is something which lies in the hands of the Local Government Commission, which according to the relevant act is “responsible for employment, transfer, discipline and dismissal of staff”. The Commission is intended to be independent of political control, but as presently constituted leans undeniably to the government side. It might be noted that the attitude of the ruling party to autonomous local government bodies is exemplified by their three representatives on the Commission, all of whom have a history of either stymieing the local government task force, or thwarting every move an earlier Georgetown City Council attempted to make.
Any doubt that anyone might have entertained about the Commission’s non-partisan credentials was finally dispelled after the unilateral appointment of Mr Gasper, now the PPP spokesman for the region. According to Linden Mayor Sharma Solomon, this was done without any consultation with the Council and in defiance of the employment process. That process, he said, first involved notifying the Commission of a vacancy, and then the latter giving permission to the Council to advertise the vacancy. On receipt of the applications, the Council and a representative of the Commission would shortlist the applicants, following which those selected would be invited to an interview. The successful candidate would then be approved by the Local Government Commission.
The Mayor went on to explain that the Town Council had notified the Commission of the vacancy, and had proposed that the file containing previous applications be revisited, that possible candidates be shortlisted and interviewed, and that in the meantime, the most senior officer on the Council should act as Town Clerk. The Commission, however, ignored even its own circular and unilaterally appointed Mr Gasper. Mr Solomon went on to say that in the days preceding the appointment the Council had engaged the Secretary of the Commission via letter, but that there had been no response.
He described the Commission’s action as a transgression of Article 75 of the Constitution, among other laws, which states: “Parliament shall provide that local democratic organs shall be autonomous and take decisions which are binding upon their agencies and institutions, and upon the communities and citizens of their areas.” The problem arises in so far as this general principle is not translated into specific provisions in the legislation. This is something which was indirectly acknowledged by opposition executive member Mr Ganesh Mahipaul, who said during a press conference that the opposition had proposed amendments to the Local Government Commission Act. “What the parliamentary opposition sought to do is to table an amendment to the Local Government Act of 2013, whereby we are seeking to amend the Act to include that the Local Government Commission, in keeping with Article 78 of the Constitution has the mandate to deal with staff matters, but when it comes to appointment of staff, it must be after receiving a recommendation from the local government organs,” he said.
The first and only direct comment from the Local Government Commission itself on the Linden situation came from Mr Julius Faerber, its Chairman, who said that body had the power to appoint whomsoever it pleased, and was not in contravention of the Constitution in relation to the appointment of the Linden Town Clerk. Furthermore, he was quoted as saying, “We have not done anything unilaterally …”
It seems, however, that the Commission was uneasy about how it had proceeded, possibly because not only was it a deviation from the accepted norms of the employment process, as opposition appointed Commissioner Nicola Trotman described it, but also because it was “a clear violation of [the Commission’s] employment circular.” Whatever the case, thereafter events took a somewhat bizarre turn. In response to the Council’s complaints it rescinded its earlier decision about Mr Gasper’s appointment and decided to advertise the Town Clerk post. Strangely, however, according to a notice it sent to the Council, it only received one single application and was therefore prepared to interview that one candidate. Even under normal circumstances this would have seemed curious, but it became even more so when the Council revealed that it knew of at least six applicants for the position. If that were not enough, it appears that Mr Gasper is still on the job acting as Town Clerk.
Inevitably, as well it might, the Council expressed the view that this was all a stratagem on the part of the Commission to install Mr Gasper permanently in the post, since it believed he was in fact the lone applicant. In a statement it said: “[I]t is crucial to ensure that all applications are thoroughly considered to select the most suitable candidate for the role. It is clear that the other applicants were superior to the single candidate hence the swift move to indicate that the Commission received only one application.” It also called for the principles of fairness and transparency to be applied and said there should be a “comprehensive review of the application process.” While that is urgently called for, one would have to be an unredeemed optimist to believe that the Commission would commit itself to anything with a self-condemnatory outcome.
Commissioner Trotman, agreed with the Council about the need for a comprehensive review of the application process, but as already noted, she was an opposition appointee to the Commission. Following a perusal of the applications she said that evidently there was a diverse pool of applicants who could bring different perspectives and experiences which could benefit the town, and that the Commission was trying to undermine the democratic process of appointing a Town Clerk. “From all the indications,” she said, “the Commission is compromised …” Whether the public is to understand from this that the opposition Commissioners have been excluded from the decisions relating to Mr Gasper has not been spelt out directly.
The issue will probably go into abeyance over the Christmas season, although a week ago it was reported that the Linden Town Council was contemplating litigation in the matter. As for the situation with regard to local government, following the June elections we seem to be no further forward than we were before in terms of the central government attempting to work with opposition councils, rather than dictating to them or bypassing them. It is difficult for the government to duck the questions surrounding the crude conduct of the Local Government Commission in the Linden case. They have opened themselves to the charge, to use Commissioner Trotman’s words, that a constitutional agency “has now become a full-blown political agency and an active arm of the ruling PPP/C government.”
This is a distortion the framers of the act setting up the Commission never intended; it was not supposed to be a partisan body.
