M&CC discipline motion can be used to intimidate, silence

If passed in present form

– Councillor

The introduction of a motion to penalise Georgetown Mayor and City Council (M&CC) members for any “misconduct” against the Mayor of Georgetown is not going down well with some Councillors.

According to Councillors, the ambiguity in the wording of the proposal is an attempt to intimidate and silence.

The motion, which was moved by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Councillor Heston Bostwick and was supposed to have been debated on Monday, seeks to have Councillors penalised for “gross misconduct” against Mayor Patricia Chase Green. It references Sections 27 to 31 of the Municipal and District Council Act, Chapter 28:01.

According to one councillor who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the motion lacks a Code of Conduct, which would provide a guide for which behaviour constitutes misconduct. He noted that while the concept was a good one that would create discipline and order, the motion was so poorly formed, it could be used in an arbitrary manner to silence critics.

“It was supposed to be a motion and when we reached to it, the seconder had already left and the Mayor asked for it to be brought forward to another time. It’s a motion to pave the way for anybody deemed to be committing misconduct to the Mayor … [being] sanctioned according to the law. First of all, there was no code of conduct. And secondly, if you’re quoting sections of the 28:01 laws, you ought to include in the motion what rights the individual have to redress. You can’t send a motion without any rights of the individual and even if you quote the law, you have to include in the motion what it says, together with the rights,” the Councillor stated.

He queried exactly who would determine what could be construed as gross misconduct. In light of this, the Councillor stated that if passed, the motion could most likely be used to silence any criticism or probing questions at the Council level.

“It is a motion that will make people intimidated and fearful. It refers to the law, so the law is fairly specific. But if they expand it to include what the law says about the penalties and the rights of the individual to be heard, it might then (be more acceptable).”

“But it lacks specifics. It’s being deemed as a motion, but whether it can stand as a motion is another thing.”

The motion lays out that “any Councillor or Officer of the Mayor and City Councillors of Georgetown who, hereafter this motion so passed, conducts him or herself in any manner deemed to be gross misconduct to the Mayor or Presiding member of Council shall have the enforcements of Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Municipal and District Councils Act against that or any member.”

A perusal of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, revealed that Section 27 states that “the Town Council may sue and be sued in the name of The Town Clerk”. Section 28 speaks of the extent of the town, while Section 29 speaks of the composition of the Town Council.

Section 30 references Sections nine to 22, which in turn reference the election and succession process for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Section 31 speaks of the power of the Minister to amend the Third Schedule.

The actual relevant section to the Georgetown Mayor and City Council is Section Six, under the listing ‘Legal proceedings’. It merely states that “the City Council may sue and be sued by and in the name of The Town Clerk of Georgetown”.

Relations on the City Council have been thorny of late, with the advent of the Georgetown parking meter project. The issue has divided the Council and has prompted unprecedented terse exchanges at some statutory meetings.