Governors reject Senate fiscal performance ranking, say it overlooked key realities

The Council of Governors (CoG) has challenged the methodology used by the Senate to rank counties on fiscal performance, arguing that the current indicators fail to provide a fair, comprehensive and accurate assessment of how county governments are serving citizens.

The objection follows the launch of the County Fiscal Performance Measurement Index (CFPMI) by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which ranked Embu as Kenya's best-managed county while placing Kisumu, Kakamega, Busia, Bomet and Nairobi among the country's poorest fiscal performers.

The report assessed all 47 counties using seven public finance indicators, including budget implementation efficiency, development, own source revenue, wage bill management, pending bills, County Assembly expenditure and audit outcomes.

While Senate Speaker Amason Kingi termed the index the first scientific tool for measuring how prudently counties manage public resources, governors have questioned both the methodology and conclusions, saying it overlooked key factors and indicators.

The CoG Finance, Planning and Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by Kakamega Governor Fernandes Barasa, has called for a review of the County Fiscal Performance Measurement Index, saying the tool places excessive emphasis on expenditure, budget absorption and own-source revenue while failing to sufficiently consider tangible development outcomes and service delivery.

“There is no way we can hold a Governor accountable for expenditure that is under the control of the County Assembly. The County Executive and the County Assembly are separate entities with distinct mandates and expenditure responsibilities,” said Barasa, speaking on behalf of the Governors.

The governors said the performance of county governments should not be determined solely by financial figures without examining what has actually been achieved on the ground while questioning the inclusion of expenditure by county assemblies in assessing the performance of county executives, arguing that the two arms of county government have distinct constitutional mandates and expenditure responsibilities.

“Once the budget is approved, the Speaker and the leadership of the County Assembly manage their own expenditure. Therefore, it is wrong and erroneous to conclude that a Governor is underperforming simply because Members of the County Assembly have spent money on activities such as foreign travel,” Barasa said.

According to the governors, the Senate’s assessment should clearly distinguish between expenditure controlled by county executives and that controlled by county assemblies.

The CoG argued that it would be erroneous to conclude that a governor is underperforming based on expenditure decisions made by Members of County Assembly, including spending on foreign travel and other activities.

“County governments have separate arms with distinct mandates and expenditure responsibilities. The fiscal performance index must recognise this separation instead of attributing all county expenditure to the Governor,” Barasa said.

The governor also rejected the use of budget absorption as a stand-alone measure of performance, saying a low absorption rate does not necessarily mean that a county has failed to deliver services or implement developments, noting that there are instances where projects have been completed or substantially completed but contractors are yet to receive full payment because of administrative, contractual or financial processes.

“A county may have completed numerous projects and delivered services to its people, but delays in making payments to contractors should not automatically be interpreted to mean that the county has failed to perform,” Barasa said.

The governors argued that such circumstances should not erase the achievements recorded by county governments, particularly where projects are already serving residents.

They said completed infrastructure and services should be recognised in assessing the performance of county administrations even where payments to contractors are still being processed.

“For example, in Kakamega, we have completed many projects that are already benefiting our people. The fact that a contractor has not yet been fully paid does not mean that the project does not exist or that the county has not delivered,” Barasa said.

The committee said the assessment of county performance should instead focus on whether residents are receiving services and whether development projects have been completed and are delivering the intended benefits.

The governor said counties have invested heavily in critical sectors such as healthcare, roads, water, infrastructure and other essential services, and such investments should be reflected in fiscal performance assessments.

 “When people travel to our health facilities, when they access completed infrastructure, when they benefit from county programmes like in Kakamega, where we do waivers, and when projects are physically on the ground, those outcomes must form part of the assessment of performance,” Barasa said.

The CoG further cautioned against applying uniform indicators without considering the unique circumstances and development priorities of individual counties, arguing that the experiences of counties differ significantly depending on population, geographical challenges, revenue potential, development needs and the demand for public services.

“Kakamega is unique, but so are other counties. Our development priorities and the way we deliver services must be understood within our own local contexts,” Barasa said.

The committee also took issue with the use of own-source revenue collection as an isolated indicator of performance, saying counties should not automatically be classified as poor performers simply because their revenue collections fall below a predetermined benchmark.

The governors said the revenue potential and economic circumstances of counties vary, making it necessary for the Senate to consider the underlying factors affecting revenue collection.

“Own-source revenue cannot be looked at in isolation. Counties have different economic bases and revenue potential, and these realities must be taken into account when assessing fiscal performance, and when a county collects revenue below its target it doesn't mean the county is performing poorly,” Barasa said.

Barasa maintained that fiscal accountability remains important but should be linked to tangible outcomes for citizens and proposed that the County Fiscal Performance Measurement Index should consider several factors, including completed projects, quality and availability of services, development outcomes, pending bills, contractual payment processes, own-source revenue realities and the unique circumstances of individual counties.

“We cannot reduce the performance of a Governor to absorption rates alone. Performance must be measured by outcomes, not merely by expenditure,” Barasa said.

The governors also argued that delayed payments to contractors should be examined within the broader context of county financial management  rather than being used as automatic evidence of failure.

They said a project that has been completed and is already benefiting residents remains an achievement regardless of whether all contractual payments have been finalised.

The Council of Governors is now calling for dialogue with the Senate and other stakeholders to ensure the index becomes a fairer, more comprehensive and outcome-based tool for evaluating county governments.