Dissolve Portmore council

Howard Hamilton, Guest Columnist

Months after the death of the directly elected mayor, George Lee, the affairs of Portmore are being conducted in a manner contrary to the Municipal Charter, which calls for the business of the Sunshine City to be conducted in an efficient and accountable manner.

There were early signs that all was not well in the Portmore Municipal Council from as far back as March 2013 when the general council meeting was not held because of the lack of a quorum.

Following the death of Mayor George Lee, there was no general council meeting held for the months of October, November, and December. In all of this, there was no word from the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development or the Social Development Commission as to why the meetings were not held.

The boundary issue, which saw two of 12 councillors sitting outside the Portmore Municipal Council, remains unresolved, apart from shallow promises that it would be dealt with. Minister of Local Government Noel Arscott has a lot of power vested in him through the Municipal Act 2003.

I call on Mr Arscott to visit Municipal Act Section 20 and dissolve the Portmore Municipal Council. The act states that: (1) It shall be lawful for the minister, by order subject to affirmative resolution, to dissolve any municipal council which, in the judgement of the minister:

a) Persistently makes default in the performance of the duties lawfully imposed upon it; or b) exceeds or abuses its power.

I have no way of knowing what is the opinion of the minister on what is taking place in the Portmore Municipal Council. What I do know, however, is that at the meeting convened for general council on February 12, 2014, there was an attempt to prevent the Portmore Citizens Advisory Council chairman from making his presentation, as stated in the by-laws of the council.

Improper governance

This was an abuse of power and was only resolved when the council asked for recess to discuss the matter. It should not have come to that. This is not the governance that was advocated for by our citizens.

If the events at the last council general meeting are anything to go by, then Minister Arscott must invoke Section 20 of the Municipal Act and dissolve the council. This dissolution will give the minister, and, by extension, the Government, time to do the following:

1) Draft and bring to Parliament the legislative amendment to Section 3 of the Municipal Act to deal with the expansion of the municipality. This would make the proposal to gather a petition signed by no less than seven per cent of the electorate redundant.

2) Amend Section 4 of the act, which is the reason why the two councillors for the Portmore Pines and Greater Portmore North division cannot sit on the Portmore Council, even though more than 80 per cent of their constituents reside in Portmore.

3) Publicly disclose the findings of the Portmore Municipal Council review, which is completed but only in the hands of a few.

4) This dissolution will also give the legislators time to correct the errors of omission that left the community with a ceremonial, directly elected mayor, rather than one with a casting and original vote, plus an allocation to give the position responsibility.

5) Correct the situation whereby the now acting mayor has a huge concentration of power, as he still chairs a committee, while occupying his divisional seat as councillor.

6) A dissolution will also give the Government time to identify funds to conduct the mayoral election and others that might result because of it.

The minister has the power, vested in him by the Municipal Act 2003, and he must do the right thing and dissolve the Portmore Municipal Council.

The views above do not reflect the opinion of the Greater Portmore Joint Council, of which I am chairman. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and how_hamil@yahoo.com.