Cash challenge and use in the 3 years of devolution

In April 2016 we will congregate in the Meru county for the 3^rd Devolution Conference. There we will reflect on what has become of our national experiment and to what extent we have been true to the ideals of decentralization that saw us favour it as an appropriate model for advancing our country. On the eve of the first devolved units, Chrispine Oduor and thought about some of the challenges that county governments were likely to face. I reflect on some of them in the upcoming pieces.

An upfront challenge was on finances, in terms of raising sufficient cash and using it in the right and accountable way.  A key principle in the constitution Art. 175 is that counties will have a reliable source of revenue. The said resources are to be used in an accountable way (Art. 201). Counties have at their exposure about four revenue streams – the equitable share from the national revenue; own revenues from taxes and fees charged from services rendered; Conditional grants from the national government for specific services; and borrowing from domestic and international sources. Certain counties are also likely to benefit from the national government equalization fund (Art. 204) that is supposed to help bring services such as infrastructure and electricity to standards enjoyed in other parts of the country. Own revenue collection was going to be a challenge especially those with a weak resource base to raise enough revenues that will enable them perform the devolved functions and deliver services to the citizen was a concern given the weak performance of Local authorities that preceded them. The equalization fund was likely to be so thinly spread. One expected that the county governments would seal the revenue loopholes through automation and updating of asset rolls.

On use the available cash would be strained by the wagebill and other overheads. While we expected counties to ensure better service delivery, the conversation on the controls for the county wage bill needed to take place. First there was the concern of balance between state officers (Governor, the CEC members and the CA members) and public officers (civil servants) pay as this would serve as a motivation factor and may affect service delivery. Secondly is mechanisms of ensuring that the wage bill is sustainable but at the same time lucrative enough to attract highly skilled professionals into those positions. In the event that the wage bill is uncontrolled then we may end with the current scenario of Las spending up to 90 per cent of their revenue on salaries and salary areas (part of debts). The expectation was that the recommendations of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission would be taken seriously and implemented. In practice we have seen such recommendations opposed by politicians who instead pushed for highly unsustainable wages and the attendant allowances. Not to mention the corruption that comes with it.

The equitable share was going to be complicated by lack of clarity on the devolved functions and which of the two governments is supposed to perform which functions. While the constitution broadly stipulated the functions of either government, the actual work lay in the unbundling of functions. This is a task that the Transition Authority (TA) attempted with limited success given what they termed lack of cooperation from the national government (NG) ministries. Of course it was expected that some of the NG actors would push back. But why should this be? The constitution principle provides that finance follows functions, which means that resources would be allocated to the government performing the function. I imagine that some NG officials worried that a proper unbundling process would reveal that some functions were redundant, duplicated or at most delivered at the county level. This would mean that resources are allocated to the counties and thus loss of control. I also think that some corrupt tendencies thrive on confusion as money gets allocated to the same purpose through different channels. Lastly I have often wondered to what extent the county officials were interested in the unbundling business. Would it make them more susceptible to accountability demands by laying bare what they are responsible for and hence the resources they have allocated to them.    

A related matter was on debt management. County Governments inherited debts and other liabilities, local authorities and other bodies such as the regional water service boards- that provide water services in the rural and urban areas- had already incurred. These boards had been obtaining loans to provide services and county governments to take up these liabilities. That affected the starting balance sheet of counties.  The expected increase in wage bill would inevitably lead to more borrowing. This means that the national government will increasingly commit more resources to service the loans and hence can only increase county allocations so far up. There is no indication since that the county governments have been able to address the debt challenge. If anything some have been considering to borrow much more.

We have observed numerous debates every year on the amount of the equitable share that should be allocated to counties. This has been reduced a political fight that is settled politically as the numbers are not based on some firm functions performance structure. Internal revenue collection while expanding remains not sufficient. This partly is due to poor records and corruption. Automation has been slow and in some places the process objected in courts due to flouting of tendering processes. To what extent Kenyans are committed to pay taxes and public service user fees remains to be established, especially in situations where they are not very satisfied with services rendered. As for wage bill and attendant allowances is high and unsustainable.

Continued in the next blog post..

Lessons from 2015: Courage, Patience and Learning to ask

Happy New Year!!

At the beginning of every year I take time to reflect on the state of me. I reflect on who I have become in the past year and what I need to focus on in the current year. My assessments, maybe just like yours, do not always reveal great achievements. Sometimes it’s more of what I never achieved that really takes the center of attention. This I realize does more of making me feel like I am not making progress. Yet when I look at what I achieved even beyond what I had planned, I am surprised. I notice ideas, projects, relationships and much more that had happened that I never thought or imagined would take place.

As I look back at 2015- one important lesson stands out. Courage and Patience is key to success. For it takes more than knowledge and mastery of content to make it in life. One needs patience and the courage to step out and stand out. Nothing great comes easy and fast. This has been mostly the reality of my current status of graduate school. Writing a PhD dissertation in Public Management has been a long desire for me, so I was very excited to begin in October 2014. The later part of 2014 was spent settling into the graduate school, but it is in 2015 that the real test came.

All along I had imagined I knew what I wanted to research and write on but it soon dawned on me that this was not one of those projects I had handled before. It turned to be a daily effort of trying to wake up, putting a courageous attitude and patiently reading, writing and discussing with colleagues. The real test was in May-June when I needed to finalize and submit my proposal for review. This would determine whether I continue with my research or I get out. Day after day I felt more and more confused as to what I was actually doing. The long hours of walking in the dark with a faint light pushed my patience limits to the very edge. I finally submitted my work and attended my defence on 22 July 2015. It was the longest day ever. As I presented my work and received a dozen comments on how to improve it, I felt relieved that it was over but even more burdened that most of the work was still ahead.

A related lesson has been learning to ask and ask. An ego problem one faces in graduate school is the sense that you should know what you are doing and be an expert in it. Thus many a person has sat on their desk trying to make ends on their own. I quickly learnt that I had to ask anyone I thought would be of help. After all the worst they can do, is refuse to help. That has saved me on many days of darkness.

This lessons I realize apply to all aspects of my life and I will apply them wherever I go. I am not yet where I had planned to be by this time but am at peace with the progress. So I start 2016 ready to work patiently with confidence that the sweat of my labor shall one day be rewarded.

What exactly is happening in county governments?

I have been thinking a lot about our (Kenyan) devolved system of government, that we chose for ourselves after centralization was deemed to have failed us for the last 50 years. About 2 years ago we went to the ballot and voted in the first County Government's executive and legislators. They all campaigned on a platform of transforming, bringing life and turning all that had gone wrong. Two years down and we have mixed opinions about them.

I am still convinced that we made a good choice to choose a devolved system where decision making is closer to the people. I hoped then and still do now that this would provide a mechanism of holding the office holders to account for their actions and also to respond promptly to the needs of the people.

Quick reminder of why we opted for a devolved system: To improve representation of the people in decision making, to enhance accountability in the use of public space and resources, to facilitate equitable allocation and use of the available resources and above all to improve service delivery in all this parts of the republic. is this happening? how do we know?

Can we rely on the county websites for information? This seems not to be the case, according to a review of all the 47 county websites by the International Budget Partnership . There is lots of information that is not online and we are not sure where else to find it. Can counties provide this information as we are keen to know what is happening?

But why should access to county information concern us? At the least it shows that the county has nothing to hide as to its plans for using the public resources. It also directs public attention of where they should expect to see the next projects. In so doing the county government would be inviting the public to hold them accountable. Not availing this information only raises concerns that maybe all is not well and thus the secrecy. This is even made worse when the services provided by the county do not satisfy the least of expectations. when the said county governments are put on the spot not even their own citizens can defend them when they have limited idea of what is going on.

So can the county governments give us more information?

Mixed emotions.....

Yesterday will go down as another first for Kenya's fourth president, he was the first sitting president to be accused at the ICC for crimes against humanity and now has had his case dropped as the prosecutor could not find sufficient evidence to sustain a case.

But was Uhuru Kenyatta taken to ICC in the first place. Because no one believed that the Kenyan judicial system had what it takes to give a fair trial for those who bore greatest responsibility for the Post Election Violence of 2007 that left over 1300 persons dead and hundreds displaced. Thus six persons, including his deputy president, William Ruto, were charged. Four are now off the hook and only Ruto and Sang are left.

There has been celebration for those who support the president. While I am not celebrating, I am among those who are not convinced that the ICC process was the right way to handle the issue. Infact I tend to think that ICC was to achieve other goals and the PEV was just but a window of opportunity. That said, and holding that one is innocent until proven guilty, I think the president has a greater challenge. He is president of the victims and perpetrators of the violence. He thus must make sure that justice for both is achieved. Any celebration of his acquittal must be tampered with the sensitivity that there are many whose lives have been affected in ways that are difficult to comprehend. it would be in order that he is seen to make it his goal to ensure that the real perpetrators are brought to book.

This is a hard call, but there must not be created an impression that the means to power does not matter. It does and must always matter, I think.

Greatness is in using your own success to make others  successful, and more using the privileges you have to privilege the less privileged.

Are we really different or is it a political prank?

I have spent my working life travelling across Kenya doing research, training and giving talks on various aspects of public governance.  Have been brought up in the cosmopolitan town of Nakuru, where I spent the first 18 years of my life, I was used to interacting with persons of different cultures, languages and socio-economic classes. But listening to people discuss other communities, I imagined that maybe they are worse off than those they described. So I desired to see those places and people when I grew up...Growing up I did and got the opportunity to go work in Nairobi, Central, Nyanza, Northern Rift Valley, Coast and literally all places.

I have made two observations

First in all the places, those who have means enjoy the best there is in their place. It does not matter what language, religion or even political ideology they belong too, they mingle freely, take their children to the same schools, shop in the same places and patron the same clubs. They have same worries of whether their wealth is safe and increasing, whether incase they are sick they will get the best health facilities at their nearest place and whether they will remain in places of influence. They compete to get a space in the upcoming suburbs where they can live without disruptions. They are proud to have made it and wonder why others are not making it. They are never troubled by who gets to power as long as they have a surety that they will be safe. 

On the other hand, the poor and those struggling all looked the same. They were struggling to put food on the table, to pay rent, and were engaged in hard labour (though in some places only the women and children were working). But interestingly, some thought they were in their situation because one of their own was not in power. But this could not hold in central province where the current and former president came from, there I was told that development would finally get to them as long as they ensured their man remains in power. I wonder if this still holds with county governments where each community more or less has their own as governor.

So when election 2013 came around, I volunteered in one of the presidential campaigns and my observations were confirmed. On social media and in the streets there were all manner of arguements for and against candidates. To my amazement the candidates and their close allies seemed to have nothing against each other, they mingled freely and would even spend evenings making fun of each other’s campaign goofs and tactics.

So I ask, why do the supporters fight when the contenders seem to be friends in a competition?

Some Thoughts ob Organizing Public Participation in Kenya's Devolved System

A key promise and gain of Kenya's Constitution is that of Public Participation. The law requires that the public (people and their institutions of self organization) have a right to to access all public information and be consulted on all matters of public policy. But how easy is it to achieve this requirement.

At the onset it is important to acknowledge that participation is both in the National Government and County Government levels. Infact even the Judiciary should facilitate public participation in its work. In my work with various actors on public participation I have come to appreciate the complexity of making it a reality. questions such as what is participation? when can one determine that there is participation? and quality participation? whose view determines the effectiveness, the public or the government?

At this time when various state and non state actors are grappling with how to structure participation a few thoughts may be worth sharing.

1. There is need to appreciate the changed context of public participation. Before it was based on Ministry of Local Government guidelines, now it is in the constitution and the law. It is mandatory and will be enforced. A case in point is the recent judgement on the Kiambu County Finance Act 2013 that was nullified for lack of public participation in the process of its preparation.

2. There is need for an effective framework for ensuring that there is sufficient and effective public participation. The frameworks should be easy to access and use in terms of time, location and cost. While there may be value in making a law on the same in each county, basic administrative guidelines that apply what the Part VIII of County Government Act, 2012, Section 207 of the Public Finance Management  Act 2012 and the schedules of the Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2011 have already provided for.

3. Planning and Budgeting for public participation is equally important. This should be based on the above framework to ensure coordination. Adhoc and disjointed engagement will lead to public fatigue and wastetage of resources.

4. Access to Information, Public Communication and Civic Education efforts must be tied to the participation framework. Participation is futile without proper information, that is communicated timely and an in an easy to understand format and that the public has capacity to interprate.

5. The governor is required to report on participation by section 92 of the County Government Act. But how shall s/he be able to do so? Shall it be on number of forums organized, number of petitions made or the value added to the process. number of opportunities created for participation is important but what we need to know is what is the effect of such participation on the process. On quality of service? on Accountability and control of corruption? on equity measures? on allocative and spending efficiency? and on cost recovery.

That said, this first five years of devolved government are an experimentation stage. There will false starts, mistakes, successes and great stories. All this should be told and documented.

all said, are we participating in building our country?

Some Reflections on Kenya's Devolved System one year later

One year since the devolved system of government was established following elections on 4 March, it is important we ask some questions in self evaluation. In my work around the country I have met people who are extremely excited about devolution and also those who are not sure we needed it. But many are those who argue that it is too early to make judgements as to whether it is working or not. But while some are concerned at the speed at which counties are getting their acts together, I am more concerned about the direction. It is possible to run fast or slow but if the direction is wrong then all the effort ends in futility. But how do we gauge whether we are in the right direction? We return to the basics of why we choose to devolve governance in Kenya.

Why did we choose the devolution system? There are several reasons advanced but my reading is that we devolved for four reasons namely, To address the excesses of  centralized government and especially an all powerful executive (read president); to enhance voice of the people in decision making; to take government closer to the people and hence improve service delivery and accountability; and to enhance equity in resource allocation.

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 establishes a devolved system that shares powers and functions between one National Government and 47 County Governments. Their respective functions are assigned by Art 186 and Art 187 and Schedule 4. Thus devolution has to do with shared mandates in appropriating the sovereign power delegated to the national and county governments.

Key questions is to ask,

1. Are both national and county governments working to reduce the excesses of the centralized system? or do we now have 48 "central" governments with the county one being the office of the governors? are we making laws and policies that ensure we are taking service delivery to the lowest level that is practical to do so?

2. is the peoples voice being heard and represented correctly at all levels? can we now participate better with access to information than before?

3. Are public actors accountable for their actions? and is there effort to make this the mode of operation in all levels of governance?

4. Is there equity in resource allocation and service delivery both between and within counties?

5. Are we encouraging innovation in public service so as to meet the needs of our people?

While we cannot see the full results of the this introspection we can by looking at how the national and counties are running, tell if we are headed to the right place. Where we realize all is not well, it may be in order to stop and reflect.