{"id":563777,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/563777/?format=json","text_counter":42,"type":"other","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"the structured way of determining the costing or the expenditure of the county assembly, it should be in a structured way so that every county assembly knows, for example, that insurance has been provided for, drafting expenses, et cetera . What they simply do is determine the salaries and allowances of employees and then put a mark up to cover operations and maintenance. That did not help the situation because different assemblies have got different needs and capacities. Therefore, you cannot say that you will allocate the same amount of money as they argued for Marsabit and Turkana counties. Although the area may be the same, you will find that in terms of population and the other logistical requirements of that county, the population alone is three times the population of Marsabit. The size of the assembly itself is almost three times more. There are a lot of other factors they did not look at and they have not prepared a properly structure template for determining the expenditure types and the standard expenditure provisions for each assembly. So, they actually did a very shoddy job. In fact, we had to look at those figures and adjust them. This Senate has the mandate in the PFMA after receiving recommendations from CRA or any other body to determine how much money should be allocated. That is exactly what we did. That is the exercise of the powers provided for in the Public Financial Management Act, Section 107, as amended in the County Allocation of Revenue Act last year. We exercised our mandate to adjust and increase the allocation for the county assemblies. We do not need the mandate or authority from the CRA as they alleged today in the media that we should have sought its permission. That is on the contrary. In fact, the CRA is supposed to advise this House before the House makes its decision. That is what we have done. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the public needs to be rest assured that the capacity that we are building for the assemblies is in the interest of the residents of the counties. We want to see assemblies effectively auditing and holding the county governments to account. However, county governors do not want that audit. That is why they do not want more money to be given to the county assemblies. Lastly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Constitution and the Inter-governmental Relations Act are very clear. If there is a dispute between these institutions, there are effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Unfortunately, what is happening is a situation where the CoG goes to court on every flimsy excuse, including this one. They will go to court to stop this House from legislating; enacting County Allocation of Revenue Bill to give assemblies more money. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, two weeks ago, the CoG went to court to stop the Senate from discussing the petition that was submitted to this House. It is becoming too much. Every time, it does not go through institutions and mechanisms provided for in the Constitution that require consultation, negotiations and arbitration. That is what the Constitution says. Instead, it goes to court. We want to make it very clear. My Committee has decided that effective from now, we will surcharge any county government, including the CoG, that will go to court. We will surcharge them if they go to court without going through the laid down procedures provided for in the Intergovernmental Relations Act. We will hold individual governors and any of the institutions responsible and surcharge The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."}