Is there anything more undignified in local democracy than the sight of the outgoing mayor of a town council desperately trying to cling on to power when he knows his time is up?
Last week, on a ‘live stream’ from the Malkerns Town Council Offices, we witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of the outgoing mayor deciding to distance himself from the same democratic process, which had elected him to office for a second term in 2025, as a result of tactical voting and the toss of a coin.
By choosing to challenge the local election rules and procedures and by implication, the minister’s powers to appoint under established legislation, the outgoing mayor demonstrated disrespect to the law, the minister’s own professional judgment and his fellow councillors.
In his desire to undermine the electoral process to elect a new mayor and to ensure his own personal survival, by insisting that his objections were minuted, rather than seeking to create instability by creating mischief, the outgoing mayor might have done better to reflect on the fact that for two years, he had presided over a dysfunctional and divided council entirely of his own making and done absolutely nothing during his term in office to improve the quality of life for the residents and ratepayers of Malkerns and all the other stakeholders.
The election of the right candidate to be mayor is a key part of a properly functioning local democracy. Electing the right person is critical because he/she influences the direction of travel for local priorities such as roads and potholes; the collection of waste; public utilities and bus ranks; local markets and other essential services. An effective mayor will also take a keen interest in budget oversight and town planning and will actively encourage ratepayer participation – viewing the exercise as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Effective local democracy matters because it will result in greater accountability. Assuming, of course, that the elected mayor makes a conscious decision to engage with the local residents and ratepayers, seeing the benefits of making it easier to find local solutions to local issues through ratepayer engagement in the decision-making process.
The sound quality on the ‘live stream’ was not good, but a letter had been presented before the inaugural meeting, presumably from the outgoing mayor’s lawyer, seeking to challenge the electoral process for the election of a new mayor. His flawed argument seeming to be that, because two of the appointed councillors were not directly responsible for any wards, neither were they eligible to vote at the inaugural meeting. Worth noting, one of the appointed councillors being targeted is a prince and former Cabinet secretary and was not present at the inaugural meeting to defend the challenge to his appointment. Before wasting his generous sitting allowance on further legal costs, the outgoing mayor might do well to re-familiarise himself with the Urban Government Act No.8 of 1969 [the Act]. Section 3 of the Act defines the term ‘councillor’ as a ‘person elected or appointed a member of a council or Board’. Sections 123 and 124 give the minister the powers to give effect to the Act and the powers to make regulations. As the minister’s representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Government quite rightly pointed out at the inaugural meeting, Section 6 of the Act gives powers to the minister to decide on the ‘composition of councils’.
The minister may also, from time to time, by notice published in the gazette:
- Prescribe the composition of a council and the number of representatives;
- Provide for the election or appointment of councillors;
- Prescribe the number of councillors to be appointed or elected in respect of each ward and crucially –
- Provide for any other matter not herein before specified which may be necessary for the proper establishment of a council.
This makes totally irrelevant the argument that appointed councillors properly sworn in need to be directly linked to a ward. And this invites the obvious question why, during his controversial two terms in office, not once did the outgoing mayor prevent the two appointed councillors from voting on issues at the monthly council meetings on the grounds that neither was directly linked to any specific ward. Both were appointed by the minister to offer their much-needed wealth of experience to the new and inexperienced Town Board.
Follow Part II in tomorrow’s Letters section.
Leave a comment