Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1604287,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1604287/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 242,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Oketch Gicheru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "parameter. That parameter is that there is no county that should lose in this avenue of sharing resources after what we have gotten from the national coffers. Therefore, when we created the formula, everything we considered was to make sure that principle abides. We suggested that we come up with a baseline that will always ensure that when resources are shared in this country or when the basis for sharing resources is considered, then no county ever loses what they have gotten. There is a reason behind this. The reason is very simple; counties get to commit to different projects and non-discretionary and discretionary budgetary requirements. Therefore, if you put any formula that makes any county lose a shilling, you inconvenience that county. Additionally, the issue of inflation will always catch up with counties. For instance, if you think about the wage drift that is a big consideration that adjusts itself by five per cent in our payroll systems every year automatically - if you deny a county a shilling from what they got in the previous allocation - then you end up being injurious to their planning purposes. Therefore, the idea of the baseline of Kshs387 billion is in itself a very important one. I, therefore, dissuade any amendment that augments that baseline that brings it to zero or any other thing, but now when we came to this House, the issue was raised about the smaller counties that are going to gain from the previous CRA formula. The rationale behind these small counties not getting what I would call adequate resources to make them run is because these 11 counties in particular have faced a serious challenge of viability. However, if you look at the spirit of the Constitution when the counties were being created under Article 6, and subsequent Article that divide resources in our country, the principle of the Constitution is that the counties must be viable. What are the viability options for the counties? The viability of counties, number one, is that they be able to run a government - counties are governments and those governments must be run on the basis of non-discretionary expenses. Those direct expenses must go and run staff and recurrent expenditure. The viability of counties does not stop at running non- discretionary expenses. A county is only viable if after employing people, the county can, one, provide services to its constituents and, two, be able to have some sort of development to its constituents. What we have seen in the counties of Isiolo, Vihiga, Samburu, Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Nyamira, Taita-Taveta, Lamu, Elgeyo-Marakwet, Kirinyaga and lastly, Embu, is that they can only run their non-discretionary expenses and recurrent expenses. So, they send money to these counties and the money in whichever formula is shared is so small that they can only finance salaries and run vehicles and utility bills. That is not the viability of counties as was intended by the Constitution. This is because then the people in those counties end up never seeing any development."
}