Lotus no. 76 (Local Government Act)

[Lotus]

LOTUS no.76 - Political and Social Commentary

Tuesday 15th of June 2003

SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Following the adoption of the Local Government Act 2003 in Parliament last week, the following are some of the consequences that face the citizens and future councillors of the new municipal areas.

I DEMOCRATIC VALUES DIMINISHED, NOT INCREASED
1.1 Village councils have been abolished and will be replaced by wards within a district. Section 5 states:
"5. Alteration of existing areas
(1) The President may, after consulting the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the Municipal Councils concerned and such other person as he thinks fit, by Order, alter the boundaries of any local authority."
No longer will villages be represented by their own inhabitants, as the system allows the possibility for people living in other areas in the same district to stand for election in any ward, as is the case in the urban areas presently.
Furthermore, whereas the town hall of the five existing municipalities is usually within walking distance for the majority of their inhabitants, this will not be the case for the citizens in the rural areas, who will give up the administration of their village halls and be forced to travel long distances to the seats of the new councils (eg Baie du Cap will be administered from Bambous).
1.2 Section 5 also allows the President to gerrymander the boundaries of the new wards. Though the government stressed that the President is supposed to be above party politics during the Parliamentary debate, there is grave doubt whether this will actually be the case.
1.3 Section 16 states:
"16. Term of office of municipal councillors
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the term of office of a municipal councillor shall begin on the day on which he takes the oath in terms of section 17 and, except for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, shall terminate on the eve of the day on which polling takes place for an ordinary election of councillors."
The term of office should end on the eve of NOMINATION day, as was the case in the old Local Government Act (LGA 1989). Even Members of Parliament (who are not Ministers) are not allowed to stay in office after nomination day. This would affect free and fair elections.
1.4 Section 22 states:
"22. Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor
(1) The Chief Executive shall, between the third day and the seventh day following the proclamation of the results of an ordinary municipal election, convene a meeting of all the returned candidates who, after taking the oath referred to in section 17, shall meet under the chairmanship of the Senior Councillor, to elect from amongst themselves a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor who, unless they resign their office or are sooner removed, shall remain in office for a period of 2 years."
Though much was made of the reform of a longer mandate for the head of the council, the Mayor will still be elected by the councillors, so that nothing prevents an arrangement being made to share the mandate (whether it is five years or two years), as is a common occurrence in the present District Councils. Furthermore, the Mayor could be changed if ever the majority of councillors so decided.
1.5 In between the change of the two versions of the bill, not to mention an amendment introduced at committee stage at the National Assembly, the Government FORGOT to amend Section 23 (5), ie:
"(5) In the case of the election of the Deputy Mayor, the same procedure shall be followed except that the meeting shall be presided over by the Mayor or, in his absence, by the exercising Deputy Mayor."
The result of this oversight is that in the eventuality of the election of the Mayor in the third and fifth years being deadlocked, there is no prescribed procedure to decide a winner. The error occurs because the change in term of office for the Mayor from five years to two years was not taken into account.
1.6 One of the most controversial clauses in the first version of the bill was Section 11(4), ie "The President may, at any time, by Order, dissolve a municipal council."
However, though this clause was deleted, a more sinister amendment was made in Section 146(7), namely:
"The Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act is amended -
(a) in section 3, by deleting the word "Minister" wherever it appears, and replacing it by the word "President";
(b) in section 8 -
(i) by deleting the word "Minister" wherever it appears, and replacing it by the word "President";
(ii) in subsection (3)(c), by deleting the words "section 11(2) of";
(iii) in subsection (4), by deleting the words "3 years" and replacing them by the words "5 years"."
The Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act is the subsidiary legislation allowing the revocation of elected local government councils without the need for ANY JUSTIFICATION. This power is now transferred from the Minister to the "above party politics" President. Furthermore, whereas nominated councils could not last more than three years in the past, the "democracy loving" MSM/MMM alliance have extended this provision to five years. Effectively, if ever the government wishes to get rid of an opposition-held municipality, it will be able to do so and control the area until the next municipal elections. It is interesting to note that neither the Minister of Local Government, nor the Deputy Prime Minister, were willing to justify this decision in Parliament.
1.7 Section 33 states:
"33. Casual vacancies amongst councillors
[…]
(2) Subject to subsection (3) and section 34, the vacancy shall be filled by
election -
(a) in case of less than 3 vacancies amongst the councillors of a municipal council, where the Minister considers that it is in the public interest to hold an election and he so informs the Electoral Supervisory Commission; or
(b) in case of more than 3 vacancies amongst the councillors, unless the Electoral Supervisory Commission, after consultation with the Minister, considers that the vacancies will not upset the relativity between the number of councillors in the majority group and in the opposition respectively."
This provision is repeated from the old Local Government Act. It was introduced by the MSM led government in 1988 with the tacit agreement of the MMM opposition at the time. The idea was to avoid numerous municipal by-elections. With the reduction in the number of councillors, this provision is out of place, even more so since some councils will only have 12 members. By-elections are of the utmost importance.

II VALUATION OF PROPERTIES
2.1 Section 2 of the Act introduces a new definition for the purpose of evaluation of properties, namely: ""cadastral value", in relation to any property, means its value ascertained on the basis of its market value, ie the price which the property would fetch on an open competitive market, on a free, not forced sale, between a willing buyer and a willing seller had it been vacant"
There will be discrimination compared to properties valued under the old gross/net value system. Effectively any house in a rural area will now not only have to pay rates, but will also be taxed at a HIGHER level than a similar property in an urban area. This is because of Section 80, which states:
"80. Cadastral value
The annual local rate payable in respect of an immovable property shall be calculated by reference to the property's cadastral value, as determined FROM TIME TO TIME."
Rural areas will effectively be taxed MORE than the urban areas due to the difference between market value and gross/net value.
2.2 Section 2 defines a valuer as "any competent person appointed by a municipal council to value and assess […]"
No qualification is given as to the word "competent". There is no register for valuers in Mauritius unlike the case for doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, etc. In practice, any valuer should be a member of the Royal Chartered Institute of Surveyors (RCIS), though there are actually less than TEN such people in the private sector at this time. In the government valuation department, there are about twenty officers who were qualified under the old Local Government Act to carry out evaluations. It is unlikely that the number of public officers in this department will increase, as the Public Service Commission has advertised the post several times with either few or no responses!
In this respect, in view also of the large number of properties to be evaluated in the rural areas, the following can be expected to happen shortly:
(a) Municipal Councils will be forced to initiate multi-million rupee tenders to the private sector for contracts to evaluate properties, much like the procedure presently for scavenging;
(b) The private sector, once having won contracts for evaluation, will most probably poach valuers from the office of the Government Valuer, in view of the small quantity of "competent" valuers available. This should lead to havoc in that department.
2.3 Furthermore, at a time when law and order is in serious decline, the provisions of the new act may make it easier for crooks all around the island, as Section 89 states:
"89. Ascertainment of value of immovable property
[…] (3) For the purposes of ascertaining the value of an immovable property under this section, the valuer or any person duly authorised by him in writing, may, at all reasonable times and after giving not less than 48 hours' notice in writing, enter on, survey and value, any immovable property in the area for which the valuer acts."
This is the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY that someone who is NOT a public officer is given the power to enter a private residence.
To add insult to injury, the following clause, that appeared in the first version of the new Local Government Bill, has been DELETED:
"91. […] (4) The valuer or any person authorised by him shall produce his authority before entering on any property for the purposes of subsection (3)."
In other words, a private individual is allowed to enter a private residence without ANY written authority whatsoever. Even the police are not allowed to do this, under normal circumstances. Furthermore, as evaluation of properties are normally carried out region-wise at the same time, any crook can show up at the doorstep of a house in a region due to be valued and claim to be a valuer, insisting on the right of entry.

III FINANCES
3.1 The "independent" press has criticised the Labour Party for its emphasis on "rural tax". In this respect, the major newspapers of the country have acted as nothing less than accomplices in the propaganda of the government. Their campaign is not dissimilar from that of Le Cernéen in the 1950's.
The Deputy Prime Minister also talked of a communal campaign. The inhabitants of Chamarel, Bois des Amourettes, Trou d'Eau Douce, Poudre d'Or among other small villages, will surely appreciate these comments for what they are worth.
3.2 Section 78 of the Act now reads
"78. Levy of local rates
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, an annual local rate MAY be levied on the owner of ANY immovable property situate in the rating area of a local authority."
Whereas section 74 of the old LGA 1989 specified that the net annual value of any taxable immovable property should exceed Rs1750, this requirement was no longer maintained in the first version of the new bill. The result was that all residential buildings in the rural areas, no matter how humble, as well as ALL low-cost urban housing estates, including those for cyclone refugees, would have been liable for property tax, as the word "SHALL" was maintained. The only way out would have been to appeal for remission due to poverty, which would have resulted in the new councils being flooded with such requests, not to mention that any such citizen falling in this category would have been required to make an annual written request after receipt of a tax paper.
Following the general outcry concerning the introduction of rural tax, the government was forced to replace "SHALL" with "MAY", which not only made property tax in the country-side optional, but also in the towns. This opens the way for urban deprived areas to be taken off the taxpayer roll. It is worth noting that the claim made by the Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament with regard to Councils being able to impose a zero-rate for the lowest category of households was COMPLETELY FALSE, if the word "SHALL" had been maintained. Possibly Mr Berenger made this error in view of his lack of experience in municipal affairs (following his "frustration" at not being elected a councillor in Quatre Bornes, de l'Estrac dixit).
However, in view of the piecemeal changes, the word "EVERY" needed to be replaced by "ANY", which was only done at Committee Stage in the National Assembly.
3.3 Section 63 states:
"63. Annual estimates
[…] (6) In considering the amount of grants to be allocated to the local authorities, the Minister responsible for the subject of finance shall give due consideration to the financial and development needs of the particular local authority and shall, for a fair allocation of the amount of the grants, take into account -
[…] (b) the possibility of the local authority concerned to increase its revenue by way of any local rates, fees or charges;
This section effectively FORCES the imposition of a rural tax, despite
government claims to the contrary.
3.4 Furthermore, whereas government grant-in-aid was distributed previously following strict criteria with regard to number of inhabitants, amount of asphalted roads and surface area of each local authority, the new act will allow for a government to discriminate at will with regard to the calculation of the grant-in-aid. The result will be that opposition held local authorities will be squeezed, whereas pro-government councils will be generously rewarded.
The last budget exercise for three municipal councils, even though all have an MSM/MMM majority, have already shown a glimpse of future abuses:
(a) In Vacoas-Phoenix, the MMM Mayor presented a 22% across the board property tax increase, included in a series of measures destined to raise sufficient funds to finance a Rs10 million deficit. This resulted in an MSM revolt. To avoid a serious conflict, the Minister of Finance made a "gift" of Rs10 million to the Council, over and above the grant-in-aid calculated using the prescribed criteria.
(b) Curepipe was not so lucky: The Council there went ahead with increases so as to present a balanced budget, which has led to the recent bad publicity with regard to the high increases in several commercial sectors.
(c) Quatre Bornes went one step further: the Council there passed a budget with a deficit of Rs26 million and sent it to the Central Government (Local authorities are ONLY allowed to present balanced budgets; no deficts are allowed). As no news appeared of the budget being returned to Quatre Bornes to be trimmed down accordingly, one wonders whether another "gift" has not been made in this case as well.
But the best example of how the new system will favour councils with a pro-government majority is the case of a morcellement in Black River. This council is the ONLY one where the Chairman and/or Vice-Chairman are pro-MMM. In the other three district councils, the MSM decided to vote against any MMM candidate. It is perhaps for this reason that the Government, through the Minister of Finance, has GUARANTEED a loan of Rs60 million (from First City Bank, to boot!) to rehabilitate the roads in ONE morcellement.
It is only when one realises that the NDU usually spends about Rs10-20 million PER CONSTITUENCY for such works, and that the TOTAL budget of Black River District Council is about Rs80 million, that the enormity of the gesture can be comprehended. What better way than to start off the new municipal council of Black River with a debt that will be paid by the rural tax of the inhabitants of Chamarel, Le Morne, Baie du Cap, La Gaulette, among others. N'en déplaise à certains…

Sanjit Teelock


IMPORTANT: Due to a mishap, I have lost the additions to the mailing list made between June and December, 2002. If you sent me an email to be added or removed from the list, please resend so that I may update my records.

Past issues of this newsletter can be found on:

(1) http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...=Google+Search
(2) http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum.old/forum.cgi
(3) http://www.servihoo.com/ubbthreads/p...Board=politics
(4) alt.mauritius (USENET)

DISCLAIMER: The ideas expressed in this newsletter are those of the
author, solely. In view of the author being an executive member of the
Mauritius Labour Party, the comments included in this newsletter may
sometimes be viewed as subjective rather than objective. You are
welcome to respond by email or by posting on a forum. Your criticism
will be appreciated.

Those receiving this newsletter who wish to be removed from the email
mailing list are requested to send a blank email to mtd@bow.intnet.mu
with REMOVE LOTUS in the subject line. My apologies in advance if any
inconvenience was caused.

Those reading this newsletter on a forum who wish to be added to the
email mailing list are requested to send a blank email to
mtd@bow.intnet.mu with SUBSCRIBE LOTUS in the subject line.