New question submission rules trigger dispute at Region 6 RDC

A disagreement over how councillors are required to submit questions and motions has sparked debate within the Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne) Regional Democratic Council (RDC), months after the council voted to remove the long-standing “Matters of Urgent Public Interest” agenda item. The issue surfaced during Thursday’s statutory meeting when A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) councillor Mehalai McAlmont challenged what she described as changing requirements for councillors seeking to raise matters before the council. This was after questions submitted prior to the RDC meeting last Thursday were not entertained because of a new rule stimulating that those questions should arrive 72-hours prior to the commencement of the meeting. “You cannot keep making up these rules as you go along for your own self-interest,” McCalmont told Regional Chairman Junior Bassant. “There needs to be a common understanding as to the rules and the regulations by which this council is set.” McCalmont argued that councillors were elected to represent residents and should not be confronted with changing procedural requirements. The exchange comes against the backdrop of a controversial motion approved by the RDC in March 2026. The motion removed the “Matters of Urgent Public Interest” item from the council’s agenda and replaced it with a system requiring councillors to submit questions and motions in writing before meetings. The measure was first introduced in December 2025 and later returned to the council following months of debate. The proposal was ultimately approved in March by a 19-9 vote. Supporters of the motion argued that the change would make council meetings more orderly and structured.

Opposition councillors claimed that it would limit councillors’ ability to raise urgent matters affecting residents and reduce opportunities for public debate during statutory meetings.
During Thursday’s meeting, McCalmont appeared to question the implementation of what she described as a requirement that questions be submitted more than 70 hours before a meeting. This was after answers to three questions were not supplied and other councillors who submitted questions suffered the same fate.
Bassant, however, defended the procedure and said councillors must submit notices of questions and motions through the office of the Clerk of Council. “So we can submit those notices of questions or motions to the office of the Clerk of the Council, which is the Regional Executive Officer’s (REO) office. It must be addressed to the Clerk of Council,” Bassant said. He explained that submissions should be properly dated, signed and clearly identify the councillor making the request.
According to the Chairman, some recent submissions failed to meet those requirements. “I think over the past couple of days, I received maybe two or three that came to the office. None of them were addressed to the Clerk of Council,” he said. “The other one came in, there was no signature of a councillor, so we don’t know who submitted the motion or the question.” Bassant maintained that the requirements were intended to improve clarity and ensure questions and motions could be processed efficiently. “So it’s just a matter of formality, and it’s just a matter of clarity, so we can easily and quickly address those issues that are set,” he told councillors. While the RDC in March had agreed that written notices were required before the commencement of meetings, councillors have since raised questions about the implementation of the policy, including what appears to be a 72-hour submission requirement. The issue has become a continuing source of contention within the council, with some members arguing that the procedures could restrict their ability to raise pressing concerns affecting residents, particularly matters that arise shortly before meetings are held.