$1.4 plus million for car leases?

At a time when revenue generation has plummeted substantially, it would seem most urgent that government managers and their subordinates resort to prudence in the manner that hard to come by public funds are spent.

It is shocking that we would have spent more than $1.4 million for government transportation which include luxury end vehicles loaded with powerful stereo systems, power windows, super air-condition and sun roof. If you will, the decision to lease luxury end vehicles is in fact contrary to procurement regulations calling for strip-down models. It goes to show how greed for power and prestige has overruled our better judgment amidst a steady loss of revenue since two years ago.

While department secretaries and executive directors of semi-autonomous agencies may feel they are entitled to luxury vehicles, it must be understood that it is only a privilege predicated on the fancy notion of self-importance. It is not a statutory mandate and given the poor financial posture of the local government, it behooves each manager and his subordinates to partake in the difficult exercise of greater accountability of hard to come by revenue.

Understandably, there are agencies who, by the very nature of work, require the use of government-paid vehicles. These are law enforcement agencies that includes the Department of Public Safety (regular patrol, fire division and ambulance for emergencies), the Public School System (buses to transfer students to and from schools) and meter readers of CUC. Definitely, CUC can use mopeds for this purpose over the more expensive mode of transportation it uses today.

Other than these agencies, there really is no need for the lease of vehicles for departments and other government agencies. Yes, the department of finance has made certain recommendations to reduce this category of expenditure. But they are fluid at best and an apparent willingness to perpetuate wasteful spending at worse. Why should struggling taxpayers be saddled with luxurious expenditure that is far removed from the definition of a public purpose? Why the blatant disregard of procurement regulations on vehicle leases or purchases? Is this how insensitive government managers and their subordinates are at a time when the local coffers is critically empty?

It is time that all government agencies learn to work the new law on cross-utilization of resources. The sum of $1.4-plus million is too much to waste on unnecessary luxury end vehicles that are really prohibited by procurement regulations. With contracting revenues, believe it or not, CHC can definitely make good use of additional funds for medicine and other medical supplies. The public school system too is in need of more money after taking the lead trimming expenses in order to muddle through these difficult times.

If per chance government employees must use their own vehicles in line with their work, then a five gallon per week gas allotment should do the job. Perhaps a new regulation in this regard is a must right here and now given the steady contraction of revenue generation. Hello, anybody home?