Dear Editor,

PERMIT me to respond to Town Clerk Royston King’s letter to your newspapers titled ‘I didn’t snub Duncan’ (September 21, 2016). It was a snub most unprofessional; born of pure malice, and the root of which errs in Law. The Town Clerk continues to interpret the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, with a layman’s eye, and then seeks to implement “policies” that have no sound legal basis. Implementation of a container fee was such an instant.

Counsel is retained by the Municipality for a reason. The Town Clerk, on his own, is not aptly qualified in law, and applies his flawed interpretation of legislation arbitrarily and ultra vires.

Firstly, the function of Deputy Mayor is a political function, and not an administrative one. The Town Clerk is the administrative head of the body corporate, Mayor and City Council; the Mayor is the political head. I sent a memorandum to the Mayor on three matters which occurred in her absence from the jurisdiction recently, for her information and guidance; copied same to the Town Clerk and Minister of Communities, our subject Minister. The Mayor has not, to date, responded to me directly.

Secondly, the greatest of the three issues, which will detain us here, refers to the absence of transportation for the Deputy Mayor while performing the duties of Mayor. The Town Clerk sought a strained and absurd interpretation that ‘not every time the Mayor is out of the jurisdiction is Her Worship unable to perform her duties, and as such there is no need for the Deputy Mayor to perform such duties’. Such was the occasion of the Mayor’s last sojourn overseas, to Trinidad and Tobago.

Since being elected on April 1, 2016, Her Worship the Mayor has proceeded overseas several times. The Mayor has had jaunts to Suriname, Mexico, Panama, Chile, Panama (again) and more recently Trinidad and Tobago. On every trip save the last, an officer of the administration (coincidentally, always the Deputy Town Clerk) has called me to say that in the absence of the Mayor from the jurisdiction, transportation is available for my mobility. In the meeting with the Mayor, September 8, 2016, her Worship communicated her plans to proceed to T&T on a personal matter, and gave me the timeframe of her absence. Having been told nothing on the tenor of which the Town Clerk now effects as policy, I had a legitimate expectation that all the facilities provided on previous occasions would be forthcoming.

But let us follow the Town Clerk’s reasoning: The Town Clerk alludes to the fact that the Mayor being in Trinidad on a personal matter did not render her incapable of performing her duties. And hence no transportation was provided for the Deputy Mayor. This legal reasoning lacks coherence, since the Mayor previously proceeded to Chile and had also asked for extra time to attend to private matters, and adequate transportation was provided throughout the period.

Additionally, the Town Clerk said that when the Mayor’s itinerary was looked at, Her Worship had no official function to attend to, which he interprets as no transportation being necessary for the Deputy Mayor. This, again, makes no practical or logical sense.

Incidentally, for instance, while the Mayor was in Trinidad, I was contacted by the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the Mayor’s attendance at the handing over ceremony of the “Final Report on Project Georgetown Drainage by the Dutch Engineering Students on 7th September, 2016 in the Ministry of Agriculture Main Boardroom at 13:00hrs.” Her Worship would have been out of the jurisdiction, hence the event planners asked yours truly to give remarks on the Mayor’s behalf; which I did. But not without much hardship, since it rained heavily on that said day. I turned up late for the event, given the weather and limitations of transportation.
The larger issue here is that activities may not be officially on Her Worship’s itinerary locally, when she is required to be out of the jurisdiction officially or on personal business; but circumstances occur. Will the administration there and then rent a vehicle for the Deputy Mayor’s usage, as it does in the Mayor’s “official” absence? This makes no sense to me. Also, shortly after City Councillors assumed office in April 2016, an orientation exercise lasting three days was held by the Town Clerk at the Cara Lodge. Council’s counsel, Attorney-at-Law Roger Yearwood, undertook to explain the legal framework under the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01. The roles of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors were all dealt with. Nowhere in the learned Attorney’s presentation was the interpretation now posited by the Town Clerk proffered. Statutory Meeting of April 25, 2016, as well, dealt in substantial part with the office of the Deputy Mayor. Nowhere is all the presentations made, and interjections by the Mayor and Town Clerk, was this view of recent vintage espoused by the Town Clerk made known to the Council.

Why then this strange and sudden interpretation of the circumstances of the Deputy Mayor performing the duties of Mayor, in the middle of our tenure?
Thirdly, features which go with the Deputy Mayor performing the functions of Mayor seem to be remembered selectively. Case in point: when Her Worship was out of the jurisdiction to Chile, that period of absence exceeded “seven consecutive days”, yet Section 17 (5) of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, to which the Town Clerk alluded in his missive, was not brought into force.
The section states that “during such period, have at his disposal, in lieu of the Mayor, the funds placed at the disposal of the said office in the manner specified for the payment of such funds.”
Regards,
SHEROD AVERY DUNCAN, LLB, JP.
Deputy Mayor, Municipality of Georgetown