PAAC votes to require local gov’t ministry to answer Portmore boundary queries

An attempt by legislator Dwight Sibblies to block questions asked by Fitz Jackson of the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development concerning boundary changes in Portmore, St Catherine, was shut down during Tuesday’s meeting of the Public Administrations and Appropriations Committee (PAAC), which concluded that they must be answered.

The committee, minutes before adjourning, voted two to one in favour of a motion moved by Jackson to get responses to his questions which were first raised almost two months ago during a previous meeting of the PAAC and subsequently emailed to the ministry.

The motioned was rejected by Heroy Clarke, the only government member present at the time, but Jackson had the support of chair Mikael Phillips who saw it through.

Jackson sought to determine the origin of a proposal outlining boundary changes in Portmore that was submitted to the Portmore Municipal Corporation (PMC) by the ministry’s permanent secretary, Marsha Henry-Martin.

Henry-Martin had indicated during a previous meeting of the PAAC that the information contained in the proposal was compiled from several websites, including the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ).

As a result, the local government ministry was asked to indicate whether the information obtained from the EOJ came through direct interaction with personnel or solely from the EOJ’s website.

Further, the ministry was asked to provide copies of all documents from all the entities and authoritative sources it used to inform the boundary recommendations provided to the PMC for consideration.

Jackson also questioned whether any consultations had been done with community organisations in Portmore on where the boundaries should be and whether the permanent secretary was aware that the boundaries recommended would change the existing constituency and local government divisional boundaries in St Catherine.

The St Catherine Southern member for parliament also inquired whether advice had been sought from the EOJ on how any potential impact on constituency boundaries would be resolved or mitigated.

But some two months later, the PAAC confirmed that the ministry had not responded to Jackson’s questions.

Further, in a December 29 email, Sibblies, the member of parliament for Clarendon Northern, objected to the ministry responding to the questions.

“I would like to make it abundantly clear that it is my considered opinion that the questions raised are ultra vires to the PAAC. I further propose that these questions be put to the committee for a vote,” he said.

Jackson countered in a subsequent email, pointing out that it was the committee that had instructed him to submit questions to the ministry.

“As I recall, at the meeting with the Ministry of Local Government, it was the decision of the committee by a majority present for me to not seek answers to the questions then and, instead, submit the questions in writing for the answers from the PS (permanent secretary). Can you confirm this to be so?” he said.

Yesterday, he took the matter to the committee, where he benefitted from the backing of Phillips, who indicated that when it was initially decided that questions be submitted to the ministry, there were no objections.

“I don’t see why it is that we need to be voting on if and how questions are to be asked. That is not how the committee ought to be operating,” Phillips said.

Jackson, too, voiced concern, arguing that no single member of the committee had the authority to determine if questions coming out of a meeting are answered.

“It’s out of order to even suggest that,” he asserted.

Clarke then suggested that a motion would have to be moved to have the committee decide on the way forward regarding the questions at a later date.

Phillips disagreed, noting that a precedent was being set that would “kill” the PAAC.

Mid-debate, Jackson moved the motion, which was voted on.

“What you have done today is setting a precedent that you may never be able to live up to. Please be careful,” said Clarke, who appeared to be annoyed that the motion was accepted.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com