— MAPM threatens court action of parking system continues Monday

Should the Georgetown Mayor and City Council (M&CC) forge ahead with plans to continue implementation of the metered parking system in Georgetown, it could be slapped with a court order for contempt.

Two court actions have since been brought against the M&CC in the High Court.
The first was brought by New Building Society (NBS), which said the meters were an inconvenience to their staff and customers.

Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan and Town Clerk Royston King have been asked by Justice Brassington Reynolds to justify why the parking meter project should not be scrapped.
This matter will be heard before Justice Reynolds on Monday.

On the other hand, Mahendra Arjune has brought a separate action against M&CC in the High court. Acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards has since made another order requesting M&CC and the Town Clerk to also provide just cause why the parking meter contract should not be quashed.
This matter will also come before Justice Reynolds on February 27.
However, despite these two pending orders, Mayor Patricia Chase-Green has indicated that the local government body will continue implementation of the project from Monday.
“As of Monday next, we will resume implementation of the parking meter project,” the mayor said on Thursday at a press conference. She justified this position, reasoning that, “There is not an injunction that stops us from operating.”

It has not been made clear if a resumption of implementation means that persons who are non-compliant with the by-laws will be penalised as is stipulated.
Mayor Chase-Green did say however that, “Nobody said we’re starting back clamping on Monday,” while Town Clerk Royston King suggested that the M&CC will be renewing its operations, which include tools available to them for non-compliance of the by-laws.
In a more recent development, the Movement Against Parking Meter (MAPM) has since indicated that a court order will be filed against M&CC should the local government body decide to continue implementation of the project.

Speaking on behalf of the movement at a town hall meeting on Saturday at St Stanislaus College, Attorney Pauline Chase said that “… should Smart City Solutions [and the M&CC] take that step on Monday; we will see an application being moved to the court for contempt.”
Smart City Solutions (SCS) is the company contracted by the M&CC to manage and operate the metered parking system in and around Georgetown.
Explaining the court orders, Chase said that what has been ordered is an “Order Nisi”. She said this means that the appellant have enough grounds upon which to call the persons to show cause why a specific order should not be made.

“That Order Nisi act as a stay. At the very least, [if there is] any matter before the court, a party should not take any step which would in any way render the proceedings void for any reason,” the attorney told a gathering of more than one hundred persons.
She said the court order acts as a stay “and any act contrary to that would be in contempt or at the very least contentious”.
Contempt of court refers to behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.

Additionally, Chase pointed out that for action to be taken against the M&CC should they move ahead with implementation of the project, an application for contempt must be made through the High Court.
And according to the attorney, this is likely to happen, should the local government body act on its word.
“…you would need the court, being moved by an application for contempt, to so order. And I rather suspect that should SCS take that step on Monday, we will see an application being moved to the court for contempt.”
The movement has since been calling for a revocation of the contract which was signed without the knowledge of most of the members of the City Council.
At the meeting on Saturday, four councillors were present and two indicated that they were unable to see what the contract looks like.

Deputy Mayor Sherod Duncan has also been against the project which he says has not been a transparent one. Duncan has pointed out that the project did not go to tender and was signed behind the backs of the elected councillors, some of whom have not even seen it to this day.