http://www.oheraldo.in/pagedetails.asp?nid=7956&cid=2
Quote: Alongside this entire process, a strong campaign of accusations against the three -- a number of them being personal slurs on their character -- was being conducted over e-mail, and even being posted on public forums like the Goanet, a large e-group. What disheartened them further was that some members of the GBA core group were leading participants in this campaign. Why did Oscar, Patricia and Ritu resign? SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT PANJIM, AUG 4 — What were the issues that caused Dr Oscar Rebello to resign as Convenor of the Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA), and his colleagues Patricia Pinto and Ritu Prasad to step down as the GBA's representatives on the Task Force for the Regional Plan (RP) 2021? According to informed sources, the core group of the GBA had differences over what was meant by preparation of RP2021 with public participation as envisaged by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, which prescribe that bodies of local self government— like municipal councils, panchayats and zilla panchayats— should play a major role in developing these plans. No precedent The problem is, nowhere else in the country have regional plans been formulated according to these amendments, so Goa would have to work out a model from scratch. Earlier, during initial deliberations of the Task Force, the GBA had proposed that a pilot study be conducted in a few villages and municipalities, to develop a procedure for this consultation. But the bodies chosen for the purpose -- the Council for Social Justice and Peace and the Panchayati Raj group -- were not registered societies, and therefore not eligible to receive government funds directly. Finally, the Peaceful Society at Marcaim offered to come forward and receive the money on their behalf. But while the government wanted audited accounts of the project funds, the Peaceful Society said it would have to submit audited accounts for the society as a whole to the Registrar of Societies at year-end, and could not give accounts with original bills to the government for just this project, or it stood to lose its registration. In the melee, the pilot project fell through. After a major hiccup in between, when the GBA core group 'rejected' the recommendations of the Task Force in his absence and Dr Oscar offered to quit, the differences were patched up and the GBA team in the Task Force got down to work in earnest once more. Broadbased planning They prepared a detailed note for the Task Force. It noted the difficulties in implementing planning methodology according to the 73rd and 74th amendments, since the socio-economic Five Year Plans, which should be the basis for the preparation of the Regional Plan, have already been formulated top-down, rather than bottom-up, till 2012. They therefore proposed a detailed consultative process for broadbasing the RP 2021 provisions, by requiring the Task Force, in the true spirit of democracy, to explain the plan proposals to the people at the grassroots level through the local bodies, and by incorporating a 'Taluka Committee' into the planning process. Taluka Committee Considering that there are 189 panchayats, 14 municipal councils and one municipal corporation in the State that the taluka committees would need to consult with, it proposed to extend the time for public to submit comments and objections about the plan to four months instead of two. It is also laid down that the physical planning and land utilisation made up to 2021 should relooked at after 2012, when the next Five Year Plan is drawn up, hopefully through the 'bottom up' process. The RP, it said, should necessarily have to be relooked at every five years, since the time span for socio economic plans and physical planning were not in sync with each other. Two-tier plan Unlike earlier, the RP2021 would have two levels of plans (1) Regional Plan and (2) Settlement Plan (SP). The RP would be a broad framework based on which settlement plans at municipal and panchayat level would be prepared by the concerned local body within that local area, which would be meshed together at the taluka level by the taluka level committee. The RP would not be used as a 'surface utilisation map', which meant that no change in land use would be permitted at this level, as was done in the past. Rather, the onus would lie on the municipality/panchayat and the people of the area to get involved in steering the development of their city/village in the right direction, based on the broad parameters set out in the RP, and within the Development Plan Regulations (DPRs) of the State. Village-level approvals It mandated a positive interaction between the people at the grassroots level, the municipalities/panchayats at the local level, the taluka committee, and the Town and Country Planning Department and the state government at the highest level. It would be the responsibility of the Taluka committee to mesh together the plans prepared by all the local bodies and prepare the Taluka Settlement Plan. This committee would scrutinise all development plans sent to it by the local bodies. To bring about a system of accountability and prevent buck-passing between the local bodies and the planning authorities, as has been happening in the past leading to gross illegalities, the Taluka Committee would only be a 'regulatory body'. Approvals would have to be issued by the local body after consultation with the Taluka Committee. This meant that had the proposal been approved by the Task Force and the government, it would be local bodies like panchayats and municipalities which would be responsible for both approvals of projects as well as licensing. The government on its part, would have to issue administrative orders to this effect, as well as suitably amend the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, The Municipal Act, 1968, the Corporation of the City of Panaji Act, 2002, and the Goa Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, so that the process planned for formulation of the Regional Plan and the local area plans by the Task Force could be legally implemented. Proposal rejected But when the three presented this plan for approval before the GBA core group, it was rejected. When they asked the members of the core group to come up with an alternative proposal, or suggest amendments to their proposal, none was forthcoming. With the Task Force already behind schedule in preparing its report, and around one-and-a-half years having passed since the notorious RP2011 was scrapped, this did not at all augur well. Alongside this entire process, a strong campaign of accusations against the three -- a number of them being personal slurs on their character -- was being conducted over e-mail, and even being posted on public forums like the Goanet, a large e-group. What disheartened them further was that some members of the GBA core group were leading participants in this campaign. Fed up, they decided that they could not go on, since the GBA core group had no confidence in their proposal, but neither did it have any alternative that they could take before the Task Force. Goa will be the poorer for their resignations.
