The experts agree that city management has a direct and immediate effect on the quality of life of the citizens, as it is responsible for providing safe and clean neighbourhoods, ensuring public safety, maintaining infrastructure services, protecting and maintaining our scarce natural resources, and providing better health care facilities. Good governance and a robust institutional framework are the key supporting pillars for an effective city management system.
While good planning renders the basic physical structure to a city and making it more amenable to its citizens, the governance structures empower city managers to take decisions and make interventions as and when needed for proper functioning. For example, proper planning will ensure that fire brigades have adequate access to all the buildings in a city. However, in the event of a fire breakout, the authority and ability of city managers to enforce an action plan for evacuation and fire-fighting also becomes critical. Both the authority and the ability in terms of expending human and financial resources placed at the disposal of a city manager are a function of the governance prevalent in the city.
Proactive leadership, a committed administration and the citizen’s participation in the city’s management process are other factors that influence the success of a city management system. Currently, citizens participate in local government through elections and other engagement processes, providing feedback about their service expectations. While elected governing bodies are effective policy orchestrators, professional city managers separate operations of the city from politics and contribute to organisational transparency.
In view of the above how does our capital city stand?  This question can be answered with a very short answer-our capital has moved from the once “garden city” to the “garbage city.”
And this is so because over the years the management of our capital city has been characterised by poor governance, incompetence, corruption, inefficiency and no planning. Coupled with that City Hall has been mired in controversies and internal wrangling sapping the little available energy, and as such very little is being done to enhance Georgetown and improve the quality of life of its citizens. The China trip by the Mayor and other City Hall officials is the latest controversy engaging the Council.
Only a couple of days ago garbage contractors served City Hall with an ultimatum to withdraw their services if they are not paid. This has been happening frequently and in recent times this frequency has been increasing further plunging the city into deeper garbage.
According to a representative of one of the contractors about three weeks ago, the municipality paid the last 50 per cent due for February and it was not the first or second time that they were treated in that manner, adding that the notification to City Hall was not sudden but after making several telephone calls and receiving failed promises.
The recurring excuse from City Hall has been shortage of funds. However, doesn’t City Hall have a budget in which funds are allocated specifically for garbage collection?  Certainly, officials at City Hall have a good idea of what they have to pay the garbage contractors per year and therefore plan accordingly. So how and why funds are so frequently short to pay garbage contractors? But it is not only garbage contractors because on many occasions employees of City Hall do not receive their salaries when it is due.
So once again the citizens of Georgetown have the threat of a massive build up of garbage hanging over their heads and the accompanying public health menace to contend with.
From all that has been happening in the capital city it would seem that those who are in charge at City Hall are incapable of managing Georgetown and one would have thought the decent and logical thing to do in such a circumstance is to resign from office. However, these officials seem bent on holding on to power at all costs even it means plunging Georgetown deeper into the cesspit.