Is it decentralization or recentralisation?
Oct 22, 2004
On September 12 Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Janat Mukwaya presented the White Paper on the Constitutional review
On September 12 Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Janat Mukwaya presented the White Paper on the Constitutional review process to the Legislature.
Among the proposals was that Government wants Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) who are now district accounting officers to be appointed and disciplined by the Public Service Commission. If this proposal is accepted, parliament will amend Section 64(1) of the Local Governments Act No. 1 of 1997 which gives the District Service Commissions that responsibility.
Government decision to make CAOs answerable to the Public Service Commission creats a dilemma of creating two responsibility centres. We will have the CAO who is the accounting officer and head of the District Civil Service answerable to public service in Kampala and employees to the District Service Commission. How can such a CAO have control over the district staff?
The decentralisation policy introduced by the Government empowered the population through their elected units to participate in the management of their affairs.
This power, which was formally at the centre, was legally and institutionally transferred to the local governments. By making Chief Administrative Officers answerable to the Public Service Commissions, one is tempted to think that Government has started re-centralising the power. If this project succeeds, the next time it might be the town clerks and sub-county chiefs at town councils and sub-counties who will be re-centralised.
Section 10 of the Local Governments Act clearly stipulates that a local government is the highest political authority with executive powers to be exercised in accordance with the constitution and the Local Government Act. The aims of decentalisation were to bring political and administrative control over service to the point where they are actually delivered and to free local managers from central constraints, among others.
The districts were therefore given powers to appoint District service commissions which are approved by the public service commission and were mandated to recruit, confirm, promote discipline and fire employees in the service of Local Governments.
The rationale of decentralised personnel management was based on the fact that services should be effectively and efficiently delivered where they are meant to be consumed.
Personnel decentralisation was meant to create a commitment on the part of the civil servants and make them responsive in the implementation or council programmes and also to be expeditious in decision making. Making CAOs answerable to public service commissions renders decentralisation useless.
If accounting officers are re-centralised, what action will Government take against the usually corrupt district and urban tender boards and the weak internal audit public accounts committees? Will Government re-centralise them all? Where will the Chief Administrative Officers’ loyalty be to the District Council or to the Public Service commission which will be the appointing authority? Equally important to know is who will be the supervisor at the district to appraise the performance of the CAO.
In the current arrangement it is the District Chairperson to appraise the CAO. What if the relationship between the district boss and the CAO goes sour? Will the district boss rate the CAO’s core competencies fairly?
The Cabinet is like a hen which lays its egg, breaks the shell and sucks the yolk. Does it make sense? A wise farmer only cuts the beak to stop the practice.
All district councils should oppose this illogical proposal. The minister of local government, Prof Tarsis Kabwegyere should think very hard about this matter and advise his colleagues to go back to the drawing board.
The writer is the clerk to Luweero District Local Council
Among the proposals was that Government wants Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) who are now district accounting officers to be appointed and disciplined by the Public Service Commission. If this proposal is accepted, parliament will amend Section 64(1) of the Local Governments Act No. 1 of 1997 which gives the District Service Commissions that responsibility.
Government decision to make CAOs answerable to the Public Service Commission creats a dilemma of creating two responsibility centres. We will have the CAO who is the accounting officer and head of the District Civil Service answerable to public service in Kampala and employees to the District Service Commission. How can such a CAO have control over the district staff?
The decentralisation policy introduced by the Government empowered the population through their elected units to participate in the management of their affairs.
This power, which was formally at the centre, was legally and institutionally transferred to the local governments. By making Chief Administrative Officers answerable to the Public Service Commissions, one is tempted to think that Government has started re-centralising the power. If this project succeeds, the next time it might be the town clerks and sub-county chiefs at town councils and sub-counties who will be re-centralised.
Section 10 of the Local Governments Act clearly stipulates that a local government is the highest political authority with executive powers to be exercised in accordance with the constitution and the Local Government Act. The aims of decentalisation were to bring political and administrative control over service to the point where they are actually delivered and to free local managers from central constraints, among others.
The districts were therefore given powers to appoint District service commissions which are approved by the public service commission and were mandated to recruit, confirm, promote discipline and fire employees in the service of Local Governments.
The rationale of decentralised personnel management was based on the fact that services should be effectively and efficiently delivered where they are meant to be consumed.
Personnel decentralisation was meant to create a commitment on the part of the civil servants and make them responsive in the implementation or council programmes and also to be expeditious in decision making. Making CAOs answerable to public service commissions renders decentralisation useless.
If accounting officers are re-centralised, what action will Government take against the usually corrupt district and urban tender boards and the weak internal audit public accounts committees? Will Government re-centralise them all? Where will the Chief Administrative Officers’ loyalty be to the District Council or to the Public Service commission which will be the appointing authority? Equally important to know is who will be the supervisor at the district to appraise the performance of the CAO.
In the current arrangement it is the District Chairperson to appraise the CAO. What if the relationship between the district boss and the CAO goes sour? Will the district boss rate the CAO’s core competencies fairly?
The Cabinet is like a hen which lays its egg, breaks the shell and sucks the yolk. Does it make sense? A wise farmer only cuts the beak to stop the practice.
All district councils should oppose this illogical proposal. The minister of local government, Prof Tarsis Kabwegyere should think very hard about this matter and advise his colleagues to go back to the drawing board.
The writer is the clerk to Luweero District Local Council