Editorial | KSAMC’s worthwhile act

A decision by Kingston’s mayor, Andrew Swaby, to hire an outside auditing firm to help clear the municipality’s backlog of financial accounts seems a good move which other local government corporations should follow.

Indeed, this the second decision by Mr Swaby, since he assumed the post 15 months ago, that hints at a potential for improved accountability in the city’s management. The jury, however, remains out, and still has much deliberation to do on that question.

Nonetheless, even as his action is applauded, Mr Swaby’s move again raises questions of why the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) failed over eight fiscal years to produce audited accounts, as is required by law, and if and how the corporation’s executive staff, including the CEO and chief financial officer, were held accountable.

The same questions, especially with respect to accountability, apply to the other local government authorities that were flagged by the auditor general for their consistent failure to produce financial statements worthy of review.

In the meantime, assuming they were serious in their promise of transparency and accountability, Mr Swaby and Rev Devon Dick should report on the work thus far of the good governance committee, chaired by Dr Dick, which was appointed in February.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

In that regard, their first action, as The Gleaner suggested over three months ago, should be the publication of precise terms of reference of Dr Dick’s committee and the basis on which it does its work.

With respect to the financial accountability of the municipal authorities, the Local Governance Act of 2016 requires that each council has, apart from its chairman who is a political person, a chief executive officer, who, in the context of the public bureaucracy, is the accountable officer. They are also obligated to have chief financial officers to oversee the day-to-day financial affairs of the bodies.

Moreover, within three months of the end of the financial year, the municipalities are to provide the local government ministry audited accounts that include “full and accurate statements regarding the financial performance of the local authority over the relevant financial year”.

But annually, including since the 2016 restructuring of local government, the 14 councils, including the one for the city municipality of Portmore, have either lagged badly or failed all together to meet their obligations. The auditor general, Pamela Monroe Ellis, including in her report for 2023/24, has consistently lamented the absence of statements for expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

AMONG WORST OFFENDERS

The KSAMC is among the worst offenders.

“It is no secret that, since about 2021, the auditor general, in her report, has indicated that we have not yet had audited financial statements since 2016,” Mr Swaby said this week. “...What we have done is to sign a contract with them, [auditors Mundle Assurance] to seek outside help, to see how we can bring it up to date.”

The specific scope of Mundle Assurance’s work, the price they are to be paid and the procurement arrangements for their hiring, should be made public, published on the KSAMC’s website, which, as in the case of those of other councils, is mostly bereft of useful information. They continue to miss the opportunity to promote accountability.

On the matter of the Dick committee, it appears to be an attempt by Mr Swaby as a work-around to the absence, as required by the Local Governance Act, of a Local Public Accounts Committee (LPAC), whose job, among other things, is “to review the performance of the local authority to determine whether accountability, transparency and ethical standards are being observed”.

Those committees can have up to half of their members from outside the councils, and must be chaired by a non-council member. But when he appointed Dr Dick’s group in February, Mr Swaby suggested that he had gone this route because there was in place a government-appointed Parish Development Committee (PDC), which is supposed to recommend the independent members of the LPAC.

Therefore, the Dick committee, which is comprised of consequential people, has no status within the existing legislative framework. They are essentially advisers – presumably unpaid – to the mayor.

This status increases the need for transparency about how they go about their work.