DILG Cebu: Performance result for LGU assessment, not ranking

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

IN A joint press conference with Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Provincial Director Gerome Gonzales said the Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS) report was meant to be a self-assessment tool of local government units (LGUs) and was not designed to rank the performance of LGUs in terms of governance.

Gonzales issued the statement following the publication of a news article on the results of LGPMS for 2010, in which Cebu City ranked ninth among cities with high scores.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Cebu, however, was not included in the top 10 provinces with high LGPMS scores.

Gonzales said the LGPMS result was based on 2009 data. He added that the LGPMS has even been renamed State of Local Governance Performance Electronic report (eSLGPR).

The news article on the LGUs’ performance as reported by DILG, published yesterday in Sun.Star Cebu, was based on a post called, 2010 State of Performance: Provinces in the Philippines, found on the DILG website. The DILG website revealed that the source of the table it posted on its website is the LGPMS, generated on Aug. 1, 2011.

Transparency

Garcia wanted to know how the Provincial Government was graded.

During the press conference, she showed the LGPMS 2010 result in which Cebu Province got the highest grade of 5 for transparency.

But she asked why Cebu was given the same grade for forest ecosystems management.

“Wa man mi forest. Nug-as (Alcoy) na man lang nabilin (Except for Nug-as in Alcoy, there are no forests left in Cebu Province). Isn’t this very funny?” she asked Gonzales.

She also questioned Cebu Province’s rating of 4.57 for urban ecosystem management when there are no urban areas here.

Forms

Gonzales said LGPMS is based forms filled up by department heads of different LGUs. He added that the answers were encoded without a third party to validate.

“We have no judges,” he told Capitol reporters.

Garcia said she will ask department heads to take a course on how to properly fill up forms.

She said to rank LGUs according to scores that are based on the assessment of department heads is “totally disproportionate and unacceptable action.”

“You don’t say this province is the best in governance because of e-SLGPR,” she added.

Garcia pointed out that Capitol’s best practices were not included in the report, like the dancing inmates of Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center (CPDRC) and the Suroy-suroy Sugbo.

Not covered

Gonzales said the Province has many “best practices” that were no longer covered after the DILG changed the assessment tool, to make it “generic” and applicable to all LGUs.

He said the LGPMS is a self-assessment tool and a “fair instrument.” He added that DILG can accept suggestions for the next report.

Gonzales said LGPMS or eSLGPR is basis for DILG’s award system, like the Seal of Good Housekeeping.

The award is given to LGUs that excel in budgeting, planning, revenue mobilization, financial management and budget execution, as well as procurement and resource mobilization.

Both the LGPMS and the e-SLGPRS look into five performance areas: administrative governance; social governance; economic governance; environmental governance; and fundamentals of good governance. Under each performance area are sub-areas.

Scores are between 1 and 5, with 5 as highest.

Under administrative governance, Cebu Province got a high score of 5 for human resource management but a low score of 3.41 for local legislation; 3.24 for revenue generation; 3.39 for resources allocation and utilization; and 4.82 for development planning.

Cebu’s scores for social governance sub-areas are all above 4. For economic governance, it got a 4.65 for support agriculture sector and 4.34 for entrepreneurship and industry promotion sub-areas.

Cebu Province got a scoring range of 4.57 to 5 for all sub-areas in environmental governance. In the performance area of valuing fundamentals of governance, it got a score of 4 for participation, 5 for transparency but 4.67 for financial accountability.