Editorial | Local gov’t accountability

This newspaper notes Andrew Swaby’s rejection of the recent claims of misappropriation of funds at the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC), as well as his declared readiness to open the corporation’s books to investigators.

“If an anti-corruption probe is under way, we welcome it and stand ready to cooperate fully, as we continue to uphold the highest standards of public service,” said Mr Swaby, who is chairman of the KSAMC, the capital’s municipal government, which makes him mayor of Kingston.

While The Gleaner takes Mr Swaby at his word, and welcomes his stated commitment to transparency, we remind him – and the leaders of the other municipal governments – of the several requirements in the law aimed at enhancing transparency at the authorities through a level of independent oversight.

In that regard, Mr Swaby and his colleague chairmen should report on their municipalities’ compliance with all, but especially the obligatory elements of the legislation, which, if scrupulously adhered to, would lessen the possibility of allegations of the type that have been levelled against the KSAMC.

NO CLEAR EVIDENCE

What we know of the KSAMC controversy thus far is that it is wrapped up in the Peoples’ National Party’s (PNP) removal of Lawrence Rowe as that party’s candidate for the Central Kingston constituency in the general election for this year.

Mr Rowe did not go quietly. He complained about being unsupported and undermined, demanded reimbursement for his spending to promote his candidacy, and essentially asserted he was offered a pay-off and membership of the Senate for acquiescing to his ejection.

The PNP conceded that there were discussions about the possibility of reimbursements, but has largely painted Mr Rowe as a fabulist out for revenge.

Now, recordings and transcripts of conversations between the PNP’s general secretary, Dayton Campbell, and Mr Rowe have surfaced in which the latter vented about the amount of money spent in Central Kingston when compared to other constituencies, as well as his limited ability to recommend people for Christmas time jobs under projects funded by the KSAMC. Dr Campbell, in those conversations, explained that spending had been concentrated in constituencies where municipal by-elections were to take place.

Based on the conversations, as reported up to now, there is no clear evidence that the expenditures referred to were by the KSAMC, rather than the PNP. If it were the KSAMC whose money was being spent to promote the PNP’s election campaign, that would be egregiously indecent and corrupt. There was no evidence that this was the case.

But perchance it were, the opportunity for such misbehaviour could have been lessened at the KSAMC and the other councils if they followed the law, and the requisite committees did their work.

SPECIAL OR GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEES

For example, the Local Governance Act of 2016 allows the municipal councils to establish special or general purpose committees if these smaller groups allow the corporations to more efficiently conduct their business. These regular local government committees, according to the act, “may include persons who are not members of the council”, so long as two-thirds are elected councillors.

Indeed, last April, two months after the PNP took control of the KSAMC, Mr Swaby announced that he would draft outside members to some of the corporation’s committees, especially the one on public health. Subsequently, in the face of another scandal over how the KSAMC technical staff did their jobs, the mayor also named an independent group to look at the council procedures for issuing building permits.

But there are other critical areas where the law insists on outside participation on committees, thus removing the discretion from Mr Swaby and other council chairmen.

The establishment of a finance committee under Section 38 of the legislation is one of these. That committee has oversight of the financial affairs of the corporations. Up to half of its members can be drafted from outside the council. While the non-council members have a say in the committee deliberations, they are not allowed to vote.

PUBLIC FEEDBACK

Further, as we have reminded several times, the law requires that each municipal corporation establish a Local Public Accounts Committee, whose job includes “review(ing) the performance of the local authority to determine whether accountability, transparency and ethical standards are being observed”.

Critically, a half of the members of the committees must be persons recommended by Parish Development Committees, and “in every case, the chairperson presiding at a meeting of the committee shall be appointed from non-council membership”. In other words, these committees are to be led by outsiders, not parish councillors who might have an incentive to prevaricate.

Further, municipal councils are, by law, supposed to hold community meetings at least once a year to report on their activities to their constituents.

Additionally, under the law governing their financial management, before municipal corporations present their annual budgets to the central government, they “shall”, the law says “ensure that the public is given an opportunity to consider and give feedback on the draft strategic plan and budget to be submitted”.

Which of these measures has been implemented?