Editorial | Bigger issue at KSAMC

This newspaper, too, has questions for Andrew Swaby about how the new leadership of the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) is going about the configuration of its committees.

They are, however, not the same ones as Delroy Williams’, the former mayor of Kingston and now Mr Swaby’s deputy as chairman of the council. Our concern is whether Mr Swaby and his People’s National Party (PNP) are intending, as is allowed by the law, to broaden the membership of the committees to include non-elected persons who have expertise that may be of value to the work of the councils.

Indeed, these questions are relevant not only to the KSAMC, but to all the parish governments, especially in the face of commitment by the political parties during the campaign for February’s municipal elections to greater efficiency and transparency in local government. Mr Swaby’s PNP was especially forceful on this point, which it made central to its manifesto.

The controversy at the KSAMC – the local government for Kingston and the adjoining parish of St Andrew – is over how committee seats are divided up in an equally divided council. The PNP and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) each has 20 seats each in the 40-member council, overturning the JLP’s two-seat majority from the previous election.

The PNP has the chairmanship of the council, and therefore runs the local government, because it won the popular vote in the municipality. Apparently, Mr Swaby is attempting to make that control count in how he structures its committees.

Mr Williams, who is Mr Swaby’s deputy, in accordance with the law that applies when the seats are tied in the council, is apparently concerned that there will not be an equal share of seats on committees. But Mr Williams complained especially about the proposed shift in the finance and health committees which, during his watch, were comprised of the entire membership of the council.

“To exclude any councillor from the finance and public health committees, in particular, on its face, raises questions as to the wisdom in such a suggestion, as well as it raises questions about reducing effective accountability processes,” Williams said.

Having 40-member committees seems to this newspaper an unwieldy contrivance. They cannot have been established with those numbers because – as contemplated by the Local Governance Act – their areas of responsibility “would be better regulated and managed by means of a committee”.

Therein, perhaps, lies one of the reasons for the inefficiency of the KSAMC: if every minutiae of public health, say, has to find resolution, rather than oversight, before the entire council of the corporation. The title of ‘committee’ is a misnomer with respect to these groups.

FEAR OF BEING UNDERMINED

However, Mr Swaby’s real concern over what Mr Williams called “all-councillor committees” appears not to only be about efficiency. His overriding consideration is political: the likelihood of his policies being defeated in his absence, even temporarily, from ‘committee’ meetings.

The JLP, in those circumstances, he fears, would have the majority, as well as the casting vote of the acting chairman, who, per the proposal, according to Mr Swaby, would be from the JLP.

“If I’d gone to what was suggested, I could not leave the room, not even to answer a question from you …,” Mr Swaby told reporters.

What Mr Swaby did not address, and of which there is no clear sense of his thinking, is the provision in the Local Governance Act that committees “may include persons who are not members of the council”, once two-thirds of the members are councillors.

With respect to the Finance Committee, which has oversight for the financial affairs of the corporation, its membership can be limited to half of the council, which can also, “to the extent it considers practicable” and is in accordance with its by-laws, “appoint members from the public, private and non-government sectors that are relevant to the remit of the committee”.

These non-council members do not have a vote, but, importantly, they can lend expertise and bring transparency to councils. Moreover, at the municipal level, the idea supports community involvement and participation in local government.

Given the non-voting status of the independents, Mr Swaby’s fear of being undermined would not arise. And that, in any event, would hardly be a consideration if he is pursuing sound policies.

Finally, Mr Swaby should explain the status of appointing a Local Public Accounts Committee (LPAC) that reviews the integrity of how a municipal council performs, and the quality of service it delivers. Half the members of the LPAC, including its chairman, should, as a default, not be councillors. Neither can the chairman of the council, the deputy mayor, the corporation’s CEO nor the chairman of the Finance Committee be members.