–even as questions of transparency, accountability increase, Dr. Jagdeo highlights
THE A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)-controlled City Council has presented a budget that has once again left Central Government to bear the burden of servicing the residents of Georgetown, Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has lamented.
The Mayor and City Council (M&CC) has been facing allegations of unaccountability and lack of transparency for years, and the presentation of the recent budget did not change the situation.
The budget was presented with very little information regarding expenditure, according to Dr. Jagdeo.
During a press conference at the Office of the President on Thursday, he raised the list of concerns he has about the M&CC, especially as it regards financial accountability.
Six months into 2024, the APNU-controlled Georgetown M&CC on Wednesday presented and approved its $3,297,087,000 budget.
“We know about the lack of audits of the City Council for a large number of years. If you don’t have audits, you can’t verify how much you collected or spent. They operate in this opaque environment deliberately,” Dr. Jagdeo said, noting how simple it is to get an audit done.
Further, he said that when one operates in an “opaque” environment and not guided by a document, then there is room for corruption.
“We know that this is how APNU operates; it’s no surprise. I’m shocked that people don’t see what’s happening at the City Council,” Dr. Jagdeo said, while pointing out that most of the M&CC’s budget is not directed to servicing the people.
“…Most of the money in the budget now doesn’t go for services to the people of Georgetown. So, guess who will have to do roads and drainage and the sluices and a whole range of other activities; it’s the Central Government,” he said.
The M&CC’s budget was presented by Councillor Lelon Saul, the Finance Chairman, during the Council’s statutory meeting held at the Kitty Market.
According to Saul, the budget, which plans operational and capital needs that support core city services is themed, “Building a green, resilient, safe and sustainable city”.
Although acknowledging a projected budget of $3.2 billion, he highlighted that the Council’s primary source of revenue is derived from rates and taxes, totalling approximately $2.2 billion.
“Our employment cost is projected to be $1.2 billion, and, therefore, we have approximately $2 billion to do whatever we want to do,” Saul added.
UNREALISTIC
Following the presentation of the budget, several councillors raised concerns about the budget, including the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)’s councillor, Don Singh, who called out the length of time it took for the budget to be presented.
He said that the budget is being presented in June, six months into the year, and further noted that it should include figures of money that were spent before its presentation.
“So, we had five months, we don’t know what we have spent… so I think for me it is unrealistic. We are now six months in the year, perhaps in the budget even though it was presented at a later stage, perhaps some figures should have been supplied to buttress what we spent in the first four months,” Singh said.
He then added that while the budget may be a steady one, it does not respond to the explosive growth being observed in Georgetown.
The councillor added: “What it doesn’t do is respond to the explosive growth that is taking place in Georgetown; and when I say explosive you can just drive around and you will see buildings going up, roads building and a wide variety of things happening and the budget does not in measure address this growth.”
Councillor Steven Jacobs also raised several questions and concerns regarding what was included in the budget.
Jacobs highlighted a clause in the budget which spoke to the council moving to the seizure of properties to recover the council’s rates and taxes which he strongly disagreed on.
The clause, which was not addressed by Saul in his presentation but was included in the budget document, was subsequently eliminated from the budget before the council’s approval.
However, Jacobs noted that he observed that while the document states that the council’s accounts receivable can adequately fund its mandate to the city, there was no consideration in it that states that the council can pay its debts owed to other agencies.
He said, “I didn’t see any consideration or note any consideration for the Mayor and City Council to pay the debts that they have for other agencies including GRA, GWI, GPL and so forth.”
Jacobs added: “This expenditure if it’s here will reflect differently in this budget and we got to be factual and frank again… because a break-even budget is not something that is possible or are we trying to save face and look good for the cameras.”
