The Ombudsman recommended that the act which set up local councils in 1993 be reviewed in order to give the executive secretaries a measure of autonomy since these are the “administrative kingpin between the councils and the central government”.

In a report issued yesterday, Ombudsman Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino suggested a review of the workings of this act “to determine to what extent this legislative framework is providing a positive tool for good service performance by local councils”.

The Ombudsman said that the changes would ensure continuity that is essential for good governance and added that giving an element of autonomy to executive secretaries would “consolidate its position as the executive, administrative and financial head of a local council”.

The report was issued after the Ombudsman received a complaint from an executive secretary of a local council whose contract expired in March 2005 and her employment contract was not renewed.

The employee approached the Ombudsman on the grounds that this constituted an unjustified dismissal.

Despite various accusations and conflicting versions by the two opposing camps during his investigation, the Ombudsman reached his own conclusions on the impasse between complainant and the council. He concluded that the relationship between the mayor and the executive secretary deteriorated steadily as the contract neared its end mainly due to incompatibility between the way in which the mayor used to run the business of the council and complainant’s management of council affairs.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council was ultimately justified in not renewing complainant’s employment contract since relations with its executive secretary had deteriorated to such an extent as to seriously prejudice its work and in the situation there was no option but to recruit another executive secretary.

In his report, the Ombudsman stated that this case gave rise to various considerations on the role and functions of an executive secretary in the context of efficient service provision by local authorities since situations are known to arise at times that threaten to overwhelm executive secretaries.

Article 52 of the Local Councils Act lays down that as the executive, administrative and financial head of the council, an executive secretary is responsible for the day-to-day running of its administrative business and has to ensure a proper conduct of council affairs.

“Although a council employee, an executive secretary is not, however, subservient to the council. While an executive secretary is responsible for an efficient implementation of the council’s legitimate decisions, a person holding this post also serves as a watchdog of the council’s activities and has to ensure good governance and proper administration and to ascertain that the mayor and councillors observe financial and administrative procedures,” the Ombudsman said in his report.

The Ombudsman commented that it is his impression that the status of an executive secretary is not properly understood and even less appreciated by some local councils which consider an executive secretary merely as their employee and nothing more.

The Ombudsman noted that he was aware that at times efforts by executive secretaries to perform functions that are proper to their position are considered as undue interference in the business of the council and that executive secretaries are expected to do the mayor’s or the council’s biddings at all times.

He lamented that there appears to be little recognition of the autonomous role of executive secretaries to oversee the council’s activities and ensure proper governance and that this situation is accentuated by the fact that executive secretaries are, by law, direct dependants and employees of the local council for a definite period of three years.

The Ombudsman pointed out that from a legal viewpoint this situation is anomalous. While an executive secretary should have good relations with the mayor and councillors, it is unacceptable that an officer who is by law required to control the activities of a local council should in turn be subject to its control to the extent that an executive secretary’s continued employment with a council depends on the will and the whims of the persons who are subject to the secretary’s control.

The Ombudsman said that any solution should ensure that the role and duties of an executive secretary will be recognised as a point of reference between councils and the central government authorities; that the independence of the office of executive secretary will be strengthened and measures taken to promote accountability and continuity by such means as the permanent employment of executive secretaries following a probationary period; and that since an executive secretary occupies a position of trust and is in duty bound to relate closely with the mayor and councillors, ways should be found to provide a remedy when for some reason this trust fails since this situation could obstruct a council’s activities.

In this context the Ombudsman recommended that consideration be given to a proposal which would allow executive secretaries to be transferred among local councils on an exchange basis while respecting the autonomy of the councils involved.