Dear Editor,
1) The Municipal and District Councils Act does allow the Council “to regulate and control traffic on council roads by, inter alia, erecting and maintaining parking meters. It’s another source of revenue for the Council. Of concern, however, are the several issues of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness that were ignored by the Council, or should I say the Mayor, the Town Clerk and the Chairman of the Council’s Finance Committee, Councillor Oscar Clarke, all purporting to act on behalf of the Council. Very much evident in the entire escapade also was the high-handed, disrespectful and arrogant conduct of these three Councillors. Recall Councillor Clarke’s words to the Press: “I have no apologies to make”.
2) There was obviously no proper investigation to assess the probable impact of the project. Indeed many have posited (a position I support) that the Parking Meter Project will place an additional financial and economic burden on the people while forcing many to congest other streets where the parking meters are not situated. Indeed, like many Guyanese, I ask the question: What criteria were used to determine which streets will be equipped with these parking meters? And if this project is intended also to provide a source of ‘much needed revenue’ for the council; receiving 20 per cent of revenue for the first nine years is certainly not what is needed. As former President Bharrat Jagdeo commented: “The terms and conditions of the contract are burdensome and favour the contractor.” In any case, what criteria were used to arrive at the 20 per cent for first nine years, 25 per cent for years 10 to 19 and 30 per cent for 20 year and above?
Of concern to me also was the handpicking of the ‘contractor’ and the councillors to travel to Mexico. And while the Mayor and her comrades claim that the project has zero investment for the Council, I ask the question: Who paid for the trips made by the Mayor and Councillors?
3) I, like many Guyanese, view the arrangement between the Council and the Contractor as a deal and not a contract. Seems that the President’s request that the Attorney General and the Finance Minister review the Contract was merely a smokescreen. In fact, the Government obviously did not want to be seen as bowing to public pressure. The decision was as expected.
4) The City Council must focus on debt recovery which runs into several billions of dollars; cease offering waivers of rates and taxes and interest thereon and get its Debt Recovery Unit to develop a payment plan which gives its debtors for rates and taxes a specific period to pay rates owing at a specific point in time.
The Council must also ensure that the irregular practice of some altering financial records to avoid relatives, friends and political activists and supporters of the ruling Government paying the rates and taxes they owe cease immediately and the Council must investigate and correct these anomalies; instead of placing more pressure on those who are already paying.
Notwithstanding the opinions I have expressed above, I join thousands of concerned Guyanese in urging that a forensic audit with a focus on the staffing and financial aspects of the Council’s operations be conducted by the Office of the Auditor General with a view to determining the accuracy and legality of those aspects of the Council’s operations.
Sincerely,
Norman Whittaker
