Editorial | Barnswell still uncertain?

It is perplexing that, after more than two months of asserting their right to the chairmanship of the Clarendon Municipal Corporation (CMC), the People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) councillors appear to be only now seeking legal advice on the matter.

The Gleaner is not persuaded of the validity of their claim. But, should they be so convinced, the PNP ought urgently to proceed to court for a definitive resolution of the question, ending the distractions so that CMC can focus squarely on the job it was elected to do.

It may be that settlement and clarity is not, from a national perspective, the best political strategy with an imminent general election. With a question mark over the chairmanship, the PNP can sew doubts over the legitimacy of Councillor Joel Williams and paint the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) as seeking to cling to power – nationally and in Clarendon.

If the PNP were to prevail legally, a former chairman of the council, Scean Barnswell, would replace Mr Williams.

In municipal elections held a year ago this month, the PNP gained the popular vote nationally. In Clarendon, it also marginally bettered the JLP on that score. However, the JLP won 11 of the parish’s 22 council divisions and, therefore, control of the municipal corporation.

POPULAR VOTE

Subsequently, one of the JLP’s members died, leading to last November’s by-election, which the PNP won, causing a tie on the council. Either party now has 11 members. It is on that basis, and the claim that it holds the popular vote in the parish, that the PNP says it is entitled to the chairmanship of the CMC.

The PNP rests its argument on section 61 (5) of the Eighth Schedule of the Local Governance Act, which sets out what is to happen at the first meeting of a local government council, presided over by an election officer, in the event of a tie in electing the chairman and deputy chairman.

The law gives the presiding election officer a casting vote, which, in the event of a tie in choosing the council’s chairman, he is bound to exercise “in favour of the councillor who has the support of the majority of the councillors who are members of the political party that received the majority of the votes cast in the area within the jurisdiction of the municipal corporation in the preceding election held pursuant to this schedule”.

A similar process is applied in electing the deputy chairman, except, in this case, it is someone from the party that received fewer votes, but the same amount of council seats.

NOT CLEAR

It is not clear to this newspaper, and neither are we convinced it is, that the law intended the mechanism to apply when the equality of seats arises subsequent to a general election. The solicitor general, Derrick McKoy, apparently advised the government that it doesn’t.

On the other hand, the JLP’s position is that, except a chairman voluntarily resigns or has to leave for falling afoul of the criminal law, a leader stays in office for the four-year life of the council, except he is removed “on a motion support by a majority of all members of the council of the local authority”.

If the outcome is a tie, the JLP believes, the sitting chairman has the right to exercise his casting vote. Further, the law prevents an ouster motion being brought within the first 12 months of a chairman’s term, which would mean the PNP couldn’t table one against Mr Williams until late March.

If the PNP believes that these interpretations are wrong, it has an easy option: go to court. Which this newspaper does not think is a bad approach in a vibrant democracy.

It strengthens institutions when citizens exercise their rights in the context of the judicial process, as well as helps to clarify the extent and limits of those rights.