Linden Town Clerk Lennox Gasper has said that he cannot act on a directive from Mayor Dominique Blair to immediately reopen the Kara Kara toll station, maintaining that the ministerial order revoking the relevant by-laws remains in force.
Blair, however, has rejected Gasper’s position and contends that the Town Clerk is required to implement decisions of the Linden Mayor and Town Council rather than take instructions from the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development.
The dispute is the latest development in an ongoing standoff over the government’s revocation of the Linden Town Council (Toll) By-Laws 2016, which authorised the municipality to collect tolls at Kara Kara.
In a letter dated September 9 and addressed to Gasper, Blair directed that the toll station be reopened “with immediate effect” and that collections resume at the existing gazetted rates.
The letter said that the council did not accept that the by-laws had been lawfully revoked by Local Government Minister Priya Manickchand.
“The Council’s position is that the cessation of toll collection and the purported revocation of the Linden Town Council (Toll) By-Laws 2016 by the Minister were not carried out in accordance with the proper statutory process,” Blair wrote.
According to the mayor, the by-laws had been duly made, approved and gazetted, and the council had neither passed a resolution to repeal them nor considered such a proposal at a statutory meeting.
“As such, the Council does not accept the unilateral revocation as lawfully effected and considers that the existing By-Laws remain the basis on which the toll should operate unless and until they are lawfully amended or repealed,” the letter said.
However, Gasper told Kiskadee Watch that he could not implement the directive because the gazetted revocation remained legally binding.
“As it stands, the law is that the 2016 gazetted order was revoked, and the toll cannot, by any order of council, be reopened without the acknowledgement and order of the minister,” he said.
Gasper also disputed the mayor’s assertion that the directive reflected a decision of the full council. He said that the municipality’s administrative officers had not participated in the meeting at which the decision was purportedly taken.
“This was not a council. This was a caucus, because any gathering of councillors by themselves without administration is a caucus of councillors,” he said.
According to Gasper, a properly constituted meeting of the council requires the participation of both its elected members and senior administrative officers, including the Town Clerk and Treasurer. He said that no meeting involving the administration had been held to consider reopening the toll.
“There was never any such meeting. Hence, the revocation order still stands, and it will remain that way until I am advised otherwise,” Gasper said.
He also pointed to discussions between the government and the council which produced a proposal for a 50% reduction in toll rates. Gasper accused Blair of acting inconsistently with those discussions and said the latest directive had undermined trust.
“You agreed to this and then, behind the scenes and after the fact, you now make an entire publication that is totally different from what you would have agreed,” he charged.
“There is no sign of good faith in any future negotiation, at least for future negotiation with this mayor. Absolutely not. And that is sad, given our current situation,” Gasper added.
The Town Clerk said that further discussions were expected with Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, to allow the government to obtain a clearer understanding of the municipality’s finances. A previously planned meeting did not take place and was to be rescheduled, he said.
Denied
Blair, meanwhile, denied that the council had agreed to keep the toll closed and said the talks with the government concerned the rates to be charged, rather than the legality or operation of the facility.
“Our conversation about rates is a totally different thing,” the mayor told Kiskadee Watch.
He said that while a possible 50% reduction had been discussed, the council had not accepted the government’s position that the toll should cease operating.
“We never discussed the toll [being closed]. It is not even in our remit,” Blair said, adding that the discussions on reducing the rates had not been finalised.
The mayor also rejected Gasper’s contention that the decision had been taken only by a caucus of councillors. He said the council had met and Gasper had walked out before the decision was made.
“The council met two days ago. He decided to walk out,” Blair said. “Because he decided to walk out, [that] does not affect the decision. The council made a decision.”
Blair argued that Gasper, as Town Clerk, was an officer of the municipality and was obligated to carry out its decisions.
“He takes directives from the council. He is a creature of the council,” Blair said. “His duty, in general, is to carry out the decisions of the council, not the minister.”
In his letter, Blair said that negotiations with the government over possible changes to the toll rates should continue separately and should not result in the closure of the facility or the suspension of the municipality’s revenue.
The earlier joint statement issued following talks between the government and council representatives said that the municipality had proposed a 50% reduction in the tolls. The government had raised concerns about the financial burden on Linden residents and businesses, while also pointing to a significant backlog in the council’s audited financial statements.
The government had undertaken to assist the municipality in bringing its accounts up to date and to continue discussions on its financial position.
The revocation has generated concern within the council because the Kara Kara toll represents a source of revenue used to finance municipal services. Blair previously invoked constitutional provisions guaranteeing the autonomy of local democratic organs and their right to raise revenue, while arguing that the council could not properly carry out its responsibilities if its income was removed unilaterally.
Discussion