Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said are holding meetings with mayors, deputy mayors and local councils’ executive secretaries in a bid to come up with a plan that is to reform local councils.

In its election manifesto, the Nationalist Party pledged to look into the matter at various levels in the hope that the experiment that was started 15 years ago or so will get a facelift.

Over the years, local councils’ responsibilities have increased as the government passed over more responsibilities onto their shoulders. Yet not all local councils have managed to “grow”.

As in anything else, while there are many councils who, in successive terms, have worked hard to upgrade their locality and have carried out several projects to embellish it while at the same time ensuring a smooth administration of day-to-day matters, there are other local councils that, at best, have not lived up to the expectations and, at worst, did little to please their residents.

As a general rule – because, of course, there are exceptions – the councils that have functioned better are those where the political parties have a slim, one-seat majority which they have to fight for every three years, and where the majority shifted from one party to another since local councils were set up 15 years ago.

This situation pushes the councillors, and in particular the mayor who represents the party with a majority of votes in that locality, to do their utmost for their party to retain or regain that majority. Even the councillors who represent the minority party in that locality give their 100 per cent because they believe that the tables could turn in the following election.

Localities where political parties have a greater majority – a three or five-seat advantage – have not progressed in the same manner.

This is largely because the mayors and councillors know that the voting pattern will not change anyway and, irrespective of what is carried out and what is not, their party will still win a majority or be in opposition in that particular locality. They have no motivation to give their maximum. Again, there are some exceptions.

The government must keep this in mind when it plans its reform of the local council sector. And, apart from meeting mayors and secretaries it must also consult with the opposition because the changes that need to be made go beyond what is cosmetic.

For a time, there was talk of increasing the local councils’ term of office to four years from the current three. The idea came up because it was felt that three years are not enough for a council to carry out its programme.

There was also talk that local council elections should not be held every year – and this to avoid turning Malta into election mode each and every March. There were other suggestions made.

For example, it was proposed that after two terms in office, mayors would have to relinquish their post even if they obtain the majority of votes for the winning party. They would still be allowed to retain their seat on the council, but would have to make way for others, and this to ensure that councils are not stagnated.

The reform the government is planning aims to give more responsibility to local councils, even when it comes to generating economic activity and creating jobs.

This idea, if implemented, would actually mean that local councils could earn money which, in turn, could be re-invested in the progress of their locality.

But, before this is done, the government must carry out an in-depth exercise of what all individual local councils have carried out in their 15 years of existence. Recently, the Mtarfa local council was disbanded because it was not following the rules established in the Local Councils Act. There are other councils who might be following the rules, but this does not mean that they are doing much for their locality.