Dear Editor,
THE tossing-out of the no-confidence motion against the Town Clerk of Georgetown by the mayor at last Monday’s statutory meeting of the Council has turned out to nothing more than a comedy of errors.

First, I would like to know under what authority was the mayor acting when she disallowed the motion? Could she counsel the citizenry as to who or what gave her that authority?
Second,it is clear that the mayor does not understand the difference between legal opinion and legal advice.

It is wholly unacceptable for the mayor to adopt the guidance sought and obtained from an attorney-at-law who is the husband of a sitting Councillor, privately by the town clerk, and consequently use it to disallow the no-confidence motion brought against him (town clerk), which was on the agenda for discussion.
It must first be noted that this recent advice provided by the attorney was given privately to the town clerk, and was not requested by, nor provided to the Council. So how could the mayor take action on private advice given?

This is not a court order or an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges), nor is it a legal opinion sought or obtained by the Council. How was this private advice even placed on the agenda or tabled before Council? Clearly now, a precedent has been set, so that every and any municipal employee against whom disciplinary action is being brought can run to their private attorney, get some legal advice in their favour, hand it to the mayor and then they will tie the Council’s hands. Completely incongruous!

Another serious concern I have about the Georgetown municipality is their tractability when it comes to adherence to the laws of our country and the conditions of employment of their workers. How is it that no-confidence motions were successfully effected against other town clerks, but can’t be used against this one?

What happened at the last meeting amounts to collusion. It should be obvious to everyone watching that the ‘Terrible Trio’ have no intention of being separated, that protection is being provided to a small group, and that a fear exists within City Hall that if there is any infiltration or opening up of the clandestine assemblage there, that many dirty secrets will come to light.

It is clear that in the foreseeable future, there will be no accountability, transparency or democracy at City Hall. Suddenly, records that were missing for years have popped up after threats of prosecution were issued.

The town clerk is so afraid of being away from his desk for even one day, that since becoming town clerk, he has not taken one day of the accrued vacation leave that is due to him, opting instead to be paid in lieu of leave. Even the current leave, on which he had agreed to proceed in the second quarter, he has now changed his mind and has decided to sit tight, using the impending audit as an excuse.

Yours sincerely,
Deodarie Putulall