THERE was, last Saturday, a conference of members of the Community Development Councils (CDCs), the purpose of which was to discuss roles, responsibilities and changes in the communities. The CDCs were established during the PPP/C administration, and were used primarily to channel money to party supporters, undermine the roles and independence of Local Government arms, and in some cases court the votes of persons in non-traditional party strongholds.

The CDCs were funded from the Consolidated Fund. Unlike the Local Government Authorities, the CDCs are not constitutional organisations, and therefore are not guided by any statute.

Last week’s activity marked a first since the CDCs were put in place. The organisers of this event need to be commended for bringing to national attention an outfit that was initially managed away from public attention, scrutiny and accountability.

Where an organisation of this nature operates outside of constitutional authority and was established to pursue partisan political objectives, it requires formalization and that its activities are interwoven into those of local authority bodies that are vested with legal authority for grassroots’ governance.

Recognising what drives the CDCs in the respective communities is the residents’ fervour to fulfill a particular need/desire, such as the building of bridges, solid waste management, and community policing; disbanding this body will attract resistance by the communities. As such, as local authorities pursue their developmental programmes, avenues must be opened for greater collaboration and cooperation with and between the two groups, with a view to minimising conflicts and maximising the use of scarce/ limited resources. In so doing, there needs to be clear policies regarding the roles and activities of the CDCs, where they operate.

Given that one group is constitutional and the other ad hoc, to ignore the importance of clear policy guidelines and demarcation between the two groups is to encourage endless conflict among citizens and elected leaders.

It is obvious that the absence of established rules spawns an environment conducive to persons and groups making up rules, as they go along, in furtherance of self-interest and not the universal good.

Minister of State, Joe Harmon, in his address to the conference, stated that the body has Government’s support. This is a signal that the CDCs will be a permanent fixture in augmenting the activities of the local government organs. This disclosure therefore makes it necessary to have the CDCs streamlined and guided by instruments of the state.

Bringing the existence of the CDCs to the national fore says that utilisation of resources received — monetary and otherwise — is expect to confirm to public accounting standards. It therefore means that activities undertaken ought to meet established acceptable standards. For instance, money management must be in keeping with accounting standards; and execution of tasks done must be consistent with acceptable standards, as in the instance of waste management confirming to established environmental practices.

Having reached the stage where the nation has been advised that the CDCs have a permanent and continuous role to play in its affairs, the governance system must be improved by first coming clean and informing the society that taxpayers’ money is being channelled through these groups.

The society has now reached the point where it would expect accountability for funds expended on projects executed by the CDCs. Further engagement is required for the CDCs, with Central Government and local government authorities establishing the rules and parameters within which this body will operate.

Bringing to the national fore the existence and operation of the CDCs is indicative that the Government is prepared to ensure this body moves away from the cloud that surrounded it into mainstream activities that will impact on development.