Editorial

Local councils are rarely out of the news, most of the time over the irritation caused by the antics of a number of over-enthusiastic traffic wardens. This often overshadows the very good work some of the councils do in their localities. But having said that, it is also true that, often enough, discussion of the way the councils operate is either superficial in nature or so politically orientated it loses much of its value.

Even though the approach of a new round of council elections may not be considered as being the right time for a thorough review of the councils' operations, there are more than enough grounds for such a review to be carried out in order to stop the situation from deteriorating even further.

Just a brief look at the Auditor General's report for the period ending March 2006 provides shocking evidence of the fact that not all is well with the running of local councils. What is most surprising is that there has been nary a whisper since the publication of that report.

When The Times last commented on the report, it said that the shortcomings brought to light put the councils that were at fault to shame. The question is: Why should the situation be this bad when there are executive secretaries who are supposed to ensure good governance and accountability? The question touches the very core of the problem.

According to the Local Councils Act, the executive secretary, as the executive, administrative and financial head of the council, is responsible for the day-to-day running of its administrative business and has to ensure a proper conduct of council affairs. But to what extent does the post allow him/her to exercise his/her duty freely?

In a clear exposition of the problem, the Ombudsman has just spelled out in a report what may be hampering the secretaries from carrying out their duties and is also suggesting how the situation could be improved. In his opinion, shared by those who follow the affairs of the councils, the role of an executive secretary is not properly understood and even less appreciated by some of the councils.

In fact, the Ombudsman said he was aware of the fact that, at times, efforts by the executive secretaries to perform functions that were proper to their position were considered as undue interference in the business of the council and that executive secretaries were expected to do the mayor's or council's biddings at all times.

It is amazing that politicians from both sides of the fence have not gone into this and put a halt to it. What is holding them from doing so? If the people were to be made fully aware of the findings of the Auditor General, they would be scandalised and, maybe, an outcry would ensue. Is it not shocking, for instance, that in some cases transactions are not accounted for, or not accounted for correctly?

The secretaries' association is right in its strong stand over the need for their employment to be made on a permanent basis, rather than for three years, for how can secretaries stand up to councils if the renewal of their job is dependent on those whom they are expected to keep an eye on? As pointed out so well by the Ombudsman, the situation is anomalous.

There will be much political talk on the councils as the March council elections approach, but its value will be of little consequence, if at all, unless it is also directed to matters aimed at ensuring proper administration.