{"id":16730,"date":"2026-09-14T06:24:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T11:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/expat-times.com\/panama\/?p=16730"},"modified":"2026-09-13T15:47:44","modified_gmt":"2026-09-13T20:47:44","slug":"panama-city-councils-fear-of-mayor-is-a-poisonous-12m-ledger","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/expat-times.com\/panama\/politics-government\/panama-city-councils-fear-of-mayor-is-a-poisonous-12m-ledger\/","title":{"rendered":"Panama City Council’s Fear of Mayor Is a Poisonous $12M Ledger"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Rody Rodr\u00edguez Olmos didn’t expect to become the lone voice of dissent on the Panama City Council<\/a> when mentioning the ‘fear of mayor’. The representative for Parque Lefevre watched as a $560,000 year-end party<\/a> sailed through budget discussions<\/a> while his district’s daycare center<\/a> sat shuttered for more than a year. He saw $2 million allocated for “smart crosswalks<\/a>” without a single location identified. And when he asked basic questions about these expenditures, colleagues who privately agreed with him stayed silent. The reason, he says, is simple. There’s a palpable fear that drives the Panama city council afraid of mayor<\/strong> dynamic now defining municipal politics under Mayer Mizrachi’s administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Mayer
Mayer Mizrachi Mayor of Panama City<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

“They’re afraid to go against the mayor,” Rodr\u00edguez said in a recent interview, describing a voting bloc that commands 19 of 26 council seats and routinely approves measures without reading the underlying reports. [Translated from Spanish] The fear, he explains, isn’t abstract. It flows from the mayor’s control over project funding and resources distributed among the capital’s districts<\/a>. For representatives who fall in line, there are pools to renovate and infrastructure projects to announce. For those who don’t, there’s silence, exclusion, and a district left waiting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Mechanics of a Panama City Council Fear of Mayor Mizrachi<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The political arithmetic favors the administration. Rodr\u00edguez identifies the bloc as led by members of Realizando Metas (RM) and the Partido Revolucionario Democr\u00e1tico (PRD), with support from Cambio Democr\u00e1tico, the Paname\u00f1ista Party, and even colleagues from his own Movimiento Otro Camino (Moca) coalition. What unites them, he argues, isn’t ideology but access. Projects ranging from $2 million to $12 million<\/strong> have flowed to districts like Tocumen, Juan D\u00edaz, and Don Bosco. Pools in Betania, Calidonia, and San Francisco are getting repairs. Parque Lefevre’s pool remains untouched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The only pool not being repaired is in Parque Lefevre,” Rodr\u00edguez noted, adding that his district also holds the distinction of having the only daycare center closed for over a year under the current administration. [Translated from Spanish] <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The pattern, he says, sends an unmistakable message to any representative considering opposition. Voting against the mayor’s priorities means watching your district fall to the bottom of the project list. It’s a form of political discipline that doesn’t require explicit threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dynamic crystallized during a recent Finance Committee session. Rodr\u00edguez recalls colleagues abstaining from votes because they didn’t have the required report in front of them, yet refusing to vote against the measure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“They said they didn’t want to vote against it despite not having the report in front of them,” he recounted. [Translated from Spanish] <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

For Rodr\u00edguez, this represents a fundamental failure of council oversight. The committee that controls municipal spending, he argues, has become a rubber stamp where projects are presented but never meaningfully debated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"intelligent
smart bus stop and walk ways by MUPA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The $2 Million Crosswalk Question Nobody Could Answer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the clearest illustration of the oversight breakdown came when the administration requested $2 million for “smart crosswalks.” Rodr\u00edguez asked the obvious questions. Where would they be installed? How many would there be? What was the execution plan for the spending? The response from the administration, according to Rodr\u00edguez, was essentially to approve first and figure out details later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“First they approve it and then we’ll see where we put them,” was how he characterized the answer. [Translated from Spanish]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

His own calculations suggest the figure is wildly inflated. At roughly $20,000 per smart crosswalk, the $2 million allocation would fund 100 installations. Rodr\u00edguez argues the city could install 10 and redirect the remaining funds to urgent repairs elsewhere. But when he pressed the point, the committee’s reaction wasn’t engagement. It was anger. The message was clear that questioning spending priorities, even on basic logistical grounds, wasn’t welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n