Editorial | Belnavis’ second coming

Michael Belnavis touched several of the right notes last week at his swearing-in as chairman of the council of the St Ann Municipal Corporation (SAMC) and mayor of St Ann’s Bay, the parish’s capital.

Unfortunately, he failed to avoid the discordant ones, which this newspaper hopes is not indicative of what lessons he learnt from his previous stint as chairman of the council and of how he will govern this time around. And while our proximate focus is on St Ann, this newspaper’s message is to all the local-government authorities. They should be managed with probity and transparency, which is a starting point for their proper delivery of services to communities.

In 2020, Mr Belnavis, a member of the Jamaica Labour Party, was chairman of the St Ann municipal council when he was driven from his job in the midst of a controversy over the installation of an electric vehicle charging port at the local-government office for Mr Belnavis’ private use.

In the February 26 local government elections, Mr Belnavis’ party won 11 of the council’s 16 seats, and he, after nearly four years, was reinstated as chairman.

“It’s not time for us to gloat in any form or glory,” he said. “It’s time for us to get things going.”

The things Mr Belnavis wants to ‘get going’ include improving the parish’s road and water infrastructure and creating jobs for citizens.

“We want prosperity for all and to ensure that we do the work necessary so that the people get the employment that they need,” he said.

Which is the signal that this newspaper expects of the councils and in keeping with the posture the leaders of the parties adopted during the campaign for, and after, the municipal elections.

PLEDGE TO AVOID MISTAKES

Mr Belnavis’ next statement should have been a pledge to avoid any mistakes of his previous tenure. Unfortunately, in his reach for personal vindication, he hit discordant, tuneless chords, the value of which was to remind us that there was unfinished business at the St Ann Municipal Corporation, whose conclusion remains opaque.

“I’ve always said that I didn’t do anything wrong … ,” he said, noting that he had won re-election in his Ocho Rios division by a comfortable margin.

“My colleagues also recognise that I didn’t necessarily do anything wrong,” he said.

It is true that the Integrity Commission’s investigation found no criminally corrupt behaviour by Mr Belnavis in the charging-port affair. However, it would be to elasticise the interpretation of the commission’s findings, laid out in a report submitted to Parliament in 2022, to claim that he did nothing wrong.

Having determined that Mr Belnavis requested the charging port for his personal use (he subsequently repaid the J$78,000 cost of its installation), the commission’s director of investigation (DI) scolded the municipality’s then CEO, Rovel Morris, for acquiescing to the request.

Said the report: “The DI recommends that political representatives and other holders of public office desist from making requests of accounting and/or accountable officers, which require them to deploy public resources for their personal use. The DI’s recommendation in this regard is premised upon former Mayor Mr Michael Belnavis’ request by way of memorandum to Mr Rovel Morris, chief executive officer, St Ann Municipal Corporation, for the installation of a charging facility for his personal use.”

The matter of the charging port might have been an act of carelessness or an oversight in the management of public resources by Messrs Belnavis and Morris. And in the context of misuse of taxpayers’ money by government agencies, the overall expenditure relating to the charging port may be small.

DOES NOT EXCUSE LAPSES

That, however, does not excuse lapses by public officials in the exercise of their fiduciary responsibilities, whether through inattention or otherwise. Indeed, people who spend taxpayers’ money are expected to do so with prudence and efficiency and must be expected to be held accountable for their actions.

It is in that context that The Gleaner has urged the newly elected councils to robustly implement the oversight and transparency mechanisms – including inviting independent persons with the requisite expertise to sit on committees of the municipal councils – as is allowable under the Local Governance Act of 2016. The engagement of citizens in reviews of budgets and strategic plans, as required by the laws, must also be enforced.

It is also in this context, and in the interest of transparency, that the St Ann Municipal Corporation, the local government ministry, and the Ministry of Finance must say if/ and/or how the Integrity Commission’s suggestion for sanctions against Mr Morris, the St Ann corporation’s former CEO, was resolved.

The commission suggested in its report that the financial secretary, as the Financial Administration and Audit Act permits, consider recouping from Mr Morris a “reasonable sum” in relation to the full expenditure on the charging port, which he authorised.

It also raised the possibility of taking Mr Morris to court under the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act for failing to undertake his responsibilities with the due care, skill, and responsibility that would be expected from someone in that position.

The commission’s director of investigation also called for disciplinary actions against Mr Morris “ in respect of the apparent breaches” in authoring the charging port.

What was done with respect to these recommendations was not made public. Perhaps government lawyers concluded that none were legally tenable. Either way, taxpayers should know.