City’s audit and procurement committees should have had opposition councillors

Dear Editor,

I refer to the article captioned, `City Hall sets up audit, procurement committees’ (SN Feb 13). It has to be recognized that a much-needed start is made with the formation of these committees. The people behind these should be commended for taking the first steps in the long road ahead. I submit, however, that this start is on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction.

The first thing that caught my eye are the compositions of the Tender and Procurement Committee and the Audit Committee. The latter is all APNU, while the former is 80% APNU, and the remainder the AFC. In other words, both committees are all populated by representatives from the coalition government. In view of the sensitive nature of both these committees, I think that the government members could have gone out of their way to include one opposition member in each of them, if only for: 1) extending a hand of inclusion; 2) setting example and, perhaps, precedent; and 3) having a separate critical eye and dissenting voice on the committees. The balance would still have been favourable; therefore, nothing to lose, all things considered. There is the additional advantage of taking that missing first step in an already tumultuous political atmosphere. In the end, it may not mean anything or make any difference, but there is the priceless element of a watchdog among watchdogs. I think that it allows for some level - no matter how minute a degree - of sanity check and credibility to the work at hand.

My understanding is that, since the government councillors have a clear majority, it is the result of an unchallengeable vote count along straight party lines. That is their right, and it was duly exercised fairly and squarely. Admittedly, it is part of the democratic process, and the democratic way. Nonetheless, I still believe, and maintain, that having an opposition councillor on those pivotal oversight committees would be indicative of a democratic philosophy and democratic inclinations. This might be too idealistic in these climes, but I still felt that it should be shared, for whatever it is worth.

From my perspective, audit committees are cause for guarded optimism. There is a watchdog in the house. It will be alert, sniffing out the suspicious, and sounding the alarm. Then, a functioning and clean Tender and Procurement Committee adds lustre, structure, and standards to what is covered in that world. Those are all comforting things, and encourages growing confidence in both sentinel, overseers, and the work products delivered. In the instance of a public-oriented institution, such as City Hall, this is even more pertinent and urgent, given what has been in motion there for ages it seems. Given what is feared, has troubled, and brought about much condemnation, it is timely, too, that an audit and procurement committees be onboard and on the ground with policies constructed and followed, eyes squinted, sleeves rolled up, and drilling down. The drilling down has to be deep, with no free passes granted; nor without any prisoners taken or favours granted.

For all of the above reasons, I venture that City Hall needs different pairs of determined and fearless eyes to probe what has to be massive undertakings impacting both committees. And because of the sensitivities surrounding procurement in general anywhere, and in Guyana specifically, it would have been meaningful for some (any) opposition handwriting and fingerprint to be present. To repeat the obvious, the Tender and Procurement Committee would be saddled with streamlining those areas that led to so much grief, and would benefit immensely from a conscientious other presence. Doing otherwise, I believe, leaves it open to criticism and the second-guessing of its work from the beginning; that there are the biases associated with in-house jobs.

To load up these crucial committees with members from the government side only is asking for trouble, even though they might be the best that are around, all circumstances considered; and sends the wrong message.

To be clear, there are no aspersions cast on the character or credibility of those identified to serve on either of the committees. Rather, there is the apprehension that these groups could come in for unnecessary attention and comment before they have examined one sheet of paper, or one dollar of spending, or made a single decision. This is scrutiny and commentary that the committees can do without. They have much work to do, with many eyes observing their every move, and waiting to pounce and pronounce, perhaps unfairly. They certainly do not need any of this at this early stage of their operational lives and activities.

Yours faithfully,

GHK Lall