Local "government"

A friend of mine is a councillor in a local municipality. He recently had this to say:

Local government is entirely mis-named. It's not government at all (a good thing), but it pretends to be a government (a bad thing). After an involvement of about 20 months, I am convinced that municipalities should resume their former status of service organisations, limited in scope only to the provision of electricity and water, sewerage disposal, solid waste removal, and the maintenance of local roads, most if not all of which functions can be easily privatised. Such municipalities can be controlled by non political councils consisting of unpaid volunteers.  If a town really wants to have a mayor for ceremonial functions, let it elect to have one. I suspect that many municipalities could run well enough without councils at all.

The objective record seems to suggest that towns get on and run themselves quite well enough as long as the level of service delivery is only just a bit higher than catastrophically bad. According to the Lightstone Risk Management company, the municipality recording the highest growth in real estate value in 2010/11 throughout the whole of South Africa was Prince Albert. At that time it had a hung council which met only for the purpose of staging walk outs, and an MM who spent most of the year out of office suspended on full pay. 

I am certain that at least 80% of the time, energy and hard resources of our municipality is expended on matters that have nothing to do with the provision of essential services. It is astonishing to me that councillors and senior officials who campaign for office or who apply for jobs on the basis of their fitness for purpose, suddenly acquire the need for endless education and training on matters that extend from climate change (sic)  through AIDS counselling to LED (Local Economic Development) after acquiring office. Our  Council/municipality will spend well over half a million this year on the costs associated with education and training for people who should already be fit for purpose. Education and training incorporates such delightful perquisites as comfortable hotel accommodation, sitting doing nothing all day except doodling with partial attention on some totally inept presenter, and disproportionate vehicle mileage claims which help individual cash flow no end. In 20 months our Council has not received a single solitary report back on a training course attended.

The biggest myth of local government is that it is developmental.  I have read all the laws, statutes and SALGA position papers on the subject, and still have no clue whatsoever what distinguishes a developmental municipality from any other kind of municipality. I ask my fellow councillors the same question, the DA the same question, and any itinerant economist who wanders into our domain the same question, and I still haven't received an answer. I have developed and frequently offer to anyone who will read or listen a fully worked out and (I think!) an economically literate argument proving conclusively that "job creation" is a total, unrehabilitatable fiction, but municipalities continue to pretend that they have this legitimate mission of creating jobs, and when Extended Public Works Programmes, funded by the central fiscus provide funds, we employ scores of people whose task might be, for instance, to pick up litter that people helpfully provide by throwing it on the ground in the first place, or to sweep dust off tar roads in howling gales that blow it right back again. And this then gets claimed as a successful "Job Creation" programme.  And don't get me going on LED, currently being run in our town by a failed entrepreneur paid by taxpayer's money. In the meanwhile we produce entire forests of utterly useless documentation - annual reports, integrated develoment plans, performance reports and an utterly ghastly thing called the Service Delivery and Budget Inmplementation Plan (SDBIP) which nobody ever reads. We get terribly confused between serving the residents and ratepayers, for the one part, and the Auditor-General for the other, and default to serving the A-G, because a so-called Clean Audit looks good on a political CV. The A-G is incompetent  arrogant and prodigously expensive. The annual audit is a cost incurred outside of our control. This year it mounts to 7% of municipal revenue. Shocking. 

I have more than once asked the DA to tell me what, at policy level, would distinguish a DA council from an ANC council, and have never received an answer.

So why do I do it? I mostly think I shouldn't. The little stipend that comes with the job is not unwelcome in the household, but I bank it with a troubled conscience, which I largely assuage by telling myself that the Council is better served by a sceptic, a critic, and at times even a libertarian. I claim no other expenses to line my pocket, I read all the voluminous documentation (all in Afrikans) and I try to ask tricky questions. Sometimes in Council I have fun by inventing extravagant and far-fetched metaphors, and imagine myself in the tradition of Burke, or Churchill, or I quote Tom Paine, or the Preamble to the American Constitution, in response to which I receive at best, a muted reaction, or earn the outright suspicion of my fellow councillors.

Residents forking out for poor service

From Fin24Sep 18 2011 15:09by Antoinette Slabbert

Pretoria - Residents of towns and cities, as well as business enterprises, are having to shell out ever more for municipal taxes and services, but receive less and less in exchange. 

Municipalities use an ever-diminishing amount of this money to create infrastructure and budget little for repairs to and maintenance of existing infrastructure. 

This is evident from National Treasury's overview of municipal finances spanning the years 2006 to 2013, which was publicised last week. 

According to the Treasury report, municipal revenue from services since the 2007 financial year has risen an average 16.6% a year, reaching R72bn in the 2010 financial year. Over the next three years an average growth of 18.6% is expected. The steep escalation of bulk electricity costs is one driver of these increases. 

Accordingly, property tax has risen an average 12% a year and this increase is expected to persist at a rate of 10.2%. Other revenue from residents' pockets, including traffic fines, licences and permits, rose an average 12.4% between 2007 and 2010. 

Treasury has expressed concern over the fact that municipalities are relying more on government grants for infrastructure expenditure. These grants have also risen sharply in recent years. 

Municipalities are using less and less of their own money for infrastructure development. 

According to Treasury, this indicates that municipalities have exhausted their own historical cash reserves and, as a result of cost pressures, are struggling to keep generating surpluses on their operating budgets. Treasury said it is also possible that municipalities are deliberately replacing their own money with government grants in their capital budgets to enable them to use their own money - that coming from residents’ pockets - elsewhere. The major part of the operating budget towards which their own funds are increasingly being applied is staff costs, said Treasury. 

According to Economists.co.za director Mike Schüssler, in 2009 municipal staff members earned an average R17 375 a month. Workers in the formal private sector at that time earned an average of R9 495 - virtually half as much. 

According to Treasury, municipal salaries rose an average 15.4% from 2007 to 2010. 

Schüssler said municipal officials generally take home much more pay than those living in their council areas. They have greater security and take fewer risks than residents do. 

"Other expenses" in municipal operational budgets rose an average 16.7% over the same period. What exactly is included is not clear, but Treasury warns that municipalities should stop wasting money on things like large sponsorships for music fests and beauty competitions; expensive campaigns for eg voter education; liquor and entertainment; foreign "study trips"; motor vehicles, housing and cellphones for mayors, council members and staff; legal expenses and long suspensions of staff members on full pay; as well as consultants performing routine management tasks. 

Treasury is worried that municipalities are setting aside less and less money for repairs to, and maintenance of, infrastructure. The consequences are not evident in the short term and these types of savings are less "politically sensitive" than cancelling capital projects or cutting entertainment expenses, said Treasury. 

In the long run both service delivery and the local authority's ability to earn money from service delivery are impaired. 

Schüssler said operating revenue could soon run to more than 8% of the gross domestic product (GDP). In the 2007 financial year it was 5.9% and in the 2009/10 year 7.2%. 

The international norm is that state revenue should equal no more than 30% of GDP. According to government’s figures it is - with the exclusion of municipalities - already 28% of GDP. If municipalities and state enterprises are included, total government revenue in South Africa is certainly already more than 40% of GDP, said Schüssler.. 

Schüssler reckons municipalities' portion of the cake can in no way continue growing at this rate. Municipalities have to employ the money they receive more efficiently.  

Standard Operating Procedure for Noise Nuisances

This article is extracted from the RAC Website (Jukskei Park & surrounding suburbs) in Johannesburg. Although aimed at Gauteng residents, it provides some useful guidelines for how to deal with noise nuisances in a municipal environment.
Not all noise disturbances can be measured in accordance with the stipulations of SANS 10103 and SANS 10328 and are therefore then addressed in terms of Regulation 9 of the Noise Control Regulation of Gauteng 1999

Regulation 9 of the Noise Control Regulations of Gauteng 1999 (Provincial Gazette, Extraordinary no 75 of August 1999) defines a noise nuisance as any sound which disturbs or impairs or may disturb or impair the convenience or peace of any person.

The person, whose convenience or peace is disturbed or impaired by any noise, is therefore entitled to lodge a complaint with this Department.

The official of the Department investigating the complaint does not evaluate the noise or take sound level measurements (Objective Assessment) in the case of noise nuisances (sound that cannot be measured in accordance with the stipulations of SANS 10103 and SANS 10328) but issue a statutory notice on the person causing the noise nuisance, or allow it to be caused, on strength of the information provided by the complainant/s, in his/her official complaint supported by sworn statements, only. (Subjective Assessment)

The complainant/s will be notified in writing that a notice had been served and the complainant shall diarise and keep evidence, if and when the noise nuisance reoccurs.

If the person on whom the Statutory Notice has been served, does not comply with the instructions set out in the notice and the noise nuisance continues, the investigating official must take the matter up with the Control State Prosecutor in order for a J175 (Notice to Appear in Court) to be issued.  The only information the Control State Prosecutor will have to evaluate whether the State will be able to successfully bring the matter to it’s conclusion in Court, will be the statement of the Complainant that initiated the matter and support statements of subsequent reoccurrences after the Statutory Notice had been served.

Although the Statutory Notice served on the person causing the noise nuisance or allowing it to be caused, is strongly worded and have, in most cases, the desired effect to resolve the matter, it remains the first step in instituting legal action. The complainant must therefore be prepared, once the process is set in motion by the issuing of the Statutory Notice, to avail him/herself as State Witness as he/she will be subpoenaed as such.  In fact the complainant will be the only person that can prove the case in front of the magistrate.  The investigating official handling (investigating) the complaint will be only part of the system to bring the parties, complainant and accused, in front of the Magistrate. (Subjective assessment) The Magistrate, as presiding officer, will asses whether the sound emanating from the alleged transgressor’s premises constitutes a noise nuisance or not, on strength of evidence presented to him during the hearing. The case of the complainant presented by the State by the Prosecutor, using the information from the statement of the complainant, and the counter arguments of the accused represented by his/her legal counsel will therefore apply.

Seeing that the Court Roll is congested, the Control State Prosecutor is obliged to only issue J175 Notices to Appear in Court and place cases on the Court Roll that have a reasonable chance for successful prosecution.

Audio visual material (videos) will be accepted as court evidence if it can be authenticated and submitted with the initial statement, as well as with the statements of recurrences of the Noise Nuisance after the Statutory Notice was served.  This will greatly enhance the case and in some cases the Control State Prosecutor will insist on it, as in cases of dogs barking, prior to issuing J175 Notices to Appear in Court.

It must be emphasised that if, for some reason or another, the case is lost in Court and the accused is acquitted, he/she will assume that he/she was in the right and can continue causing the noise nuisance, which will not necessarily be the case, but it will be extremely difficult to bring the same matter to court again.

Note that transgressions of the stipulations of this legislation is a criminal offence and the accused can be fined up to R20 000 or imprisoned for up to 2 years, or both, if found guilty or admit guilt and will then have a criminal record.

It is therefore critical for the complainant to keep all the above in mind prior the lodging of a complaint and in compiling his/her statement. The investigating official and the State Prosecutor will assist during the Court proceedings, but to have the matter placed on the Court Roll, bring it to a successful conclusion in Court, have the accused found guilty, sentenced and resolve the noise nuisance in this manner, are largely dependent on the complainant him/herself.

Therefore, if a person wishes to lodge a complaint with this Department with regard to a noise nuisance, it should be in writing and preferably in the form of a statement which must include:

1.      Complainants full names and surname.

2.      ID number

3.      Physical address

4.      The exact nature and extent of the complaint with times and dates

5.      How the noise negatively impacts on his/her convenience and/or peace

6.      The exact physical address of the property from where the noise originates from

7.      The contact details of the person causing the noise nuisance or allow it to be caused if possible.  (This assists to expedite matters)

8.      History of the noise nuisance as well as evidence of efforts to resolve the matter prior to lodging the complaint with the Council.

Bringing the matter to Court must be the last resort.

9.      As much evidence and collaboration of other affected parties, if any.

10.     The complainant must sign and affirm the statement in front of an authorized person, whom must certify that the deponent acknowledges the content of the statement to be accurate and the truth and considers the prescribed oath or affirmation binding to his/her conscience.

Danie Geldenhuys
Environmental Health (Pollution Control)
City of Johannesburg (Region A)
Telephone: (011) 237 8036
Facsimile: (011) 237 1716
Cell: 083 467 6627
E-mail: danieg@joburg.org.za

SOUTH AFRICA 2011: THE BALANCE BETWEEN FAILURE AND SUCCESS

SPEECH BY F W DE KLERK TO THE ADELE SEARLL LADIES 100 CLUB:

MOUNT NELSON HOTEL, CAPE TOWN,

1 JUNE 2011

SOUTH AFRICA 2011: THE BALANCE BETWEEN FAILURE AND SUCCESS

It is a great pleasure for me to address this gathering of Cape Town’s most influential women leaders. The venue is also splendid. I always enjoy returning to the Mount Nelson - which is one of our most venerable and elegant hotels.

Most of us will also agree that no matter how far - or how often - we travel it is very difficult to find a city that is as beautiful as Cape Town. I travel a great deal and firmly believe that this is the best place in the world in which to live.

There is so much of which we South Africans can be justifiably proud:

• The resilience of our young democracy has once again been illustrated by last month’s successful municipal elections. The elections were free and fair and were preceded by vigorous political debate. Sadly, the great majority of South Africans still voted according to their race. However, there are heartening signs that significant numbers have decided to break racial ranks by voting according to their values and their perceptions of the performance of the contending parties.
• The sound macro-economic policies that Trevor Manuel has implemented have brought us sustained economic growth that was only briefly interrupted by the recent global economic downturn.
• Most countries would envy the fact that our public debt is less than 36% of GDP - and external debt is only 16% of GDP.
• We have the 24th largest economy in the world. We produce more than 30% of the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa with only 6.5% of its population.
• Our natural resources are legendary - including gold and diamonds, platinum group metals and abundant and inexpensive coal.
• Nevertheless, tourism now contributes 8.3% of GDP - considerably more than mining. We have superb game parks, mountains and beach resorts. Cape Town is one of the world’s premier destinations with great facilities including three of the world’s top 100 restaurants.
• Automobile production now contributes almost as much to GDP as mining. In 2008 we produced 600 000 vehicles of which 170 000 were exported.
• Government has made great progress in improving the lives of millions of South Africans. It has built 4 million houses and had brought electricity and sanitation to more than 72% of our homes.
• According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report our auditing and reporting standards and regulation of securities exchanges are the best in the world. We are also in the top seven with regard to the soundness of our banks, financial services and the efficacy of corporate boards. The Report also gives us high marks for the quality of our management schools, our anti-monopoly policy and local supplier quality.
• South Africa has resumed its position as a respected and influential member of the international community - and has become a member of the exclusive BRICSA group.
• The magnificent success of the 2010 FIFA World Cup has shown the world what glories we South Africans can achieve when we all work together.

However, there are many things of which we are not so proud.

We see them in the daily barrage of press reports about corruption, crime, incompetence and divisive racial politics.
Unfortunately, we are becoming so conditioned by such reports that our responses have been deadened. Developments, that in other countries would lead to the fall of governments, are routinely brushed aside by South Africans as being just more of the same old tiresome thing. Among many of us there is a feeling of disempowerment - and almost of detachment.

My message to you today is that we have a Constitution that empowers all of us. We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a situation where we no longer respond to situations that are constitutionally, morally and politically unacceptable.

• It is unacceptable to sing songs calling for the shooting of anyone. The historical context is irrelevant. It would be equally unacceptable for Afrikaners to sing Boer War songs calling on people to shoot the English - or for Americans to sing World War II songs about killing Japanese people. It is incomprehensible that the government of a non-racial democracy continues to support this song.
• It is unacceptable for Julius Malema to call whites criminals - and to add that they should be treated as criminals and that their land should be seized without compensation. It is even more unacceptable for President Zuma to sit on the same platform, smiling, while Malema, as a key office bearer in the ANC, makes such racist comments. Malema’s behaviour is irreconcilable with the Constitution that the President has sworn an oath to uphold.
• It is unacceptable for the Judicial Services Commission to ignore unambiguous constitutional requirements regarding the manner in which it should be constituted - and then to refuse to fill vacancies on the Cape bench, despite the availability of eminently fit and proper candidates, simply because they happen to be white.
• It is unacceptable for COSATU and the SACP to set as their mid-term vision the utterly unconstitutional goal of “worker hegemony in all sectors of the state and society.”
• it is unacceptable for Gugile Nkwinti, our Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, to declare in Parliament last year that all “colonial struggles are about two things: repossession of the land and the centrality of the indigenous population.” Just think for a moment about the implications of this statement. He is actually saying that
• the colonial struggle is not yet over;
• whites are colonialists whose land must be repossessed;
• only South Africans who are ‘indigenous’ should be regarded as being central to our society. People from minority communities must presumably be content with a peripheral or second-class status.

Can one imagine the outcry that would rightly ensue if a member of the United States government were to call for the re-establishment of the centrality of the white majority?

Much of the legislation that is currently before Parliament is equally unacceptable:

• Although the Protection of Information Bill has been improved, it will, as things stood a few days ago, still inhibit journalists from publishing stories on corruption and incompetence, based on leaked government information. They will still not be able to make use of a public interest defence and will still be liable to long terms of imprisonment without the option of a fine. Officials in more than 1 000 state organs will still be able to classify any documents that they think will affect ‘national security’ and the state itself will still be the arbiter in the process.
• The Land Tenure Security Bill is equally problematic. It will create unlimited rights for farm workers to build communities, graze animals and cultivate crops on the farms where they work. At the same time it will impose unlimited obligations on farmers to provide land, services and training to farm workers. Ironically, it will also weaken the tenancy rights of farm workers.
• The Labour Relations Amendment Bill is intended to end the practice of labour brokering and contract employment in our economy. Employers will be forced to convert the 3,7 million contract jobs in the economy to permanent jobs. Estimates are that they would re-employ no more than 60% of those involved - which would result in the loss of 1,5 million jobs at the very time when President Zuma has quite rightly identified job creation as our main national priority.

One could mention many other unacceptable aspects of our society:
● the parlous state of our education and health systems;
● unsustainable levels of unemployment;
● the failure of half of our municipalities;
● the deplorable levels of crime;
● the inefficiency of most government departments; and
● recurrent reports of endemic corruption and incompetence.

Unfortunately, South Africans are in danger of allowing this dismal litany to pummel them into accepting the unacceptable as part of the daily reality of their new society. They must not do so.

The fulcrum on which South Africa’s future will pivot is our Constitution. It is a carefully balanced document that represents an historic compromise between all the significant sectors of our society. It makes provision for a fully democratic society; it is based on the rule of law; it protects the fundamental rights of all our citizens; it entrenches our language and cultural rights; it envisages a society based on equality and human dignity. It is a transformative document that rightly rejects the status quo. If we can maintain this excellent Constitution I am confident that our future will be secure.

I believe that we are approaching a pivotal point in our history where all South Africans of goodwill, regardless of their race, circumstances or political affiliation will have to rally around the constitutional rights, values and vision upon which our new non-racial democracy has been established.

The country is balanced between success and failure. If the forces of history come down on the side of constitutional values we can all look forward to a positive future. However, if the balance tips against the constitution, the consequences for all South Africans could be very dire.

The main force seeking to disturb the constitutional balance is the ANC’s National Democratic Revolution.
According to the ANC’s Strategy and Tactics analysis, the establishment of our non-racial constitutional democracy in 1994 was not the end of the liberation struggle - but only a beach-head on the way to the ultimate goals of the revolution.

In the ANC’s own words
“….The notion that South Africans embraced and made up (after the 1994 settlement), and thus erased the root causes of previous conflict, is thoroughly misleading. April 1994 was neither the beginning nor the end of history. The essential contradictions spawned by the system of apartheid colonialism were as much prevalent the day after the inauguration of the new government as they were the day before.”

The ANC admits that it had to make painful compromises in the constitutional negotiations because of the then prevailing balance of forces between it and the former government. Its first priority was accordingly to shift the balance of forces in its favour by seizing what it calls the levers of state power. The levers of state power include “the legislatures, the executives, the public service, the security forces, the judiciary, parastatals, the public broadcaster, and so on.”

Developments during the past 17 years have shown that this is not just empty rhetoric. Assisted by its unconstitutional use of cadre deployment, the ANC has taken vigorous steps to take over - or to try to take over - all these institutions. In the process it is obliterating the constitutional borders between the party and the state; it is undermining the independence of key constitutional institutions; and it is opening the way to large-scale corruption and government impunity.

The ultimate goal of the NDR is a ‘non-racial democracy’ - in which all aspects of control, ownership, management and employment in the state, private and non-governmental sectors will broadly mirror the demographic composition of South Africa’s population.

Like the communist ideal of the ‘classless society’, the non-racial democracy has a superficial appeal - but is equally unattainable in practice.

Closer examination reveals that demographic representivity would simply result in racial domination - what the ANC calls “African hegemony” - in every facet of the government, society and the economy. To achieve its goal of eliminating what the ANC regards as “apartheid property relations” the NDR would require massive and forced redistribution of property and wealth from the white minority to the black majority. It would also require the disemployment of large numbers of people from minority communities.

Whites, Coloureds and Asians would be corralled into demographic pens in all aspects of their economic and professional lives according to the percentage of the population they represent. The prospects of South African citizens would once again be determined by the colour of their skins - and not by their skills, their contribution to the economy or by what Martin Luther King called the content of their character.

Nearly all of the unacceptable developments that I have listed - including Malema’s inflammatory rhetoric, the JSC’s behaviour; Gugile Nkwinti’s land reform proposals, cadre deployment, the failure of municipalities and government departments - can be traced back, directly or indirectly, to the NDR’s corrosive and unconstitutional ideology.

The NDR is, in essence, the continuation of the ANC’s pre-1994 revolutionary struggle against segments of our population based primarily on their race.
Let me put it plainly:
Achievement of the NDR’s goals as expounded in the ANC’s Strategy and Tactics documents would end any prospect for racial harmony in South Africa. It would destroy the basis for national unity that we created in 1994; it would lead to national disintegration; to the loss of hundreds of thousands of people with indispensible skills and to the collapse of Africa’s largest and most sophisticated economy.

None of this is necessary.

No reasonable South African would question the need to promote genuine equality; to achieve fair and sustainable land reform; and to remove any barriers that might remain to black advancement in the economy or in any other sector of our national life. We would, however, disagree fundamentally with the ANC on the manner in which we should achieve these objectives.

South Africans urgently need to speak to one another and to the government on the best ways of achieving these goals.
Such a dialogue is necessary because many ANC members truly believe the myths and historic distortions that underlie the NDR. They really think that the NDR will build ‘a society based on the best in human civilisation in terms of political and human freedoms, socio-economic rights, value systems and identity”.

Black intellectuals sincerely propound ideas that
● blacks cannot be racists;
● the land that whites occupy was ‘stolen’ from the blacks - even it was purchased after 1994; and that
● white wealth was acquired solely - or primarily - through the exploitation of blacks.

We need to talk with one another in the frank and constructive way that we did during the negotiations of the early 1990s.
At the same time it is essential for all people of goodwill to oppose the threats that the NDR poses to our constitutional accord.

The main safeguards against the further erosion of the Constitution lie in
● the genuine support for the Constitution that still exists among many principled ANC members;
● the Government’s reluctance to alienate international opinion and foreign investors by breaching global governance and economic policy norms;
● our Courts, which are for the most part still courageously free and fair; and,
● finally, in South Africa’s free media, civil society institutions and opposition parties.
The media and civil society have an impressive track record in defence of the Constitution:
● the TAC successfully pressured the Government to change its disastrous approach to AIDS;
● in 2006 civil society persuaded the Mbeki presidency to withdraw the Constitution 14th Amendment Bill that would have seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary;
● in 2008 civil society actions led the government to shelve an expropriation bill that would have made it possible for government to expropriate property without payment of court-approved compensation;
● currently, civil society and the media are combating the Protection of Information Bill and proposals for a Media Appeals Tribunal;
● a single citizen, Hugh Glenister, succeeded in the Constitutional Court in having the government’s abolition of the Scorpions declared illegal;
● I am confident that civil society together with NEDLAC will be able to stop, or greatly ameliorate, the worst excesses in the labour and land reform bills that are currently before Parliament.

But it will not be an easy process. The defence of liberty has always been a hard and difficult struggle.
The media, civil society and opposition parties will need all the support they can get from people of goodwill inside South Africa and in the international community to continue to play their role.

My message to the Adele Searll Ladies Club is this:
● Do not regard today’s lunch as just another item in your busy calendars;
● Do not accept developments in South Africa that would be unacceptable in any other genuine democracy in the world;
● Think about - and actively support - other, much more effective, ways of promoting genuine equality, non-racialism and a better life for all our people;
● Consider the concrete steps that you can take to support the work of NGOs - like our own Centre for Constitutional Rights - that are fighting night and day to protect our Constitution - and your own fundamental rights.

I can assure you that your future happiness, prosperity and security - and the future of everyone in this country - depend on it.

SA municipal finances? The horror. The horror.

Operation Clean Audit 2014 was launched by minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs Sicelo Shiceka at the start of the 2009/10 municipal year.  Its aim: To clean up municipal finances and ensure every municipality received an unqualified audit by 2014. The auditor-general’s report on municipal finances for that year was released on Wednesday, and it appears little has been done to advance this aim. What do we do now? By PAUL BERKOWITZ.

Click here to read the rest of this article at The Daily Maverick.

SA municipalities: Mess, royal mess and a gigantic mess

There is no way to break it to them gently where the state of our municipal budgets are concerned. The time for a no-holds-barred overhaul is right now. Are you listening, Mr President – it is time for tough love.  By PAUL BERKOWITZ.

Read the full article at The Daily Maverick

South Africa : On the road to ruin

by Barney Mthombothi: Editor of Financial Mail.

South Africans seem to be in a bit of a foul and restless mood, with the gyrations of our philandering president and the rather large potholes on our roads being the subjects enjoying the attention of raspier tongues, especially among the chattering classes.

Jacob Zuma is, frankly, not worth our breath. He's best left alone. He's digging his own grave. Potholes - and the general decline of our infrastructure - are another matter, however. They are a serious matter, but only the tip of the iceberg.

Travelling around the country, one cannot but be shocked at the state of our towns and cities. The streets are a sorry mess, squalid, with overgrown verges, paint peeling off buildings - a general state of neglect and decay. It's as if nobody is in charge. It is as though since the last apartheid apparatchik was chased out of town nobody has cared to lift a finger even to sweep the place. And with the current obsession with renaming things, one is often even confused as to which town or street one is in.

In days yonder, a perfect date for a township dude, dressed to the nines of course, was taking her to the movies, and thereafter some "window-shopping" in town. Not anymore. It's all boarded up now. Whether it's Johannesburg , Pretoria , Durban , or any of the many small towns across the land, some parts of the CBD have become a jungle, and even a health hazard. No longer a place to dare to venture, let alone take a leisurely stroll. Capital has also taken flight.

The ANC woke up quite late in the day to the crucial role played by local government in the life of a nation. After the election in 1994, most of the organisation's bright sparks scrambled for seats in the national parliament. Positions in city and town councils were seen as nothing but crumbs from the table. It was left to its third string to run our towns and cities. And they've run them down.

Also, in trying to merge towns and townships and do away with the old apartheid boundaries, the ANC has lumped everything together to create huge metropolises which its hand-picked, often incompetent, mandarins have found almost impossible to govern. It created a gulf between rate-payers and city halls, hence the alienation.

But the biggest problem, which probably explains the nationwide protests over service delivery, is our system of local government, which ensures that town mayors and managers whose actions and decisions have a huge impact on people's lives are imposed by party bosses without any say by the governed. Such a system is obviously undemocratic, and is no credit to our much-vaunted constitution.

People in such positions are often not sensitive to ordinary citizens' concerns because they are not appointed or elected by them. They are accountable to those who appointed them, the party bosses. Which is why Amos Masondo, the dozy mayor of Johannesburg , can easily pooh-pooh the outrage caused by the potholes which have disfigured the streets of this metropolis. He's not bothered by the outrage. He was imposed by the ANC. And as long as the ANC is happy with this sort of incompetence, so is he.

The country holds yet another local government election next year. It will improve or solve nothing. We will exchange one group of incompetents for yet another bunch of ineffectual individuals. They're not to blame either. It's simply the outcome of an inappropriate system of government.

It's not surprising that as we approach next year's election, none of the political parties has suggested making the system more accountable. They won't. The current system suits them just fine.

If you want clean streets and refuse that's removed on time, agitate for elected representatives at local government. It's called democracy.

Letter to Local Government MEC from FEKRRA

28^th November 2010

MEC Sicelo Gqobana

Dept of Local Government & Local Affairs

Private Bag X0035

BISHO  5605

Dear Sir,

Re: The Requested Interventions in Kouga.

Firstly I would like to thank you and your team for once again visiting Kouga and your attempts to help rectify the issues as highlighted in the reports submitted to you by the St Francis Ratepayers Association and by FEKRRA.

Sadly, you and your team experienced what Ratepayers and Residents experience on a regular basis namely that Officials and Councillors from Kouga either arrive at meetings very late or as often happens, they simply do not arrive. Even more distressing is when meetings are scheduled weeks ahead of time and then cancelled on the morning of the meeting by the Mayor or Officials. Ratepayers, Civics and Residents also have full schedules and when meetings are cancelled this causes tremendous disruptions.

Honorable MEC, Ratepayers however need to point out a number of shortcomings in the process to date. These shortcomings have resulted in many of the highlighted issues not being discussed, properly analyzed and thus not addressed. As such Province has yet to understand the magnitude of the problem we are facing and the likelihood that the Kouga Municipality will once again ignore the latest attempts to rectify the current critical shortcomings in its administration. Ignoring these issues will most certainly lead to conflict.

Firstly the proposed feedback meeting to Ratepayers and Residents scheduled for the 15^th of November did not take place. At this meeting your team would have reported preliminary findings to Ratepayer Associations. Province and Ratepayers would then have been able to discuss the merits of the Municipality’s  responses. This would have enabled all of us to formulate appropriate action plans and if need be, request feedback from the Municipality. As this did not happen, delegates to the latest meeting held on the 25^th of November, went into the meeting unarmed to deal with specific issues or discuss the expected responses to the issues supplied by the Municipality.

Secondly Ratepayers and Provincial teams needed to be properly briefed as to the purpose of each meeting prior to these meetings taking place. This would have resulted in better focus and quicker formulation of solutions. For example what Ratepayer Associations expected to be a feedback meeting from Province on the 23^rd of November turned out to be a meeting about Valuations. Fortunately we were able to cover a lot of ground and reach agreement.

Thirdly the most crucial observation regarding the process is that the feedback reports must be handed out prior to the meeting, so that delegates have time to analyze the findings. They would then have been able to focus on specific issues and make meaningful contributions during the meeting.

At the meeting of the 28^th of October, eight key resolutions were tabled. Of these eight issues we appear to be heading towards resolution on three of them namely:

The valuations issue where a compromise has been agreed to, namely that a supplementary valuations role will be undertaken.

The Ward Committee issue, where it was confirmed that apart from one Ward, the other wards were not functioning correctly. This issue will however now receive attention.

The Limited access to the Oyster Bay beach. Progress also appears to be being made on this issue.

With regards to the SIU investigations, it was our understanding that this would be one of the matters discussed at the November feed-back. Now the SIU are only  expected to table a report to the KM on December the 18^th. At this time the report will be made available to the Ratepayers. This report would be discussed at the next Council meeting and the KM would “develop an attitude” with regards to the report. Ratepayers would then be able to respond to the KM. This report is of extreme importance as many instances of wrong doing need urgent attention.

Feedback with regards to the substance of the information gathered from the Kouga Municipality.

As promised, I am providing you with feedback with regards to the substance of the information gathered from the Kouga Municipality by your teams in response to Ratepayers concerns. It is here that Ratepayers have our greatest reservations. The “thick report” handed to me by the DDG (Deputy Director General) concerning the Auditor General’s Report was simply a Photostat of the sections that Ratepayers asked Province to look into. Here ratepayers would like answers to the numerous questions posed by the AG and would like to know how many of these problems have already been addressed. Sadly it appears that there is no understanding or analysis of the figures by those tasked to compile the information. Once again the hard questions are not being asked. For example none of the questions being asked by the AG are being followed up on. It appears that the KM has also not supplied Province with the answers. See AG report pages 1 to 21.

Mr. Gqobana with regards to this key resolution namely the Auditor Generals Investigation Report, here are examples of a list of obvious questions we would have expected Provincial Officials to ask on behalf of residents. Unless this type of question can be answered convincingly by the KM what confidence can ratepayers have that the KM is taking Province’s intervention seriously?

·         Unauthorised expenditure amounted to R2 million during the 2008/2009 accounting period. What measures has KM already put in place so that this can not happen in future? Give examples.

·         Fruitless and wasteful expenditure amounted to R24,8 million. In the current year it appears as if many of those issues have still not been addressed. How have they been addressed? Who will be held accountable? What has the Mayor, MM and the CFO committed to doing in order to address these issues? Ratepayers want answers.

·         Irregular expenditure amounted to R37 million due to non-compliance with the MFMA and many supply chain management deviations. According to the press and recent disclosures these issues continue unabated. What is the actual state of affairs and who will be held accountable should there not be a marked improvement?

·         Have the issues of the landfill sites been resolved and are the landfills being legally run at present? Is the Municipality liable for any fines?

·         There were 22 cases of non-compliance with applicable legislation listed by the AG in his report. What steps have each of the Departments put in place to ensure compliance? What steps will be taken should those responsible not ensure that legislation is complied with? Who should be held accountable?

·         In Matters of Governance a number of key governance responsibilities are listed by the AG. The KM did not comply with most of them. Have specific individuals been tasked with each of these responsibilities and if so which individuals?

·         Many investigations were undertaken with regards to irregularities. What action has been taken in each of these investigations? If action has not taken place why not? If staff are still on suspension how come? What will be done in future to ensure that lengthy costly suspensions do not occur and that the process is speeded up?

·         Overtime was highlighted as a problem. What measures have been put in place to curb overtime and how successful have they been?

·         Has a separate performance audit committee been put in place? If so please show us the performance standards and how performance of staff members is currently being tracked.

·         Have all the suspended officials highlighted in this report been dismissed or reemployed? If not why not and who is being held accountable for this loss of municipal funds?

Mr. Gqobana it appears that the Municipality was not asked to answer this type of question and as such ratepayers are no closer to feeling more comfortable that critical issues of governance are being addressed.

With regards to the findings of the official Audit Committee another set of questions arises that needs to be explained by the KM.

·         Has the need for investigations into the KM decreased since the last damning report finding?

·         Is the Audit Committee meeting on a regular basis?

·         Is the Audit Committee now being presented with the reports and information that they request from the Municipality?

·         Have the deficiencies in internal controls relating to risk management and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, as highlighted by the Audit Committee, been addressed?

·         Have officials now significantly addressed the deficiencies addressed in the prior years audit findings?

·         Are information systems now in place to adequately facilitate the preparation of financial statements?

With regards to HR issues Ratepayer Associations were informed that Mr. Dlulane was busy collating information on HR matters and the Department would respond when the report was finalized. As highlighted by ratepayers, the excess number of staff employed by the Municipality was of grave concern as this was a huge component of the cost structure in any organization. Unless these expenses were brought in line and Municipal staff was properly utilized, rates would continue to escalate to the point that ratepayers would not be able to afford their rates and taxes. This was something that was already beginning to happen due to the depressed economy. Ratepayers are eagerly awaiting this HR report and trust that it contains meaningful analysis.

The next key resolution was with regards to Disaster Management and Recovery Funds paid over to the KM. Were these funds paid out and utilized correctly?

Once again the information provided raises more questions than it does to supply ratepayers and residents of Kouga with answers. Once again it appears as if the proper analysis has not been done and as yet the Municipality has not provided Province or residents with answers.

Please take note of the following very serious flaws:

·         The amounts spent with various contractors were far in excess of what was budgeted for the jobs. It appears as if contractors like Amaboko, Prodical  Son and the Municipality were allocated funds in excess of what was stipulated in the budgets. For example Amaboko was budgeted to receive R1, 689, 255 of work but was paid R2, 469, 647 while Prodical Son was budgeted to receive R300, 145 but was paid R 992, 722. How is this possible? What makes these figures even more unbelievable and proves that no analysis has been done on them is that in the so called proof of payment supporting documents lists entirely different payouts for Amaboko namely

R1, 910, 244 and an even more out of line payment to Prodical Son of R 1, 598, 585!!

·         Certain Geographical areas were neglected and did not get their correct allocation of funds despite the submissions made by Ratepayer Associations in conjunction with Bigen Africa in order to justify the allocation of these funds. These funds were however diverted to the above mentioned contractors far in excess of the value of the jobs done. Surely this should have spotted if a proper analysis was done? For example the greater St Francis area was budgeted to receive R3, 790, 000 but was only allocated R1, 838, 202! Note that if for any reason these funds were not allocated to the St Francis Bay area then they should have been returned to Province, not simply spent in other areas without the proper motivation to Province. For the record dangerous life threatening drainage problems have not been addressed in the greater St Francis Bay area and we would like it placed on record that Province and the Municipality should intervene or be held liable in the event of future storm damage or loss of life in this area. In the report the St Francis Bay area is highlighted as a “hotspot” due to the fact that it has been built on a fine grade of soil susceptible to erosion and that the storm water management system needs to be upgraded to ensure that weakened foundations and possible structure failure is prevented. This has not been done.

The next key resolution was that pertaining to the Declaration of dispute against the Kouga Municipality. It was agreed that Residents in St Francis Bay would not withhold rates until Province and the Kouga Municipality had time to display that the highlighted matters discussed and submitted by Ratepayers and Residents were being addressed. As per the above it can seen that ratepayers and residents need far greater assurance that the KM is taking the matter seriously. Attached you will find a copy of the latest report on the Kouga Municipality that appeared in our local News Paper. It appears as if the KM is insolvent even before ratepayers have started withholding rates. Surely it would be unwise for ratepayers to continue to paying into a “bottomless pit” without Ratepayer Associations receiving the assurance from Province and the KM that their finances were being properly controlled? Until ratepayers feel sure that some meaningful progress has been made on all the issues we uphold our right to take whatever action we feel is appropriate.

The next key resolution was Ratepayers participation in the IDP and Budgeting process. It was decided that the meeting of the 2^nd of December with the District Municipality was possibly not the correct forum for ratepayers to participate in. Ratepayers would be informed as to when and how they would be allowed to participate in these activities during the next year.

Finally it is with concern that Ratepayers and Residents of Kouga have learnt of your move to the Department of Health. Moves like this disrupt momentum and aggravate the already very trying situation within the Eastern Cape. We wish you well in your future assignment and hope that the DDG and your successor places emphasis on the above matters which as we all know, have reached critical proportions.

It would be appreciated if the Deputy Director General (DDG) Mr. Mzimasi Mangcotywa could keep us all informed as to the progress being made and provide us with the SIU report as soon as it is made available to the KM. As agreed the DDG will be custodian of this intervention and inform the new MEC as to the status of this intervention.

Thanking you.

Joe Oosthuizen.

Chairman of the St Francis Bay Residents Association and FEKRRA.