Report of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government on Study Tour of Municipalities, dated 15 April 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, having undertaken a major study tour of municipalities, reports as follows:
1. Significance of Study Tour
- The Portfolio Committee undertook a study tour of municipalities from 20 to 30 Januar y 2003. Three multi-party teams of 5 MPs each visited 3 provinces each. In all we covered 41 municipalities, 3 metro sub-councils, 7 MECs and provincial departments, 4 ward committee and public meetings, 3 urban and rural nodes, and 3 Planning and Implementation Management Support Centres (PIMS). While we visited 41 municipalities, we actually interacted with about 63 municipalities. In several districts, the local municipality representatives not only raised issues about the districts to which they belong, but also the specific challenges and other issues relating specifically to their respective local municipalities. Several, in fact, gave full reports on the conditions in their local municipalities. In all, we interacted with over 2200 people.
- The decisions on which municipalities to visit were made after consultation with the Municipal Demarcation Board. A broad set of criteria was defined around the need to balance visiting relatively urban and relatively rural local municipalities, and relatively strong and relatively weak district municipalities. The list of municipalities identified by the Board had to be adjusted to take into account travel distances. Overall, the number and range of municipalities visited represents a fairly good sample of the 284 municipalities in the country. The list of municipalities and other stakeholders visited is to be found in the annexure to this report, as are the names of the MPs who made up the 3 teams that undertook the study tour. Before this final report was put together, the 3 teams that undertook the study tour drew, in terms of a common framework, their own respective reports and had separate discussions without conferring with each other – and it is instructive that there was a considerable overlap in the key issues that emerged, implying that the municipalities we visited constituted a fairly good sample. But it must be understood that when we refer in this report to municipalities generally or, for example, "some" or "several" or "many" or "a significant number" of municipalities we are referring to those municipalities we visited, and not municipalities in the country as a whole - even if our observations could very well, and probably mostly do, apply to municipalities in the country generally. In most municipalities we met councillors and officials separately, and found this particularly useful.
- Of course, there were also inadequacies in the programme of the study tour. For example, we did not officially meet with SALGA (South African Local Government Association) and its provincial affiliates or the provincial legislature committees on local government (although some of the provincial affiliates of SALGA did join us on the study tour as observers). Partly this is because the NCOP relates regularly with these structures and also undertook a more general study tour of municipalities in September 2002, and partly because of the time constraints our study tour had to contend with. Ideally, we should also have met with the trade unions in the local government sphere. We should also perhaps have had a more specific focus on metro municipalities. We also did not meet with traditional leaders. Despite these inadequacies, the Portfolio Committee study tour would qualify as perhaps the most extensive undertaken of municipalities so far.
- We were rather surprised at how seriously the study tour was taken by the municipalities. Most of them prepared fully for it, with some even having preparatory workshops or meetings preceding our visit. These were based on the "Framework of Issues" we had sent them, setting out the issues we wanted to pursue with them. We were enthusiastically received, with many municipal and other representatives (including at public ward committee meetings) saying that our visit was "long overdue". " This is a blessing" said one mayor, of our visit. Another said his municipality was "privileged and honoured" to be "chosen" as one of the municipalities to be visited. Yet another said this is "hands-on government and revolutionary". Another councillor: "this visit is going to dispel illusions that people in Cape Town are insensitive and don’t understand local government on the ground". Many of the municipalities said that they would like us to come back to visit them next year and report-back on the issues they raised with us. They were also very frank, direct and open with us. At times, the discussions were converted into mini-workshops as issues of local government were discussed in great depth. Some municipalities clearly discussed issues with us that they have not done collectively over the past 2 years. One mayor said: "This (visit) is a lesson for us too. That we were able to learn what our own councillors think. It’s an eye-opener. I didn’t know our councillors harboured these feelings." A few other municipalities also echoed this.
- Partly, we think, we were accorded this reception because municipalities are desperate for support, and sections of them are very firmly committed to successfully implementing the new system of local government. Several councillors and officials said they are "passionate" about local government. Partly, we think, it reflects the inadequate relationship MPs and MPLs have with the municipalities we live in and in which our constituencies are; in other words, we are not doing enough, through our constituency work, to consolidate and advance the implementation of the new local government system.
- In short, it was an extremely successful study tour. It has also motivated and energised members of our Portfolio Committee who feel they all want to do more to ensure that the new system of local government is effectively implemented and serves to significantly enhance service delivery and development.
- But, of course, ultimately the success of the study tour will also be measured by the extent to which our Portfolio Committee addresses the key concerns raised by the municipalities and other stakeholders and reports back to them. Some of the issues raised by them do not fall within the areas of our Portfolio Committee, other issues we do not have the power to act on, but those issues which fall within our mandate, we are certainly committed to pursuing. We are obviously concerned that if we make no significant follow-up, study tours of the sort we have undertaken (and those undertaken by other parliamentary committees) will lose their credibility and will not be taken seriously by stakeholders and people on the ground.
- The Portfolio Committee would have liked this report to have been finalised earlier, but the need to follow-up on outstanding issues with stakeholders, the process of discussions on the report in the Portfolio Committee, and a variety of other issues beyond the control of the Portfolio Committee have somewhat delayed its finalisation. The report that follows is based on the verbal exchanges we had with the people we met and the written information conveyed to us both during and after the study tour. To convey some sense of the life and colour of the study tour, we have, where possible, used the direct words people used, and have changed them only slightly where absolutely necessary, not in the interests of grammatical correctness, but to provide clarity. We are not, of course, in a position to independently verify the accuracy of all the information given to us. The report is not, moreover, simply an empirical account of the views we heard and the information we received, but an analysis of this. It is based on discussions of Portfolio Committee members of our experiences and interpretations of the study tour. In short, this report does not claim to be an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground as much as an analysis of the views of key stakeholders on the ground. Of course, the analysis is invariably influenced by our own sense of what is happening on the ground.
2. Establishment of New Amalgamated Municipal Structures
- The new municipalities came into legal effect with the local government elections of 5 December 2000 – just over 2 years ago, at the time of the study tour. Most of the new municipalities have been established through the amalgamation of several previously existing municipalities – in fact, an average of 4. The Portfolio Committee is interested to establish how the mergers have progressed. To what extent have single administrations with single budgets been established? What of the transfer of staff, assets and liabilities? Have new systems of delegations been introduced? What about the rationalization of by-laws?
- The Portfolio Committee finds that the pace, nature and depth of the transformation varies greatly, bu t, overall, significant progress has been made in creating single municipalities out of the several pre-existing ones. Single administrations and budgets have been effected with hardly any disruption of service delivery. The appointment of municipal managers and senior managers has been progressing reasonably, if somewhat slower than it should. A significant number of municipalities have not yet concluded performance contracts with municipal managers and senior managers. Several municipalities pointed out that it has been difficult to finalise organograms, structures and placement of staff until the IDPs were finalised. They also expressed concern that they will have to review this once again when the new division of powers and functions is implemented from 1 July this year. Others complained that the Local Government Bargaining Council has been slow in finalising uniform conditions of service for employees. Some expressed concern about the loss of morale of employees caused by the uncertainties and constant changes. A few municipalities explained that they had to contend with "racial" challenges in forging single administrations. Some others yet expressed concern at the loss of "corporate memory" entailed in the number of experienced staff leaving the administration or being "sidelined".
- Most municipalities have finalised their system of delegations or are about to do so. Municipalities have achieved less progress in finalising a consolidated fixed assets register and the rationalization of by-laws. Some municipalities explained that they are still trying to get accurate information on all the areas under their jurisdiction and the number and composition of their residents. Accurate statistics are particularly hard to come by for the rural areas, partly because some of these areas are not serviced by municipal structures, but by Eskom, water boards, traditional authorities and other structures.
- Given that the new local government system is little more than 2 years old and taking into account the magnitude of the transformation, municipalities have progressed well in establishing single administrations. One metro municipality, for example, had no less than 50 racially-based local authorities until 1996 and seven authorities until December 2000 – and today has a single administration. A new metro municipality has been created out of 11 administrations. There are many cases of new local municipalities being successfully established through the merger of 5 or 6 previously existing municipalities. Some municipalities said that the quarterly progress reports they submit to DPLG (Department of Provincial and Local Government) keep them focused on the need to address the transformation challenges. Of course, many challenges persist – and will have to be attended to.
- The Portfolio Committee believes that:
= National and provincial government, parastatals, and any other relevant stakeholders should assist the municipalities in need to update their records and have accurate information on all the areas and residents within their jurisdiction.
= There is a need for the municipalities’ administrations to be more developmental in character. The principles and structures of the administrations, and the roles and responsibilities of officials and staff should be more clearly linked to the IDPs (Integrated Development Plans) of municipalities and their developmental functions more generally. Some municipalities might also want to consider having an overarching IDP office, situated preferably in the office of the mayor or executive mayor.
= Municipalities that have not concluded performance contracts with their municipal managers and other senior managers should be encouraged to do so as soon as possible. With the adoption of IDPs, the finalisation of powers and functions, and the development of performance management systems, this might be easier to do in future. Where possible, within the legal constraints, municipalities might well consider reviewing the performance contracts already signed with municipal managers and other senior managers in this context.
= The national and provincial departments of local government and SALGA and its provincial structures are urged to concertedly assist municipalities to deal with the transformation of their administrations based on the new allocations of powers and functions to come into effect on 1 July 2003. Consideration should be given to making the quarterly reports submitted to DPLG on the progress of the transformation available to all the relevant stakeholders, including the local government committees in parliament and the legislatures.
3. Functioning of Councils
- The councils of most municipalities meet regularly and seem to function well. Some municipalities complained about not getting quorums, especially for portfolio committee meetings. Of course, the Municipal Structures Act sets out that a municipal council "must meet at least quarterly" (section 18 (2)). Several municipalities interpret this to mean that they should have only 4 official council meetings a year. The vast majority of municipalities do have more than 4 council meetings a year, but often they see these as "extra" or "special" council meetings. It would seem that the wording of 18 (2) of the Municipal Structures Act, the greater power given to executive committees in the new local government system, and the salary differentials between executive committee members and other councilors, has served, in a sense, to de-emphasize the value of council meetings. Councillors who do not serve on executives of municipalities, especially mayoral executives, feel somewhat marginalized, even if they come from the majority party. Councillors from the opposition parties, particularly the DA (Democratic Alliance), feel that the new local government system allows for too much power to be delegated to the executive mayor and mayoral executive members. Some of them called for mayoral executive meetings to be open to the public. On average, it emerged that mayoral executives meet twice monthly. An MEC suggested that there might well be a case to ensure greater transparency in the exercise by executive committees of procurement powers delegated to them.
- Although some municipalities still call for greater clarity on the respective roles of Speakers and mayors, most municipalities seem to have defined the roles in practice. Where tensions exist, they seem to have less to do with the inadequacy of the regulatory framework or lack of clarity, than with personal or political differences.
- When municipalities were asked what the relations are between full-time and part-time councillors, most councillors and officials who responded said they are cordial. However, when pursued further, it emerged that relations vary and in a significant number of municipalities are not cordial. Tensions, such as they are, revolve mainly around differences over issues of salaries, access to resources, power, and being ward or PR (Proportional Representation) councillors. One obvious strand of contention is that it is not fair for some ward councillors to be part-time, while some PR councillors are full-time.
- Some municipalities also raised the need to clarify the role of PR councillors as distinct from ward councillors. The need for this might well be reinforced by the establishment of ward committees in which ward councillors have a major role to play. Some councillors also feel that ward councillors have more legitimacy than PR councillors and believe that only ward councillors should serve on executive committees.
- Relations between councillors and senior managers vary from fairly good to very bad. Most municipalities have had difficulties in managing these
relations. Several said relations were bad until recently but have begun to improve. Most of the difficulties revolve around differences on what the respective roles of councillors and senior managers are. There are also differences in interpretation of the legislation. Some councillors and officials feel that the legislation could be more prescriptive without transgressing the Constitution.
- Some councillors said that officials could not come to terms with the fact that, unlike in the past, councils did not exist to serve as rubber stamps for the decisions of officials. Others feel that officials have too much power, including to appoint staff, and the appointments made are not consistent with the broader political needs of the municipality. Interestingly, one municipal manager said "I assert myself with the council. Tell them what I think, put my foot down, tell them what’s in the best interest of the council. Most times they listen". Councillors also said that officials found questionable technical or legal reasons to steer them away from taking decisions that officials did not approve of. "The managers earn more than us", said a councillor. "So they think they are the authority here."
- Most of the complaints came from the officials. They saw councillors as unduly interfering in their work. One municipal manager said that the mayor told him that the manager should only work through him as "he is the boss". In the same municipality another official said that councillors issue unreasonable instructions to officials and staff and constantly say to them "remember we put you in these positions, and if you don’t want to do this, we’ll remove you and put in people we promised these jobs (to)". In another municipality a mayor refused to work with the municipal manager and would work instead with other senior officials, putting them in an awkward position. One official said that in his municipality, "the problem is the full-time councillors, they head portfolio committees, they think they are head of departments, they are responsible for administration, instead of being political heads, so they are totally interfering, sometimes unknowingly". One of the more consistent problems raised is the interference of the councilors in the appointment of officials and staff, sometimes even relatively junior staff. Several officials said that there is a need for greater legal clarity on who is ultimately responsible for appointing officials and staff in a municipality. Another source of tension is around the role of councillors and officials in procurement issues. Some officials either explicitly said or hinted that part of the problem is that councillors are not familiar with the local government legislation and are not technically competent. Others feel that political parties unduly interfere with the work of both councillors and officials.
- But if there are problems, there are also success stories. In one district municipality, we were told, relations between councillors and officials were very bad. The municipality finally organized a week-long "bosberaad" facilitated by consultants. Both councillors and officials said that relations had improved since then. One provincial structure of SALGA is planning to organize and fund such "bosberaads" for all the municipalities in the province. In another municipality, a mayor explained that relations have improved a lot since he set up twice-monthly formal meetings with the senior management. In several municipalities it was clear that councillors and officials have a good and productive working relationship.
- Obviously, relations between councillors and officials will not be easy. There will be ups and downs. While some municipalities continue to face serious challenges in this regard, the sense the Portfolio Committee gets is that relations between councillors and officials overall are improving.
- The Portfolio Committee believes that:
- If indeed section 18.2 of the Municipal Structures Act, dealing with frequency of council meetings, is not clear enough – and this needs to be pursued further – then it may be necessary to effect a legislative amendment.
- Municipalities need to do more to alleviate the sense of frustration being experienced by some of the ordinary councillors referred to in section 3.1 of this report and part-time councillors referred to in section 3.3 above.
- iii) An interesting feature in a small minority of municipalities is the very co-operative relationship among the different political parties. There is a sense in which the spirit is almost like that prevailing during the 1994 to 1996 "government of national unity" period. "It is surprising how well we co-operate. We are enthusiastic about this town and want it to work", said an NNP (New National Party) councillor. "There is a very co-operative spirit across political parties. Politics is secondary, service delivery is primary", said an ANC (African National Congress) mayor. A councillor from an opposition party: "There should be no politics in service delivery." Another councillor from an opposition party: "We are not national parliament, where we must fight (and) mishandle each other. Here we are concerned to deliver services." "What’s the difference between ANC, ACDP (African Christian Democratic Party) and DA water? Does it change colour?", asked an ACDP councillor. A district municipality prided itself that it had put decisions to a vote in the council only 10 times and that there was a division called only 4 times in the past 2 years.
- While relations between councillors and officials are improving overall, they are still not satisfactory, and it can be expected that, overall, tensions will surface every now and then. Relations have to be managed effectively. Ultimate responsibility to ensure this resides with the councillors more than the officials – after all, it is the elected councillors who are finally responsible for the municipality. Greater clarity of legislation might help, but what is far more important is that municipalities do the following, among other things:
- Seek to secure broad consensus among councillors and officials on the key principles, values, goals, strategies, plans and programmes of the municipality.
- Clearly define the respective roles of councillors and officials within the framework of the legislation and ensure that this is put in writing.
- Establish effective structures that bring together councillors and officials on a regular basis.
- Hold regular workshops to deal with any significant tensions that arise and any other issues that warrant them.
Develop appropriate good personal relationships between councillors and officials.
In addition, the DA stressed that municipal officials should co-operate fully with councillors generally, regardless of the political affiliations of the councillors.
The opposition parties that participated in the study tour are the DA, NNP and ACDP. The IFP’s (Ink atha Freedom Party) representative on the Portfolio Committee was not available to participate in the study tour. While the DA and ACDP agree largely with section 3.10 above, they believe in addition that:
The mayoral executive committee system should be scrapped.
If they are to exist at all, mayoral executive committees must be open to the public, and agendas and all documents dealt with at mayoral executive meetings should be made available to all councillors.
4. Division of Powers and Functions Between District and Local Municipalities
Perhaps the most challenging issue we had to deal with in the study tour is the division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities. As it is such an important and complex issue, this was perhaps inevitable. Relations between district and local municipalities vary from cordial and co-operative to conflictual and unproductive. Overall, there is clearly a need to provide greater clarity on the need for a two-tier system of local government, the role of the district municipalities, and the precise powers and functions of each district and local municipality.
Most municipalities expressed concern about the lack of certainty on the division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities. Many feel that the process of finalising the division has taken too long and has not been consultative enough either. The final division refers to the Minister’s "authorisations" of the 4 national functions of water, sanitation, municipal health and electricity, and the MECs’ "adjustments" of the remaining powers and functions based on assessments of a municipality’s capacity done by the Municipal Demarcation Board. The Minister’s "authorisations" were gazetted on 3 January 2003, and some MECs had circulated draft "adjustments". The final "adjustments" had not been gazetted in the case of most provinces, we were told. Several municipalities said that they are not happy with the new allocations of powers and functions – in other words, the Minister’s "authorisations" and, in some cases, the MECs "adjustments", where these were known.
A significant minority of local municipalities, especially the larger and stronger ones, questioned the need fo r district municipalities. Among the comments were "we could do away with districts last year", "the district is a nightmare", "we have grave doubts about the need for districts", and "a district is not meant for urban areas". Several of the stronger local municipalities said that district municipalities behaved like "big brother" and tried to dictate to them. Yet "we are on the ground, we feel the heat from the people, not the districts". Several of the stronger local municipalities feel that they have the capacity to fulfill powers and functions that have been allocated to the districts. They have doubts whether the districts can fulfill these powers and functions effectively. Some of the local municipalities feel that districts should play only a coordinating and broad policy-formulation role and all major service-delivery functions should be fulfilled by local municipalities.
Some of the local municipalities expressed concern that CMIP (Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme) and other funds from the national government are being allocated to the district municipalities who then distribute the funds to local municipalities – but the districts, it was said, take too long to distribute the money, and often it is not clear what criteria are used to distribute the money. Some of the local municipalities also said that the districts reject their decisions on awarding tenders and instead conduct their own tender-awarding process on behalf of the local municipalities and decide on who the successful bidder is. The districts do not, said an MEC for local government, have the capacity to evaluate the outcomes of CMIP projects. Several local municipalities said that they contributed significantly to the income of districts, but they get back very little in return. "We also have rural areas and have to deliver there. The people don’t understand what is the district and what is the local. They come to complain to us", said a councillor from a local municipality. "It’s not clear to us who is accountable for what (in respect of district and local municipalities)" said another. "The district office is only 2 minutes from here. It gets very confusing…."
"Our district has been created out of thin air", said a councillor. "We feel we are a district without purpose," said another. Some of the districts certainly feel that their boundaries are questionable, that they are not viable, and that they have not been allocated adequate powers and functions. Several complained that their powers and functions have been reduced with the new allocations. " (The) water (function) has been taken away from us. Who’s now going to deliver in the rural areas? People are going to blame us (the district, not the local)", said a district councillor. Some districts stressed that they have to have a service delivery role, otherwise they will not be able to build their own identities. "If we deliver services, we can raise revenue. (Otherwise) where do we get money from?", said a district official.
Some districts also said that the local municipalities insist that they are autonomous and refuse to acknowledge the district’ s role beyond wanting to confer with them on certain projects. "But we are not consultants", said a district councillor. "There has to be a big brother or sister", said another councillor, of the role of districts. Some districts said that they are graded on the same level as one or more of the local municipalities that fall within their areas. "We have 4 local municipalities under us, so we have to be on a higher grade. Otherwise, how do we know who is the boss?", said a district executive mayor. "Without us, there will be no delivery to the rural areas", said a district councillor. Several district municipalities echoed this. "The B (local) municipalities only think of themselves. We give them the big picture", said a district councillor. Another district councillor said, "Poor B’s (local municipalities) see us as their messiah".
Perhaps understandably, it is the weaker and more rural municipalities that seem to be most in favour of district municipalities. It also seems as if officials from the district and local municipalities related to it get along, in general, better than do the councillors.
Both district and local municipalities raised the need to provide greater certainty and clarity on what precisely the new division of powers and functions are, what their technical meanings are, and what the financial implications of these new allocations are. They also pointed to what the Portfolio Committee and many stakeholders in the local government sphere are aware of: the need to provide greater clarity on what the precise meanings are of the powers and functions allocated to local government in the Constitution and legislation, and how these overlap with and are distinct from the powers and functions of provincial and national government. Several municipalities suggested that it is not sensible or practicable to separate environmental health from primary health services and allocate these between district and local municipalities and provinces. Some municipalities expressed reservations about the capacity of provinces to effectively deliver primary health services. One strong district municipality said that it currently provides health services on an agency basis on behalf of the province – and is being owed R20 million. It is funding these services substantially from its own budget and has reservations about whether the province has the funds or capacity to deliver the services effectively. There were also calls for clarity on the respective roles of the provinces and municipalities in providing libraries, roads and housing, and how these should be funded.
There are far too many roleplayers responsible for services in the area of a municipality, some municipalities said. One municipality said that the provision of water in its area involved the municipality, the district, water boards and DWAF (Department of Water and Forestry). "The townships are our responsibility", said an executive mayor "But the rural areas are administered by the provincial government…. We also have problems with the Department of Land Affairs. People approach us for land use. We reject some applications. But traditional leaders support these, and they go to the provincial government who then agrees with the application." Another councillor said, "We don’t know who is responsible for what. Last year we had a roll-over of R60 million because of conflict over who is the authority". A municipality also said that it has different land tenure systems within its area, so creating difficulties. Of course, some of these issues will be resolved with the implementation of the new allocations of powers and functions to district and local municipalities from 1 July this year. It is interesting though that some municipalities said that municipalities have too much legislation to conform to and that some of the legislation is contradictory.
The consolidation of a two-tier system of local government was never going to be easy. Inevitably, the division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities was going to prove very challenging. For all the complexities, the allocation of powers and functions could have been dealt with more effectively; and the complaints of the municipalities in this regard are largely credible. While DPLG must take its fair share of blame, other authorities too must take some measure of responsibility – including the Municipal Demarcation Board, provincial departments of local government and SALGA. But for all the difficulties, there are a significant number of success stories. This is a new system, and some, at least, of the problems cited must be understood as "teething problems". Others, of course, will persist – and will have to be dealt with adroitly. Some of the problems clearly have less to do with the two-tier system as such and far more to do with intra-party political differences. The two-tier system becomes a site of broader struggles being waged within, let alone between, political parties.
In several cases, relations between the district and local municipalities were described as very good and beneficial. "We have good, smooth, warm relations with the district." "There are very good relations between us (the local municipalities) and the district." "Our district is the best in the province. Go and check the statistics. We have assisted other districts. We also lent a car to the next district." "We see the district as part and parcel of our (local) municipality because 60% of the (district) councillors come from the local." "There is no conflict between us." "There is sanity in this district." "The relationship with B (local) municipalities is one of mutual trust and understanding." One district municipality said that relations had been cemented by setting up "satellite" offices in each of the local municipalities. An MEC said, "if you have quality B (local municipality) representatives on the C (district municipality) council, relations are much better". Clearly, the system is working well in several cases. It is instructive too that a significant majority of those who expressed dissatisfaction with the two-tier system seemed to relent when the need for the system and the role of district municipalities was explained to them. It obviously raises the question of whether their criticisms are based on a principled opposition to the two-tier system or on a lack of knowledge and inadequate understanding of the system.
"To have Cs (districts) is a huge advantage for MECs" said an MEC. With limited personnel and resources, he said, the provincial department of local government is able to support municipalities by dealing mainly, though by no means solely, with a few districts rather than many local municipalities. "Districts do lots of the work the province has to do with local municipalities. They have saved many of our Bs (local municipalities)" said the MEC. "Even today there are engineers in the B municipalities who have braais in the afternoon. They have no work. If you don’t have districts, who is going to redistribute resources and build capacity?" The MEC also said, "A lot of the conflicts at the moment are because of the uncertainties about powers and functions. Once it’s finalised, the municipalities will settle down".
Another MEC pointed to the value of districts in making possible economies of scale, bulk-purchasing, and cross-subsidisation across local municipalities. He also suggested that the procurement of information and communications technology should be coordinated at district level to ensure savings through bulk purchasing and to provide uniformity in software. Others too pointed to the many practical advantages of district municipalities.
The Portfolio Committee explored with some of the more effective districts the reasons why they are working well. In the case of one of the most successful districts, it emerged that their boundaries had remained largely the same as the previous RSC (Regional Services Council). They were already reasonably well-established before the December 2000 elections. Most of the staff from the previous RSC have been retained. There was also substantial continuity of the councillors from the pre-December 2000 period. "All the Mayoral Committee Members were councillors before. The Speaker was the mayor before", said the current executive mayor. The key point that was stressed was that there is extensive consultation between the district and local municipalities. The district executive mayor said, "The agenda gets on time to the councillors. We are respected because we give ample time for the B’s (local municipalities) to discuss issues." A councillor said, "There is consultation, cooperation, participation". The executive mayor of the district said "I wouldn’t go to a function without the B (local municipality) mayor". "Relations between the local and district councillors are very good. No sour relationship", said a councillor from a local municipality.
It was stressed that there is "consensus on how to distribute money" from the district to the local municipalities – in other words, agreement on the criteria and process. "We have no problems with CMIP allocations", said a councillor. All the mayors of the local municipalities serve in the district council and they also have a Municipal Managers’ Forum that brings together the managers on a regular basis. They also stressed that there is very effective cooperation between councillors and officials in the district and in most of the local municipalities. "We don’t work in isolation as department heads. We know what’s happening in the municipality as a whole", said a district official. He said the same was beginning to happen in the local municipalities in the area of the district. "Also, we understand the (local government) legislation very clearly. Councillors and officials (do)", said a district official. There is a significant overlap in the reasons for the success of this district municipality and other district municipalities that work well.
It does not do to make easy generalizations, but it would seem that some of the conditions in which the two-tier system is likely to succeed include:
- The boundaries of the district are not substantially different from the boundaries of the previous RSC.
- The district is able to build on and transform the structures of the previous RSC.
- Good quality leadership.
- Effective structures that regularly bring together mayors of the district and local municipalities in the area of the district.
- Effective structures that regularly bring together the municipal managers and other senior officials of the district and the local municipalities.
- Mayors of the local municipalities serve on the council of the district.
- Constant consultation between the district and local municipalities, and consensus on the process of and criteria for distributing funds from the district to the local municipalities.
- The evolution of a clear relationship between service authority and service provider where the one is a district and the other is a local municipality.
- A good understanding of legislation and policies on local government.
The majority in the Portfolio Committee believes that:
For the most part, the difficulties being experienced in implementing the two-tier system are to be expected. These are, after all, early days in the implementation of a fundamentally new system. The difficulties do not detract from the need for and value of the two-tier system in this country for the foreseeable future. Increasingly, countries establishing new systems of local government or reforming existing ones are opting for a two-tier system. An effective regional tier of local government that brings together several municipalities can be of considerable value in:
- Responding to globalisation.
- Ensuring regional development planning.
- Providing bulk infrastructure and services.
- Building the capacity of weaker municipalities.
- Ensuring modest levels of redistribution.
- Strengthening local government’s relationship with provincial and national government.
It is vitally important that, led by DPLG, all local government stakeholders do far more to clarify the need for a two-tier system, the role of district municipalities, and the precise division of powers and functions between each district and local municipality. The workshops being held in each of the districts by DPLG to clarify these issues is most welcome, as is DPLG’s publication of user-friendly booklets on these issues. Local government stakeholders will have to continue addressing these issues for a good time to come.
Those MECs that have not finalised the "adjustments" of powers and functions for the municipalities in their province should seek to do so as soon as possible, so that municipalities can have enough time to prepare for the implementation of the new allocations of powers and functions from 1 July this year and align their budgets appropriately. As far as possible, the MECs’ "adjustments" should be aligned to the Minister’s "authorisations" of powers and functions for municipalities.
The DPLG-led project to provide greater certainty and clarity on the constitutional powers and functions of local government and the senses in which they are distinct from and overlap with provincial and national powers and functions needs to be speeded up. Besides providing greater clarity, consideration has to be given to whether the distribution of powers and functions among the spheres as set out in the Constitution is apposite, in the context of the experience and knowledge acquired since the Constitution was adopted in 1996.
The review of the local government financial system, being undertaken by DPLG, National Treasury and other stakeholders, also needs to be speeded up. Municipalities certainly need greater clarity on the financial implications of the new allocations (the Minister’s "authorisations" and MEC’s "adjustments) of powers and functions. Ideally, of course, the fiscal division of powers and functions should have been finalised together with the division of the general powers and functions. DPLG’s decision to introduce legislation this year on the division of fiscal powers and functions is to be welcomed in this context.
DPLG, provincial departments of local government, SALGA, the Municipal Demarcation Board and other stakeholders have to offer considerable support to municipalities to implement the new allocations (the "authorizations" and "adjustments") in the division of powers and functions between local and district municipalities that come into effect on 1 July this year.
While members of the DA and ACDP might agree with some of the points made in section 4.15 above, fundamentally they believe that:
i) The two-tier system is unnecessary, costly and not viable.
ii) For now, districts should have minimal powers and functions and serve only to strengthen the weaker local municipalities. District municipalities should be phased out as soon as possible.
5. Integrated Governance and Planning
Almost all the municipalities visited had completed their IDPs (Integrated Development Plans). Many of them are aware that the IDPs are not of a good quality and intend to improve them through their annual reviews. Several municipalities said that they had sacrificed quality to meet impossible deadlines to complete their IDPs imposed on them by DPLG. One municipality said that "some IDPs are basically compliance reports prepared by consultants". Several also said that the reconciliation of the IDPs of the district municipalities and the local municipalities falling in their area is far from satisfactory. Almost all the municipalities recognise the importance and value of IDPs. Many are quite enthusiastic about IDPs and want to get it right. "We had a very good experience during the IDP", said a councillor. "A very worthwhile exercise", said another. "Its excellent, the IDP" said yet another. "The IDP has forced councillors and officials to co-operate closely", said a councillor.
Most municipalities set up IDP structures to oversee the process and finalisation of the content of the IDP. T hese usually comprise councillors and officials. How effective they are and how they relate to community organizations and consultants varies, and is difficult to assess. In many cases, district municipalities set up joint IDP structures with the local municipalities falling in their area. Several district municipalities pointed out that as district municipalities do not have ward committees and local municipalities have been consulting communities on IDPs , the districts find it somewhat challenging to ensure community participation in IDPs.
The level and form of consultation with communities on IDPs varies across the municipalities, but overall it seems that a fair amount of consultation has taken place, especially as it is the first time that municipalities have had to prepare IDPs in terms of the new legislation and they have had to contend with the many challenges of amalgamating the old municipalities and dealing with the overall transformation. Some municipalities simply drew together key stakeholders to meetings, while others held workshops or public meetings, or ward committee meetings, or a combination of all these and other means of involving the public. One municipality said that it held over 20 community meetings, some attended by over 400 people. Another municipality said that it had several meetings with over 800 people present. A municipality said that it had over 30 workshops with stakeholder organizations before finalising its IDP.
What the effect of the consultation has been is difficult to tell. Was it merely formal consultation designed to solicit endorsement for IDPs prepared by consultants or officials, or was it active community participation aimed at ensuring that residents substantially shape the IDPs? It would seem that in the majority of municipalities it was the former, but in a significant number of municipalities, even if a minority, it would seem that there was meaningful community participation. Interestingly, several municipalities said that community meetings often led to the production of "wish-lists" to be included in the IDPs, and raised expectations that the municipalities simply could not deliver on. They found it difficult to balance the priorities and especially the targets that emerged from these meetings with practical and realisable plans and strategies based on such key considerations as funds, resources, capacity, and the extent of cooperation from provincial and national government – and, what was not said as such, but implied: the phase the municipalities currently are in, in the unfolding overall local government transformation process.
Of course, many municipalities used consultants to some or other degree to shape the content of the IDPs, and sometimes even the process of finalising IDPs. Interestingly, the vast majority of these municipalities are very aware of the shortcomings of using consultants and the need to draw on their services in ways that are optimally beneficial to municipalities. "Your legislation" an executive mayor said to us, "has created a boom for consultants." "We had not been formed properly yet and they (consultants) came here and said ‘we can do your IDPs for you.’ Then they don’t listen to us and do what they want.
Then in their reports they say that we have to do this, this and this for you. (They) make more work for themselves….", said another councillor. His colleague added: "Now they are knocking on our doors telling us they can do our performance management (system) for us. But what do they know about this?" One district said that they had decided on the same consultants to assist the district and local municipalities related to it, so ensuring greater synergy, saving on costs and more firm supervision of the consultants.
Municipalities are aware of the need to link IDPs and budgets, but most, understandably, have not been able to do so in an adequate sense – and many recognize this. Several municipalities said that they have linked IDPs to budgets, but when we pursued this matter further, it emerged that the links are far from adequate. Some municipalities admitted that they finalised their budgets first and then tried to align them to the IDPs in a contrived and mechanical way. One municipality said that municipalities seek to align capital projects in their budgets to the IDPs, but they should also be seeking to align the operational side of their budgets to the IDPs. A councillor said, "Unless we link the IDPs and budgets, the IDPs will just be wish-lists". Most municipalities said that it is difficult to link IDPs to budgets when provincial and national government do not allocate money to municipalities in terms of the priorities identified in the IDPs and often allocate money in an ad-hoc manner. It was also pointed out that IDPs are approved by the MEC for local government but the budgets of municipalities are referred to the National Treasury – so posing practical problems for provincial departments of local government to ensure that municipalities align their IDPs and budgets.
Almost every municipality complained that provincial and national government for the most part ignored the IDPs. This was one of the most consistent and persistent views to emerge in the study tour. Often national and, particularly, provincial departments did not spell out what plans they have for the area covered by a municipality. Where provincial departments sent representatives to municipal IDP meetings, they often sent junior officials who did not participate much and did not seem to be aware of their department’s plans or how they would affect the IDPs. Moreover, there was no continuity, with departmental representatives being changed over meetings.
Provincial departments mainly, but also national departments, go ahead with programmes and projects that are not consistent with a municipality’s IDP priorities. "Provincial departments have their own priorities, and they push us in that direction"’ said a councillor. "They don’t consult with us. They just do what they want", said another. Provincial departments’ programmes and projects are not always co-ordinated either. "We have as many approaches as MECs here", said a councillor. IDPs, said some, should inform the planning and budgets of all three spheres of government. Some municipal officials suggested that there should be strict legislation to force national and provincial departments to take IDPs into account in their planning and budgets. One official said that parliamentary and legislature committees should monitor the extent to which departments implemented plans, programmes and projects in line with municipal IDPs. Municipalities said that the parastatals also did not take IDPs seriously, and this also undermines their implementation.
Many municipalities said that there is a need for clear and effective provincial IDPs or general development plans, which should shape and be shaped by municipal IDPs. Some municipalities also said that there is a need for a national IDP or general development plan. One province is to pass legislation this year on provincial development and planning. An MEC from another province feels that all provinces should have new development plans, taking into account the IDPs of the municipalities in the province. He feels that there should be a provincial planning centre in the offices of the Premiers and this centre should take responsibility to ensure that municipal IDPs and provincial general development plans are harmonious.
The provincial departments pointed out that DPLG and other national departments directly work with and allocate money to municipalities, by-passing provincial departments, so it was difficult for them to effectively play their monitoring, support and co-operative role in respect of municipalities. Provinces also pointed to the provincial intergovernmental forums they have for mayors and municipal managers respectively as a way of saying that they take municipalities seriously.
We visited 3 Planning and Implementation Management Centres (PIMS). DPLG intends to set up a PIMS in every district. About 35 had been set up by the time of our study tour. The basic aims of the PIMS are to provide technical support on the development of IDPs and performance management systems. The PIMS usually have 3 staff members. DPLG provides a substantial part of their funds, but some of them also get funds from the district municipality. DPLG guidelines are that PIMS should receive about R700 000 per year. It is difficult to tell from the PIMS we visited how PIMS in general are faring. The three we visited did not seem particularly effective.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Municipalities are very aware of the inadequacies of their IDPs – which is a good sign. Importantly, while the IDPs may not be of the required quality, the notion of development planning has been internalised by municipalities. Municipalities also recognise the need to link IDPs to budgets. These represent tremendous advances – and augur well for the future.
ii) A variety of forms of community participation in IDPs is necessary – including workshops, conferences, ward committee meetings and public meetings, involving both organizations and individual residents. Ward committees clearly have an ongoing, indispensable role to play in the whole process of IDPs. Community participation should serve not to produce "desktop shopping lists", but realistic and realizable IDP priorities and targets.
Municipalities need assistance in establishing better links between IDPs and budgets. That IDPs are dealt with by provincial departments of local government and budgets by National treasury needs to be addressed. To the extent that provincial departments of local government have a case about being by-passed by national departments that deal directly with municipalities, this too needs to be addressed.
More needs to be done to reconcile the IDPs of district municipalities and those of the local municipalities related to the districts.
Clearly, consultants can be of value in assisting with IDPs, especially during this first term of the new municipalities, but they have to be carefully and effectively managed by the councillors and officials. Communities can also play a valuable role in steering consultants in particular directions. If municipalities decide to use consultants, it might well be worth considering using the same consultants for districts and the local municipalities falling within their area.
Provinces should give serious consideration to devising new provincial general development plans that shape and are shaped by municipal IDPs.
The Ministry and DPLG have to seriously explore ways of ensuring that provincial and national departments take IDPs into account in shaping their plans, programmes and projects. The Intergovernmental Relations Bill to be introduced to parliament this year should seek to address this major matter.
While recognizing the practical difficulties, it is clear that there has to be more integrated government. Provincial and national departments have to take municipal IDPs more seriously. If they have reservations about the quality of IDPs, they must contribute to improving them. For greater service delivery and development, it is clear that there has to be more co-ordination across the three spheres of government. Part of this entails greater clarity on what precisely the powers and functions of each sphere are, and as noted earlier, the review underway in this regard needs to be speeded up.
It may well be that DPLG, the provincial departments of local government and the districts have to provide more support to PIMS to be more effective.
It is important for DPLG to set deadlines for municipalities to complete IDPs and to implement other aspects of the new local government system. These deadlines should, however, be decided after more effective consultation with SALGA and should take into account the differing capacities of different municipalities.
Parliamentary and legislature committees should increasingly seek to monitor whether national and provincial departments are taking municipal IDPs into account in their plans, programmes, projects and budgets.
6. Local Government Finances
Financial issues, certainly, constitute the biggest challenge confronting municipalities. Clearly, there is a need for a new financial system for the new model of developmental local government. A review of the financial system is, of course, underway. It is being dealt with by the DPLG, the National Treasury, SALGA, and Financial and Fiscal commission. Among the issues being reviewed are the "equitable share" formula, RSC levies, capacity-building grants, infrastructure transfers, property rates, the fiscal powers and functions of district and local municipalities, the remuneration of councillors and municipal managers, and additional sources of revenue for municipalities. The Municipal Finance Management Bill and Property Rates Bill before parliament, and the pending bill on the division of fiscal powers and functions between local and district municipalities are aspects of the new financial system. Apart from some knowledge of the Municipal Finance Management Bill and Property Rates Bill, most municipalities are not aware of the other aspects of the review of the local government financial system. Many would like to offer their views on aspects of the financial system. SALGA in particular needs to respond to this, but so do other authorities.
Most municipalities have a credit control and debt collection policy. However, they either cannot or do not implement these policies effectively. Most municipalities are aware that they have to do more to collect the arrears owed to them for service charges, especially from those who can afford to pay. A significant number of municipalities said that they are not yet billing everybody using services as they are still gathering information on residents and do not have proper systems in place. One councillor said: "The biggest problem is the rural areas. There is no legal or administrative structure there. No title deeds, no correct address, very weak postal services." Some municipalities admitted they still had different billing systems for the different areas of the previously existing municipalities that have been merged. Several municipalities explained that they also lack suitably qualified personnel to improve their billing system.
One municipality said that it had 2 meter readers for over 540 000 people! The meter readers did the billing manually and the mistakes made reduced the credibility of the bills, serving to discourage residents from paying. Several municipalities have introduced incentive schemes to encourage residents to pay.
These have had varying degrees of success – but certainly seem to have potential. For want of capacity, several municipalities have begun to outsource debt collection. Some argue that not only is it efficient, but it works out cheaper for both the municipalities and the debtors – as legal fees are avoided, and debt collection agencies are paid on the basis of the amount of the debt retrieved.
Of course, many municipalities pointed out that the introduction of free basic services has served to discourage residents from paying. "People say ‘why should we pay? These services are free’ ", is a typical remark from the councillors and officials who raised this. Some of them said that free basic services were introduced too soon and that a massive education programme should have preceded it.
Officials in several municipalities said that they felt councillors could do more to get residents to pay. Several municipalities have produced a break-down by ward of residents in arrears and have asked councillors to approach these residents to pay what they owe. In most cases, councillors have not pursued this seriously. "Councillors are scared", said an official. "They don’t want to be unpopular". A mayor, however, perhaps rather unusually, said, "We have the best policy. I’m not afraid of my debtors. We tell them to pay. They can come and burn my house down. But the people accept the cut-offs. We are proud of our municipality". The municipality had organised several public meetings on the need to pay services. Since then, they said, revenue from service fees had improved and there was less resistance to the cut-off of services. One municipality increased payment levels from 65% to 94.5% in a year, and moved the municipality from a deficit to a surplus of R400 000. It would be interesting to know how this happened, but because of time constraints, members of the Portfolio Committee were not able to pursue this matter. There are, of course, other municipalities who are also doing well, but it was difficult to draw any conclusive general lessons from them.
Some municipalities provided a break-down of those in arrears – and it emerged clearly that a significant minority of them are categories of people who can pay. One metro municipality said that 30% of those in arrears come from the private sector. A local municipality offered the following break-down of its arrears: 60% is owed by individual residents, 30% by the private sector, 8% by government and 2% by others. Interestingly, these figures are remarkably similar to those that emerged for municipalities in general at a major conference on finances held by the Ministry and DPLG in December last year, at which the arrears were put at R24,3 billion for municipalities in the country as a whole.
Many municipalities complained that national and, mainly, provincial governments constantly fail to pay them for rates and services and for agency functions fulfilled on their behalf. Accounts for rates, water, electricity and other municipal services are not paid or paid very late. Most municipalities that fulfill provincial functions such as health, roads and libraries on an agency basis for provincial departments are also not paid or paid very late. Municipalities also say that they bear the administrative costs of housing delivery, and this is quite substantial in some cases, yet the provinces offer no financial support for this. One municipality said that it estimated it is owed about R400 million by national and provincial government. Another municipality said it is owed about R150 million by provincial government. Another said that it was owed over R24 million by the provincial government. Yet another municipality said that a provincial department had not paid its water and electricity bills for over 3 years. "Government departments do not pay for services (they use). Ordinary people pay better. It’s a struggle to get them (government departments) to pay", said a mayor. Another councillor said that it was "not ethical" for government departments not to pay. They should be "leading by example" and so encouraging others to pay for services used. Some municipalities recognise that part of the problem is the poor billing system.
One official said, "We know they (provincial departments) don’t pay us. But even when they do, we don’t know this. We don’t have a way of knowing because our systems are weak."
Several municipalities complained that civil servants are not paying their personal service fees or rates. One municipality raised the need to have a provision in the code for public servants that requires them to pay for their municipal service fees and rates similar to the provisions in the code of conduct for municipal employees. The municipality also feels that it should be able to approach the provincial departments get them to directly deduct service fees and rates from the salaries of civil servants. One municipality said that prior to 1994, civil servants from some of the homeland governments were not required to pay municipal service fees or rates, and they continued not to do so even now – but the municipality is billing them, and expects them to pay.
Most municipalities acknowledged that the percentage of the budget allocated to capital expenditure is far from adequate. It would seem though that there has been some improvement over the past 2 years and that many municipalities are moving in the direction of being able to increase the percentage of their budgets allocated to capital expenditure. Municipalities also acknowledged that salaries constitute too high a percentage of their budgets - but most of them do not have any clear plans to reduce this percentage. Some municipalities are beginning to plan for 3-year budgeting cycles. On annual budget growth limits issued by the National Treasury, one municipality suggested that this should be done in September of the previous year and should be CPI-linked.
The vast majority of municipalities said that the "equitable share" is not adequate. Several pointed to the fact that the statistics used to decide on the allocations are drawn from the 1996 Census, which is outdated. Several municipalities expressed their concern that the restructuring of the electricity industry would have adverse financial consequences for them. One municipality pointed out that about 27 000 out of their about 29 000 electricity customers pay up-front through pre-paid meters, so assisting their cash flow. Some said that they used the threat of electricity cut-offs to prod residents to pay for services generally. Several district municipalities also raised their difficulties about the RSC levy on businesses and are pleased to hear that it is being reviewed. The municipalities said that many of the industries in their area had their head offices in the metros and paid their levies there, instead of to the districts. The districts do not have the power and, sometimes, the capacity to follow up on those who do not pay, or pay less than they should, and have to rely on SARS offices, which are not always co-operative. In one case, a district municipality explained that the adjoining metro raised RSC levies on its behalf as it did not have the capacity to do so. The district, however, said that the metro charged it too high fees to do so, and often took too long to hand the levies over to the district.
Several municipalities said that provincial governments should stop "fiscal dumping". This is a reference to provincial departments suddenly, towards the end of the financial year, realizing that they cannot spend monies allocated to them, and then deciding to "off-load" these monies to municipalities. This serves, as one councillor said, to "derail and push us away from our programmes and gives a false picture of our underspending".
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Municipalities have to make far more effective and productive use of the limited resources that they have. They also have to do far more to collect the debt owed to them by those who can afford to pay and to also raise their own revenue. Local Economic Development (LED), public-private partnerships, and other initiatives might be helpful in regard to the latter. Municipalities can certainly do more to raise the money owed to them, especially from the private sector, government departments and civil servants. National Treasury, DPLG, provincial departments of finance, provincial departments of local government and other relevant structures have to do far more to ensure that national and provincial departments pay the monies they owe to municipalities. Interestingly, one province has decided that monies owed to municipalities will be deducted from the allocations to each provincial department from the provincial budget each year, provided municipalities forwarded verifiable outstanding bills owed by the departments. Serious consideration should be given to making this the practice in all provinces. Also, municipalities simply have to do more to establish efficient billing and financial systems. DPLG, National Treasury and other stakeholders need to offer more support to municipalities in this regard. Within limits, councillors can also do more to address issues of non-payment in their wards. Where councillors and municipal officials are in arrears, appropriate action must be taken.
The more municipalities do to raise revenue from their own sources and manage their finances and resources better, the more their case for increased funds and resources and other forms of support from national and provincial government is strengthened. The answer, certainly, does not lie in simply flinging more money at municipalities. But, clearly, if the new system of local government is going to be effectively implemented and municipalities are going to fulfill their constitutional mandate, national and provincial government will have to allocate more money, resources and other forms of support to local government. This does not include "fiscal dumping" – which has to be avoided altogether.
The implementation of the Municipal Finance Management Bill, which is to be passed by parliament later this year, will contribute significantly to the more effective management by municipalities of funds and other resources. Municipalities will need considerable assistance to implement key aspects of the MFMB.
Some municipalities, without the most minimal financial, economic, revenue or other base, are simply not viable – unless drastic measures are taken, not just by the municipalities concerned, but by provincial and national government, the private sector, communities and other stakeholders. Of course, fundamental changes to municipal boundaries should be approached cautiously. Boundary issues, moreover, should not be conflated with the many other issues of the viability of municipalities. But the Municipal Demarcation Board might well have to reconsider the boundaries of some of these municipalities.
Johannesburg municipality raised the issue of the huge pension debt it has inherited from the pre-1994 era. Johannesburg needs to be assisted by National Treasury, DPLG, the Gauteng department of local government, the provincial government, the trade unions and other roleplayers to address this major issue.
Municipalities need to be more informed about the financial implications for them of the restructuring of th e electricity industry. DPLG, the Department of Minerals and Energy, National Treasury, SALGA and other stakeholders need to assist in this regard.
The general dissatisfaction with the RSC levies reinforces the need to review them. If possible, an alternative should be found reasonably soon.
Municipalities have to strive more to increase the percentage of their budgets allocated to capital expenditure. They also have to more actively seek to reduce the percentage of their budgets allocated to personnel expenditure.
The review of the local government financial system underway needs to be speeded up. A new financial dispensation commensurate with the new developmental model of local government has to be finalised.
7. Remuneration of Councillors and Municipal Managers
The overwhelming majority of municipalities held that the remuneration of councillors is inadequate and needs to be reviewed. This was one of the most pervasive views expressed to us. Several municipalities said that the poor remuneration negatively affected the "morale" of councillors and served to reduce their "commitment". Councillors are "disillusioned", we were told. "We are uncertain about being councillors", said a councillor. "We cannot make this a career (because of the low remuneration)". Another councillor said, "If we got decent salaries, people would become full-time in their work. Lots of councillors won’ t come back after the next elections (because of the poor pay)." Several councillors made the point that they are "on the ground", not MPs and MPLs, yet they get paid far less. "We earn less than the lowest paid worker in the municipality. Yet we are their employers", said a councillor. Several councillors also raised the challenges posed by the huge gap in remuneration between full-time and part-time councillors. "There is a thin line between part-time and full-time (councillors)" said a councillor. " Who is full-time? Who is part-time?", said another councillor. "There’s no part-time here. The mayor is part-time. But he’s in the office full-time!" Yet another councillor: "The municipality is not a spaza shop (and so can pay better)". One municipality suggested that salaries should be "performance –linked", instead of linked to being part-time or full-time.
Interestingly, many councillors pointed to the long distances they have to travel and their huge wards to justify their call for increased salaries. A district councillor said that she has to travel 140kms to get to the district offices. She said that she needed a 4x4 vehicle to do her work properly. "By the time we finish our term, we’ll be finished. We get stressed," she said. Several municipalities also raised problems with the grading system which they said is not fair. They feel that a new formula for grading needs to be devised. Several municipalities said that they just do not have an adequate tax base to remunerate councillors adequately. Remuneration is also based on the number of registered voters instead of on the population. The latter is a more fair measure, it is held. Several municipalities also said that councillors do not enjoy the same tax benefits that MPs and MPLs do – and feel this is unfair. Some of the municipalities in a particular province threatened to withdraw from SALGA if the issues of councillors’ remuneration are not resolved soon.
A significant number of municipalities and at least one MEC for local government said that the remuneration of councillors should be paid from the national fiscus. Some said that at least a part of the remuneration should be paid by national government. One municipality suggested that as a first step, executive committee members should be paid from the national fiscus and the payment of all councillors could be subsequently phased in.
In respect of the remuneration of municipal managers (and senior managers), several municipalities said that they had to compete with private sector salary scales and other benefits in order to draw highly skilled, competent people as managers. "Every time we find somebody good, the private sector gobbles them up", said an executive mayor. A councillor said, "In terms of our grades, we can offer a maximum of R460 000 per annum to an engineer. But the one we found said he can earn over R700 000 per year in the private sector in Johannesburg". A mayor said, "The public wants us to pay peanuts. But then they complain that the municipal manager is not good. " Several municipalities pointed out that the remuneration of municipal managers is high because they are appointed on the basis of a performance-linked contract of up to 7 years and do not necessarily receive a pension. "Previously, municipal managers lived for their pensions", said an executive mayor. "Now they don’t always have it".
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) While some of the arguments about the inadequate remuneration of councillors are sound, others are not. It would be helpful if there is a more informed discussion of how remuneration is determined, and what the possibilities and limits are of increases in this regard. DPLG, National Treasury, SALGA and others need to contribute to this.
ii) The review of the remuneration of councillors currently being undertaken by the task team comprising representatives of DPLG, National Treasury and SALGA needs to take account of the views expressed on this matter in this report, if they are not already aware of them.
iii) In one municipality of over 540 000 people, with a large area, part-time councillors, who said they are in effect full-time, receive about R1000. In other municipalities, we were told, it is even lower. However, according to DPLG the lowest allowance for councillors is slightly over R1200. Of course, for a significant number of councillors this is their only source of income. In the case of most of them receiving this remuneration, it is too low and their concerns have to be addressed. But there are also part-time councillors earning over R8000 per month who said they receive too little. Perhaps this is in comparison to full-time councillors in their municipality or MPs and MPLs? But in itself surely over R8000 is acceptable! There are obviously councillors who are not being reasonable in their claims about earning too little.
iv) Clearly, there are municipalities that just do not have the rates base to remunerate councillors adequately. To do this, these municipalities will have to get more support from national government. Either their whole remuneration bill or a substantial part of it must be paid for from the national fiscus. But over time it might be useful to consider, within the constraints of the national budget obviously, whether it is possible for the national government to allocate enough money to municipalities in general to meet a significant part of their remuneration bill. Consideration has to also be given to reducing the gap between what full-time and part-time councillors earn – and, within budgetary constraints, practical answers have to be found to the issues raised in this regard.
v) Some of the issues raised by municipalities in regard to the remuneration of municipal managers (and senior managers), are fair and reasonable and need to be addressed. The decision of the Ministry and DPLG to develop firm guidelines on the remuneration of municipal mangers is to be welcomed. Attention also needs to be given to whether it is constitutionally possible for the minister to issue regulations in this regard. If so, this should be done, and, if necessary, amendments to the legislation should be effected.
8. Community Participation
One of the most progressive aspects of the new system of local government is the considerable space it provides for community participation. Obviously, it will take time and resources for community participation to be fully implemented. While, clearly, the enormous potential for community participation is very far from being realized, there has been a fair amount of progress. The vast majority of municipalities have at least some level of community participation, and most seem to have established ward committees. A significant number, indeed, have a council policy on community participation and on ward committees specifically.
According to the municipalities, there is community participation in IDPs, budgets, tariff policies, municipal services, and other issues. This takes a variety of forms, including workshops, conferences, ward committee meetings, public meetings and other. Several municipalities have "Council meets the People" or "Mayoral Listening" or some such campaigns. One municipality intends to develop a "Service Charter" from public meetings held with the mayor and other councillors. The Charter would set out what the community expects from the council and also provide for "remedial procedures in case of non-compliance by councillors and council staff. The Charter therefore becomes part of the municipality’s performance strategy." In the case of one district, community participation takes place through 26 community health committees and also through catchment management agencies. Another district explained that it had regular meetings with farmers associations, community organizations, churches, schools and NGOs. "These meetings are very informal to encourage participation. Care is taken about language, gender, cultural and literacy issues. Some meetings are held in the evenings to accommodate farm workers. Visits to schools and welfare organizations take place mainly during the first part of the day", notes a report. One executive mayor said, "People come to me with all their problems. Domestic problems too. The other day some women came to see me. They said they wanted R5 million to set up a company. (They) don’t understand that we are a municipality, not a bank. But I have to see them ….".
"Stakeholders participate widely in the affairs of the municipality," notes a report on another municipality. "In terms of stakeholder participation it is important to balance urban and rural input, as rural communities feel neglected." One metro said that it is considering innovative approaches to encouraging community participation including the use of community theatre. Some municipalities have established formal structures to foster community participation made up of councillors or both councillors and officials. For example, one municipality spoke of a Public Participation Unit in the mayor’s office, with two full-time staff members. Of course, some district municipalities pointed to the specific challenges they have to face in ensuring community participation. These include the fact that district municipalities do not have ward councillors and ward committees, and only 40% of their councillors are directly elected. Moreover, the district councillors who represent their local municipalities are most often engaged with communities in their capacity as councillors of the local municipalities.
Most municipalities visited have established ward committees. They vary considerably in quality and levels of activity across municipalities and, sometimes, within a municipality. The vast majority of municipalities with ward committees have sought to provide for a diversity of civil society organizations to be represented in the committees. There certainly does not seem to be any significant direct political party representation in ward committees. In many cases, the "sectors" to be represented in the ward committee are first identified; then representatives from these sectors are either elected by people at a public meeting, or the sectors nominate their representatives, and these are endorsed by the meeting. Where there are more than 10 sectors, a clustering usually takes place to arrive at 10. Among the sectors identified are churches, youth, women, business, taxi associations, community policing forums, school governing bodies, health care groups, NGOs, and agricultural organisations.
Some ward committees have been divided into geographical areas and have both sectoral and geographical representation. In one municipality, community development forums, comprising all the organisations in a geographical area within a ward, were first formed, and then each forum proposed one representative to serve on the ward committee in a way that ensured diversity of representation. Women seem to constitute a significant percentage of the ward committees, and they were certainly well represented at the ward committee meetings we attended during the study tour. Some municipalities have a policy that at least 50% of the ward committee members have to be women. Traditional leaders serve on or are active in other ways in some ward committees. A significant number of the ward committee members, it seems, are unemployed. Some ward committees have set up portfolio committees comprising a ward committee member as chairperson and residents in the ward as members.
Many ward committees have begun their second year. In the first year, it seems, many just limped along, but more recently, with more support from municipalities and NGOs, they have begun to be more effective. The averagely functioning ward committee, it seems, meets once a month. Some municipalities require ward committees to also have public meetings at least once a quarter. Overall, there is no clear delegation of powers and functions to ward committees, and they usually take up any municipal issues that affect the ward. In some municipalities, ward committees have discussed the draft budgets of municipalities. In one municipality that has allocated substantial resources and time to ward committees, the wards determined ward development plans. An MEC suggested that bigger municipalities need to undergo a measure of administrative decentralisation, and appropriate powers and functions need to be allocated to ward committees so that they can monitor the functioning of these administrative units. Ward committees also sometimes take up broader non-municipal issues; for example in one ward committee, they have been mobilising around the child support grant. In one province, they have started a pilot scheme in a municipality by using containers as ward committee offices, in which they have installed telephone, fax and computer facilities. These offices, interestingly, are also being used as sub-offices for the payment of municipal rates and service charges.
Clearly, some of the ward committees are functioning very well. "I can’t sleep. People are always coming to my house (with their problems)", said one ward committee secretary. Certainly, there was a lot of enthusiasm for ward committees at the ward committee meetings we attended during the study tour.
The extent of support given by the municipalities to ward committees differs greatly, of course. One municipality, through securing donor funding, has allocated R50 000 to each of its ward committees.
Another has allocated R12 000 per ward committee from the municipal budget. Several other municipalities have allocated different sums of money. Almost all municipalities have provided some or other degree of administrative support, and, in many cases, the transport costs of ward committee members are met. Some municipalities have allocated an administrator for each ward committee, others have clustered wards and allocated one administrator to each cluster. Most municipalities make available at least minimal stationary and typing services and venues for meetings. Many municipalities, some in cooperation with NGOs and donor agencies, have begun capacity-building programmes for ward committee members.
Obviously, for the ward committee system to be effective, many challenges have to be addressed. When the legislation on ward committees was passed, there was not a sense of how big some wards would be. According to some municipalities, they have wards in the rural areas that stretch for 50 or 70kms. Several municipalities said that their biggest wards have a radius of 10 to 15kms. Clearly, to have a 10-person ward committee in these circumstances is not viable. Many municipalities, indeed, said that the legislation needs to be amended to accommodate the circumstances of these wards. A few municipalities also pointed out that it is difficult to establish ward committees in wards that have very diverse communities.
One municipality referred to a ward that includes quite disparate communities: an affluent, mainly white, community; an established township; and two informal settlements. Many municipalities also feel that a one-year term for a ward committee is not reasonable. They said that ward committee members just begin to settle in, in their first year in office. Also they acquire experience and capacity in their first year which can be lost if they are not re-elected at annual general meetings. A councillor spoke of the "brain drain of constant elections" and of "wasted capacity-building". Municipalities feel that two-year terms would be better (but this would have to take into account that municipal councils have a five-year term and the term of a ward committee lapses at the end of the term of a council – so the third term of a ward committee would have to be one year only).
Many municipalities just do not have the resources to give effective support to ward committees. "The council promised us transport money. But they say you can only claim when you travel outside the ward…. But the ward is so big. It costs us to travel (within the ward)", said a ward committee member. Another ward committee member said that the ward councillor transported members to and from meetings and is not being reimbursed for his costs. One municipality suggested that DPLG should set up a National Ward Committee Development Fund from which municipalities should be able to draw to fund their ward committee systems.
Some ward committee members feel that ward committees should be given more power. The concern was expressed by several ward committee members that if residents are going to take them seriously, ward committees have to be able to deliver on issues. One ward committee member said that the council agendas should be given to ward committees beforehand so that they could offer their views to the ward councillor on the issues on the agenda. Clearly, in some ward committees there are tensions between the ward councillor and other members. In some cases, councillors tried to control who gets elected to the ward committee. However, most ward committees do not seem to have significant tensions between the councillor and other committee members. In one ward committee meeting we attended, it was suggested that there should be a code of conduct for ward committee members. Some municipalities feel that a national ward committee development strategy should be determined.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) While the considerable potential of community participation in the new local government system is far from developed, reasonable progress has taken place over the past 2 years. There is a need, however, to ensure greater and more consistent community participation.
ii) All metro and local municipalities should have ward committees. In some municipalities they will take longer to be established – but so be it. Those provinces which have not provided for wards in municipalities would do well to reconsider their decision. Where municipalities have not been established as ward types in terms of the legislation, it might still be possible to establish ward committee-type structures, with a different name perhaps, without transgressing the law – and if so, they are encouraged to do so.
iii) DPLG and other stakeholders, including SALGA, should do more to assist municipalities to advance community participation and the ward committee system more specifically. DPLG intends to organise a national conference on ward committees this year. This is most welcome.
iv) Municipalities must seek to allocate more resources to community participation and ward committees more specifically. Capacity-building programmes are vital in this regard. Communication strategies are also important.
v) Some consideration should be given to a National Fund for Ward Committees to assist in particular the weaker municipalities to develop an effective ward committee system.
vi) In general, ward committees should comprise 10 people. However, in certain circumstances, such as those referred to in section 8.9 above, ward committees should be allowed to be larger. Serious consideration should be given to effecting appropriate amendments to section 73 (2)b of the Municipal Structures Act.
vii) Those who hold that ward committees should serve two-year terms have a fairly strong case, notwithstanding the qualifications observed in section 8.9 above.
viii) In reviewing ward boundaries, the Municipal Demarcation Board should consider some of the issues raised in this section.
9. Delivery of Services
Ultimately, the test of the new system of local government will be the extent to which it leads to substantial improvements in service delivery and development. While there is significant progress in this regard, especially on the delivery of free basic services, particularly water, there is still a long way to go before municipalities effectively fulfill their responsibilities – and they have to be assisted far more by national and provincial government and other stakeholders to do this.
Almost all municipalities visited said that they are providing free basic services in some or other form. Most are providing these services to all residents, but some are offering them only to those registered as indigents. There has been substantial progress in providing 6kl of free water to households. Several municipalities explained that this service was not reaching their more rural areas because of difficulties of capacity, logistics, infrastructure and funding. All are aware of the urgent need to get this service to the rural areas – and are asking for help in this regard. Interestingly, one municipality observed that it is cheaper to provide free basic services than to bill its rural areas. A minority of municipalities is offering free basic electricity services, usually to indigents. Some municipalities are part of the national pilot scheme to deliver free electricity of 50 kw. Others have gone ahead to provide free electricity on their own initiative. They offer 20kw or 30kw per household per month. Almost every municipality that is offering free basic electricity pointed out that where ESKOM is providing services in parts of their area, it was refusing to provide a free service. This was causing tensions in some municipalities between those who are receiving the free service and those who are not. A few municipalities are also providing other free basic services, including sanitation, sewage and refuse removal, usually for indigents only.
Almost all municipalities said that the "equitable share" allocations to them are far from adequate to provide free basic services. Several said that the formula for the allocations is based on the 1996 Census statistics which are out of date. As pointed out in section 6.3 above, some municipalities feel that the provision of free basic services has served to discourage residents from paying for services generally. They feel that the introduction of free basic services was too sudden and should have been preceded by a massive education campaign. Some municipalities pointed to the difficulties of providing free basic services to farm workers on privately-owned farms. There are also huge legal challenges about delivering free basic services to informal settlements established on private property. Municipalities also expressed concern about being in the dark about what the impact of the restructuring of the electricity industry will be on their provision of free basic electricity. Municipalities also referred to challenges of capacity, logistics, infrastructure and funding that have to be overcome in order to effect a full roll-out of free basic water and electricity services.
Many municipalities also expressed concern about having to take over water projects and schemes from DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) as from 1 July this year. While many of them saw the long-term advantages and necessity of this, they feel that at the moment they are not ready to take over the responsibility. They pointed to the many other challenges they currently have to address, weaknesses of capacity, and their fears about having to bear the financial costs of running the projects, notwithstanding the support they will get from DWAF for the next 3 years. Some of the projects and schemes are in a state of disrepair. Others will also be costly to maintain. There are also concerns about the salaries for the new staff to be taken over. "DWAF said take 308 water staff with the handover of (the) water project. Yet I have 308 staff now" said a municipal manager.
An executive mayor said: "Transfer of staff is going to be impossible. DWAF says ‘we give your salaries for 2 years’. Then phase it out. How (are) we going to pay their salaries then?" Another official said, "DWAF wants to avoid retrenchments and clash with the unions. So they are dumping this staff on the municipalities. We will have to face the music". A councillor said, "We are still battling to pay the R293 (towns) staff. We can’t afford to pay the salaries (now that) the grant is over". One municipality suggested that the grant to subsidize the staff of the former R293 towns should be extended to 20 years, implying that the same should apply to the DWAF staff to be taken over by municipalities. One district municipality said that it has had to take over a R250 million high-tech water plant from a water board and is unable to afford and manage it. Interestingly, it is not only the small and weaker municipalities that expressed reservations about taking over DWAF projects at present, but also some of the stronger municipalities. One metro said that it has had to increase water tariffs to avoid serious strains in its budget since taking over rural water schemes from a water board.
For the most part, municipalities have been attending to the challenges of providing free basic services. Most of them do not seem to have undertaken any further major restructuring of their services and have only more recently begun considering this. It seems to be mostly the larger municipalities that have undertaken significant restructuring. The favoured option seems to be public-private partnerships (PPPs) for what are identified as "core" services and other forms, including privatization, for what are seen as "non-core". "We’re not looking at privatization of core services – not in our lifetime", said an executive mayor. "But the game reserve is costing us R1 million (a year). Chopping it off. The land-fill site will be outsourced." An official of another municipality said "We have a PPP for storm water and outsourced (the maintenance of) our roads". Another municipality has outsourced its cleaning services to groups of unemployed people. Another is considering privatizing its public holiday resorts. A metro is considering outsourcing its fleet management. There are current or proposed PPPs on water, fire-services, and regional landfill sites, among others. There are also some existing and proposed public-public partnerships.
A significant number of municipalities said that they are aware of the MIIU (Municipal Infrastructure Investment Unit). One metro, for example, said that they are currently working with the MIIU on restructuring their services in respect of abattoirs, markets, power-stations, refuse collection, cleaning, and recycling of material.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Significant progress has been achieved in the provision of
free basic services, especially water. While appreciating the formidable challenges, it is vital that free basic water reaches people in the rural areas who are not getting it, and who are often those most in need of it. The process of doing this has to be speeded up. DPLG, DWAF, SALGA and other stakeholders need to work closely with municipalities not providing free basic water or offering it only to the indigent to ensure that they meet the national standards as soon as possible. The decision to provide for the subsidization of free basic electricity by ESKOM through increased "equitable share" allocations is to be welcomed, as is the decision to begin a national roll-out of free basic electricity as from 1 July this year. However, there needs to be greater clarity on how the restructuring of the electricity industry is going to impact on this. Those municipalities providing additional free basic services such as sanitation, sewage and refuse removal in whatever form and degree are to be commended.
ii) In terms of the Constitution and legislation, the delivery of water is a fundamental responsibility of local government. It is correct therefore that the water projects currently being run by DWAF should be handed over to municipalities. Municipalities will over time benefit from this. But the handing over of this responsibility fully to municipalities has to be phased in sensitively and sensibly. As explained in sections 9.4 and 9.5 above municipalities have reservations about this, and it may well be that if this handing over of full responsibility is not dealt with appropriately, it would seriously undermine the free basic water programme. DWAF also has to consider refurbishing water schemes that are in a poor state before handing them over to the municipalities. It is vitally important that DPLG, DWAF, SALGA and other stakeholders work very closely with municipalities in addressing the many challenges that have to be addressed in this regard.
iii) In some municipalities, the bucket and pit systems of sanitation are still being used. These need to be phased out as soon as possible.
iv) The legal impediments to providing free basic services to farm workers on private farms need to be addressed.
v) The significant increases in the "equitable share" over the next 3 years announced in this year’s national budget are obviously to b e welcomed. However, over time, the "equitable share" will have to be increased significantly more if municipalities are to effectively and comprehensively deliver services to the people.
10. Performance Management
While most municipalities have elements of a performance management system (PMS) in place, very few have a fully-fledged performance management system as required in terms of the legislation. One municipality said that its PMS is "85% functional" and another said its PMS "has just been completed". In one province at least, municipalities have been identified as "pilots" for the implementation of a PMS.
Several municipalities pointed to elements of a PMS that are in operation. These include performance targets and indicators in IDPs; report-back meetings with communities; regular reports to council, provincial and national government; accounting to the Auditor General; and performance contracts with senior management. Sometimes, municipalities equated these elements with a complete PMS. Sometimes they referred simply to the national key performance indictors promulgated by the Minister – though it is difficult to tell to what extent they observe these.
Several municipalities reported that they have been approached by consultants offering to prepare their PMS for them. Some have engaged the services of consultants, but others, it seems, are cautious either because they do not see the immediate need for a PMS or because of their less than satisfactory experience with consultants in determining their IDPs.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) While developing a PMS is very important, municipalities
should not rush into finalising theirs. DPLG expects municipalities to meet a 1 July deadline. However, municipalities need more time and certainly more support from DPLG, SALGA and other stakeholders to develop effective performance management systems.
ii) Consultants can, of course, be very valuable, but they have to be deployed adroitly.
iii) Once a performance management system has been established by a municipality, consideration has to be given, within the legal constraints, to reviewing the performance contract signed with the municipal manager, as already proposed in section 2.5 (iii) above.
11. Capacity-Building and Training
In almost all municipalities visited, there are councillors and officials who have participated in capacity-building and training courses and programmes. Some of the participants are positive about these courses and programmes, while others feel that they are not useful. Several municipalities said the courses and programmes tend to overlap, and some said that they feel that there should be greater co-ordination of the various service providers. One municipality suggested that the courses and programmes are too generic and need to be tailored more to the specific needs of different municipalities. Some municipalities have also encouraged councillors and officials to undertake academic courses on local government issues by offering study loans. One municipality said that it has established its own training institute. At least one district has set up a capacity-building and training programme for itself as well as the local municipalities related to it.
Until specifically asked about the Local Government and Water SETA (Sector Education and Training Authority), very few municipalities referred to it as being relevant to capacity-building and training programmes. It emerged clearly from follow-up questions that the SETA is not performing its functions in any effective way. Certainly, very few municipalities spoke positively about the SETA.
More recently, many municipalities, as suggested in section 8.8 above, have begun modest capacity-building programmes for ward committees.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Effective capacity-building and training programmes are indispensable to the successful implementation of the new system of local government and to significant advances in delivery, development and democracy. The importance of this cannot be emphasized enough. DPLG, SALGA, the SETA and other stakeholders have to do far more in regard to capacity building and training.
ii) Clearly, the capacity-building and training programmes and courses are not proving to be effective. There has to be a concerted review of the capacity-building and training programmes undertaken so far to establish how useful they are and to develop new and innovative courses and programmes whose outcomes are more easy to evaluate. In short, not only must more be done, but new and more effective ways of doing things have to be developed.
iii) There is an urgent need for greater and more effective co-ordination and co-operation, within a commonly accepted framework, of all the local government capacity-building and training role-players.
iv) Municipalities should develop in-house training programmes and courses and consistently focus on capacity building.
v) There is an urgent need to address the failure of the Local Government and Water SETA to perform its role effectively.
12. Metros
The Portfolio Committee did not explore sufficiently issues around the specific role of metros and the specific challenges that they confront. The sense the majority in the Portfolio Committee gets is that they are performing well in the context of huge challenges.
We had a meeting with 3 sub-councils in a metro. The sub-councils are relatively newly-established and are still finding their identities. There are 16 sub-councils in the metro of over 2.5 million people. We were told that the boundaries are currently being reviewed to make for possibly 20. Among the responsibilities identified for sub-councils are to make recommendations to the metro council on sub-council area issues, such as applications for zoning; encourage community participation in municipal affairs; contribute towards capacity-building of community organisations; and monitor service delivery and hold municipal departments accountable to local residents. The sub-councils are also meant to try to align the sub-council area needs with the IDP of the municipality. However, sub-councils do not have decision-making powers. Councillors serving in the sub-councils would like powers and functions to be delegated to them, and are seeking to negotiate this with the metro council. They also feel that they cannot effectively fulfill their responsibilities without finances and resources.
However, there are some councillors who feel that sub-councils could become mini-metro councils and could fragment the municipality and so are indisposed to seeing sub-councils becoming more powerful. The municipality is likely to also establish ward committees anyway, and this might mean some changes to the responsibilities of the sub-councils and the way in which they function. "Sub-councils may become intermediaries between the ward committees and the council", notes a report. However, these are early days yet, and it will be interesting to see how the sub-councils develop.
A metro that decided against sub-councils for now explained that it had opted to establish 11 regions instead to address administrative and governance issues and facilitate community participation.
All the "secondary cities" visited said that they feel that they should be metros. "We are performing metro functions without being given the status", said an official. A councillor from a "secondary city" suggested that it is unfair to pay them less than metro councillors. All of the "secondary cities" seem to be hoping to be metro municipalities by the 2005 local government elections. Some of them refer to themselves as "emerging metros" or "aspirant metros".
The metros and "secondary cities" said that they find the "Cities Network" valuable.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) It will be of value to undertake a specific study tour of metro
municipalities next year to get a better sense of their specific role and challenges, and how they are performing.
ii) All metro municipalities should, over time, give consideration to establishing sub-councils. This should be done in ways that avoid a municipality becoming fragmented and with due recognition of the value of ward committees. Should metros decide to go for sub-councils they can give effect to this only if the MEC has provided for a sub-council type in terms of the legislation.
iii) Where metros decide against sub-councils, they should consider establishing regions along the lines referred to in 12.4 above.
iv) There is a need for the Ministry, DPLG, Municipal Demarcation Board, SALGA and other stakeholders to arrive at some consensus on what the future prospects of the "secondary cities" are of becoming metros. The relevant municipalities should be consulted in this process. Perhaps the "Cities Network" can also play a role in this regard.
v) The Portfolio Committee should monitor the work of the "Cities Network" as appropriate.
13. Role of Traditional Leaders
The role of traditional leaders in local government is, of course, subject to dispute and is being reviewed at the moment. In some municipalities, particularly in one province, traditional leaders do not participate in council meetings or other municipal activities. In other municipalities, traditional leaders are active in council meetings and other municipal affairs. In yet other municipalities, while traditional leaders do not officially participate in council meetings, they are informally active in municipal affairs. It is difficult to tell how representative the municipalities we visited are of the participation of traditional leaders in municipalities in the country as a whole, but in a significant majority of the municipalities in our study tour, traditional leaders are either officially or informally active in municipal affairs.
In one municipality, traditional leaders have signed a memorandum of understanding with the council – and work closely with councillors and officials on development issues. The traditional leaders in that municipality have been raising R10 per household per month, for the municipality, for development projects. R600 000 was raised in the previous year. "There are two areas under our jurisdiction with traditional leaders. The municipality is working closely with them. Council meetings have been held in their areas, and traditional leaders have been assisted with the provision of offices, " notes a report on a municipality. A report on another municipality notes, "Participation of traditional leaders in the municipality is good. Traditional authorities are involved in all projects that take place in their areas. There is a constant attempt to better manage and improve on the relationship between traditional leadership and Council, and the need for more regular participation of traditional authorities must be looked at. Several interactive meetings have been held with traditional leadership. Outstanding legislation for participation of traditional leaders is delaying delivery, and slowing full participation in Council".
In the case of yet another municipality a report notes, "Three areas of traditional leadership exist. All three leaders are participating in Council and all its proceedings. Regular meetings are held with the regional authority on traditional leadership. Traditional leaders should participate more actively in municipalities with a clear understanding of distinctive roles. This might enhance the understanding of the role of local government and strengthen partnerships and co-operative governance as enshrined in the Constitution. However, the relationship with traditional leaders still presents some challenges, e.g. in terms of land issues. In the past the expropriation of land under traditional leadership control for development has caused some friction". Yet another report notes, "In the areas where traditional authorities are present, the municipalities indicated good relationships with these authorities and their participation is viewed positively. However, in some cases the participation of traditional leaders is still limited to meetings on an ad hoc basis, and they may still feel left out in the whole process of municipal business. As a means to ensure a close working relationship with traditional leaders, the municipality has assisted traditional leaders with the provision of offices and Council meetings have also been held in their areas. The question of the remuneration of traditional leaders needs to be sorted out. If this can be done, it may also resolve other matters such as active participation by them."
In another case, a municipality reported that 3 traditional leaders used to participate in council meetings "Suddenly they withdrew in July (2002)," said the mayor. " (They) said Contralesa said (they) must withdraw. One traditional leader defied and is still active. But the others are still active, informally. But they are causing us problems. They must appear before their communities and say why they’re opposed to projects". Other municipalities also pointed to tensions between councillors and traditional leaders. One municipality said that the traditional authorities are in competition with the municipalities. "They are getting dues from the people that should be paid to us. When is this going to stop? Can we deal with this through by-laws?", said a mayor. Another mayor said "We must sort out their pay. Then problems will end". In one metro 15 traditional leaders are entitled to participate in council meetings. While none do so officially, some of them participate informally.
Several municipalities said that it was important to finalise policies on the role of traditional leaders in local government. A traditional leader who is active in a municipal council expressed his frustrations at what he saw as the failure to address the concerns of traditional leaders "Our power is going away. Don’t know what is going to happen to us. We are ordered not to collect funds, not to do anything". Some municipalities also raised their concern about the lack of a role for municipalities in land administration structures provided for in the draft Communal Land Rights Bill.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) If formal and informal participation in municipal activities is put together, traditional leaders are more active in municipal affairs than is made out in the public discourse.
ii) Traditional leaders can play an extremely important role in municipalities. This potential is not being realized. Every effort needs to be made to realise this. The issues in dispute around the role of traditional leaders in local government need to be addressed urgently. Obviously, they cannot be resolved amicably overnight and will have to be constantly addressed over time. But clearly the pace at which they are being dealt with needs to be speeded up.
iii) The White Paper and national framework legislation on the role of traditional leaders and institutions to be introduced to parliament this year are to be welcomed.
iv) The implications of the pending Communal Land Rights Bill for local government, and in particular the role of municipalities in land administration structures in the bill needs to be addressed. The Ministry and DPLG and SALGA need to discuss this with the Ministry and Department of Land Affairs.
14. Relations with Provincial Government
Key aspects of the relationship between local and provincial government have already been dealt with in different sections of this report, especially the sections on IDPs, division of powers and functions, and local government finances. This section will, therefore, be necessarily brief.
Obviously, relations between municipalities and provincial governments vary. When a formal question was put to municipalities about their relations with provincial government, most replies ranged from "fair" to "very good". But when other more direct and probing questions were put to them, it emerged that they were referring to relations with the provincial department of local government and not the provincial government as a whole. Several municipalities said that while they get useful support from the provincial department of local government, the other provincial departments are not co-operative. Certainly the most pervasive view on provincial government expressed by municipalities is that they do not co-operate on IDPs and do not pay money owed to municipalities for rates and services or agency functions fulfilled by municipalities. This has been covered in sections 5 and 6 above and will not be repeated here. Some municipalities suggested that provinces or the provincial department of local government do not have the capacity to support local government. "We have more skills than the provincial department of local government, so we can help them (instead)", said the executive mayor of a local municipality. "They have serious capacity problems", said another mayor in respect of the provincial department of local government. Some municipalities pointed to the provincial departments of local governments’ lack of funds to seriously support municipalities. Several municipalities referred to the poor communication between provincial departments in general and municipalities. A few municipalities even questioned the need for provincial government.
Provincial departments of local government pointed to the lack of funds, resources and personnel to effectively support local government. They also said, as pointed out in section 5.10 above, national departments, including DPLG, dealt directly with municipalities, often by-passing the provincial departments. One MEC pointed to the "diminishing" power of provinces to deal with local government by referring to the decision to allocate CMIP funds to district municipalities, instead of to the provincial government, as was the case previously. "The role of provincial government is not only to monitor and deal with problems after they have happened. Provincial governments need to be proactive. For this reason, it is important for provincial government to be involved (when national departments deal with municipalities)". One MEC suggested that it might help to not change MECs for local government so often. He is the fifth MEC for local government in his province since 1994. "The department staff gets demoralized each time there’s a change, and they have to change their way of doing things…." The MEC also said "We have to convince the province that local government is not just a line function department. It is a sphere of delivery for the whole province".
As pointed out in section 5.10 above, provinces have set up intergovernmental forums that bring them together with municipalities. There are forums that bring together mayors and others that bring together municipal managers and some that bring together both. They vary in the regularity of their meetings, the scope of issues discussed, and their effectiveness – but, overall, they seem to be of value.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Provincial governments have a crucial role to play in supporting the consolidation of the new system of local government. Despite their obvious limitations of funds, resources and personnel, provincial departments of local government and provincial governments as a whole can do more to assist municipalities without unduly interfering.
ii) National departments should co-operate more with provincial departments, particularly the provincial departments of local government, when they deal directly with municipalities.
iii) Every pressure has to be put on provincial departments to co-operate with municipalities on IDPs. This might well have to include appropriate legislative measures. As suggested in 5.12 (viii) above, this could also be addressed in the pending Intergovernmental Relations Bill.
iv) It is totally unacceptable that provincial departments do not pay the money they owe to municipalities for service fees, rates and agency functions. The Ministry and DPLG, National Treasury and provincial departments of finance have to address this matter urgently.
15. SALGA
The reference to SALGA in this report is both to the national structure and its provincial affiliates. In response to a formal question about relations with SALGA, the majority of municipalities were quite positive about SALGA. But when pursued further, it emerged that municipalities feel that SALGA should serve them more effectively than it currently does. It almost seems though as if municipalities do not expect SALGA to do so. Often when they refer to challenges confronting them, they do not readily identify SALGA as an important and powerful roleplayer in supporting them to contend with these challenges. The influence that SALGA wields over the municipalities is not easy to assess.
It seems as if councillors and officials who are active in SALGA do not give adequate report-backs on their activities, and it may also be that they do not get full mandates from their councils. Certainly, in several municipalities, councillors, especially from the opposition parties, expressed surprise to learn of the extent of involvement of their senior leaders in SALGA activities. "It’s news to me that the mayor represents us in SALGA", said a councillor from an opposition party. "He’s never asked the council for a mandate or given a report."
Most municipalities have a rather general awareness of the proposed restructuring of SALGA, and do not know the full details. To the extent that they have this broad general understanding, most municipalities support the proposed restructuring. However, the majority of them are concerned that they will have to pay much higher levies to SALGA. Some municipalities feel that the national government should allocate more money to SALGA and relieve municipalities of the burden of funding SALGA. Some feel that even the current levies are too high. Some municipalities said that the restructuring should be phased in and take into account the concerns of the smaller municipalities.
A provincial department of local government pointed out that SALGA’s provincial affiliate is allowed to participate in the legislature’s portfolio committee meetings, but has rarely, if ever, made use of the opportunity.
The Portfolio Committee believes that:
i) Despite its limitations of funds, resources and personnel, SALGA has to be far more effective than it currently is. It also has to develop a stronger identity for itself among municipalities.
ii) SALGA has to communicate more effectively with the municipalities. It also needs to ensure that municipalities are more informed about and more involved in the restructuring it is considering. The concerns of many municipalities that the restructuring will result in them paying higher levies needs to be addressed. However, outstanding dues owed to SALGA that have already been agreed to by municipalities should be paid to SALGA as soon as possible.
iii) SALGA’s provincial affiliates should take an active part in provincial legislature committees, and SALGA should strengthen its participation in the national legislature.
iv) Ultimately, SALGA is what the municipalities make it, and so they have to be more actively involved in SALGA and ensure that they do so on the basis of constant mandates and regular report-backs.
16. Other Key Issues
16.1 Gender: Although gender issues in local government were pursued by the Portfolio Committee, it was not done specifically and rigorously enough. This constitutes a weakness of the study tour, and needs to be pursued in the other work of the Portfolio Committee, as is, in fact, often done. We came across only one woman municipal manager and a woman acting as municipal manager. Women are not represented sufficiently in other senior management posts either. A woman senior official, pointing to the lack of capacity-building specifically for women officials, said: "We need to be supported in administration.
Not just appointed. Not to be put up just for show. " In the ranks of councillors too, women are not adequately represented. A report on a district municipality visited notes: "Women councillors felt that government has not fully assisted them by targeted training and as a result feel incapacitated and/or thrown in at the deep end. There is not a single woman in senior management of the municipality, something that is against employment equity. It was remarked that plans are in place to address this situation." Clearly, municipalities have to do far more to ensure gender equity. Apart from the many obvious reasons to do this, the pursuit of gender equity is required in terms of the new local government legislation.
Integrated Sustainable Rural Development and Urban Renewal Programmes: The Portfolio Committee visited 3 urban nodes and had discussions about a fourth. Unfortunately, we did not visit any rural nodes. It is difficult to draw any generalizations from our limited experience. It seems that the urban nodes we visited got off to a slow start, but more recently there has been significant progress. In 2 of the nodes, in fact, developments certainly seems to be impressive. In one of them, ward committees seems to be very active in and enthusiastic about the progress achieved. While in 3 of the nodes the projects are being linked to the IDPs, in the fourth this is not being done yet. In the case of the latter, we were told that there is very little progress and that community organisations in the node are barely aware that it has been identified as a node. In the case of the other 3, much was made of the labour-intensive nature of the projects and the use of local labour to carry out the projects. Community participation was stressed. There was also an appeal for more co-operation from provincial and national government to provide greater clarity on future developments and to ensure faster progress. The Integrated Sustainable Rural Development and Urban Renewal Programmes are of major importance. All 3 spheres of government have to work more effectively together. To get a better sense of the challenges and the progress, it would be useful for the Portfolio Committee to undertake a specific study tour of the urban and rural nodes next year.
Cross Boundary Municipalities: All who commented on cross-boundary municipalities (CBMs) said that they are not viable, and welcomed the government’s decision to consider scrapping them and changing the provincial boundaries after due consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. Some of the municipalities and other stakeholders affected are not aware of this decision of the government, implying that the consultation process needs to be widened.
LED: Most municipalities seem to be aware of the importance of LED (Local Economic Development). This issue was not pursued by the Portfolio Committee thoroughly enough, but the sense we have is that only some municipalities are pursuing LED vigorously enough. One official suggested that "LED (in many municipalities) is too project-based, and is not dealing with the fundamentals of the economy. It is seen more as poverty-alleviation." LED has to relate to municipal IDPs and to the economic and financial plans, strategies, programmes and projects of the provincial governments. Municipalities certainly need more support to implement LED.
Corruption: An issue that we could not properly pursue is the levels of corruption. However, from what emerged implicitly in the formal exchanges and from what was drawn through informal exchanges, it seems to us that corruption is an issue that has to be challenged more vigorously – not just by municipalities, other state structures, and communities, but also party political structures. An MEC pointed out that as the legislation currently stands, a municipality is not obliged to implement recommendations of an MEC on any investigation undertaken of non-performance, maladministration, fraud, corruption or any other serious malpractice in a municipality. Consideration has to be given to amending section 106 of the Municipal Systems Act to rectify this. DPLG has decided to establish an Anti-Corruption Unit to monitor levels of corruption in municipalities. This is to be welcomed.
Municipalities Requiring Special Attention: A few municipalities are finding it extremely difficult to function because of internal political party tensions, personality conflicts, delicate political party balances in "hung" councils, specific capacity problems, or a combination of some of these factors. They require the special attention of MECs for local government, provincial departments of local government, DPLG and the political parties concerned. The Portfolio Committee will raise this further with the relevant roleplayers.
17. An Overview
This is not a summary of the report, but an overview of the key overall themes that emerge from it. To make better sense of this section, it is necessary to consider the whole report.
What emerges clearly from the study tour is that the core principles, values and features of the new local government system are sound. It is vital though that there is greater understanding among councillors, officials and communities, and other stakeholders, of the need for and value of the two-tier system of local government, made up of district and local municipalities. As part of this, the role of district municipalities, and the division of powers and functions between local and district municipalities needs to be understood more. Of course, there are aspects of the legislation, none fundamental, which need to be amended, as has been suggested in various sections of this report. Fundamentally though, the challenges of the new system are not around conceptual and policy issues, but implementation issues. In short, it is about plans, strategies, programmes, funding and other resources, quality of leadership, capacity-building and training, and the practical co-operation of all three spheres of government.
The DA’s view, however, is that the two-tier system is fundamentally flawed, and that municipalities would be much better able to deal with their challenges if district municipalities are phased out as soon as possible.
There have been constant ongoing major changes in local government for the past 10 years or so. In many municipalities a significant number of new councillors have come in with the December 2000 elections. Officials are constantly changing. Overall, there is a certain measure of "transformation fatigue". However, with the advances in the restructuring process since 2000, and with the new allocations of powers and functions of district and local municipalities to be implemented from 1 July, a measure of stability has to be introduced. Of course, given the magnitude of the local government transformation, there will be ongoing change – but precisely to ensure the success of this, a measure of stability is necessary.
Most municipalities have a core of councillors and officials who have a very good grasp of the challenges confronting local government and are committed to addressing them. This is very encouraging – and augurs well. But the gap between this advanced "elite" and the average councillor and official is great, and needs to be reduced through capacity-building and training, and other means. There is also an urgent overall need to improve management and practical implementation skills of councillors and officials generally so that they make better use of limited resources and more effectively convert plans, programmes and strategies into concrete delivery and development.
The new municipalities have progressed reasonably well in merging several different municipalities that existed before the December 2000 elections. Single administrations and budgets have been effected with hardly any disruption of service delivery. Overall, however, the principles, values and structures of the new administrations need to be more developmental. In general, there also needs to be a more co-operative and productive relationship between councillors and officials.
Relations between district and local councils vary from cordial and co-operative to conflictual and unproductive. Clearly there needs to be much more work done to effectively implement the two-tier system of local government. National and provincial government, SALGA and other roleplayers will have to offer considerable support to municipalities to effectively implement the new division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities to come into effect on 1 July this year. This new division refers to the Minister’s "authorisations" of the 4 national functions of water, sanitation, municipal health and electricity, and the MECs’ "adjustments " of the remaining powers and functions based on assessments of capacity done by the Municipal Demarcation Board. The financial implications of the new allocations need to be clarified.
Municipalities are aware that IDPs generally may not be of the required quality. This awareness is important. Even more important, is that the notion of development planning has been internalised by municipalities. However, provincial and national departments tend to ignore IDPS in their plans, programmes, strategies and projects. If they have reservations about the quality of IDPs, they must contribute to improving them. Provinces need to consider new provincial development plans that are shaped by and also shape municipal IDPs. What is absolutely clear, is that there has to be more integrated government. For significant improvements in service delivery and development, there has to be more co-operation and co-ordination across the 3 spheres of government. The need for more integrated government is one of the most salient messages to emerge from the study tour.
Financial issues, certainly, constitute the biggest challenge confronting municipalities. Municipalities have to make far more effective and productive use of limited resources. They also have to do far more to collect the debt owed to them by those who can afford to pay and to raise more of their own revenue. A significant part of the arrears is owed by the private sector and government departments. National and provincial government have to assist municipalities to recover monies owed to them by government departments for service charges, rates and agency functions. Of course, the answer to the financial difficulties being experienced by municipalities does not lie in flinging more money at them. It is clear, however, that there is a need for a new local government financial system that is appropriate for the new developmental model of local government. The review being undertaken of the local government financial system needs to be speeded up.
While the case for increases in the remuneration of some councillors is not sound, in the case of others it certainly is. There needs to be a much more open and informed debate about what the possibilities and limits are of any increases. Municipalities that have a very weak rates base have a strong case for more financial support from the national government to meet the costs of councillors’ remuneration. But, over time, careful consideration has to be given, within budgetary constraints, to the national fiscus meeting a significant part of the cost of councillors’ remuneration. The review being undertaken of councillors’ remuneration needs to address these and other issues.
The Minister’s guidelines on the remuneration of municipal managers is welcomed. If it is constitutionally possible, the Minister should issue regulations instead, and if necessary, legislative amendments should be effected to allow him to do so.
While the considerable potential of community participation in the new local government system is far from developed, reasonable progress has taken place over the past two years. There is a need, however, to ensure greater and more consistent community participation. Ward Committees have a vital role to play in this regard.
Significant progress has been achieved in the provision of free basic services, especially water. It is vital, however, that a much higher proportion of people living in rural areas, who are often those most in need, receive the free basic water service. DWAF’s handing over of full responsibility for the delivery of water to municipalities must be phased in sensitively and sensibly, taking into account financial, capacity and other considerations as they affect each municipality. Failure to do so could seriously undermine the free basic water programme.
There is an urgent need to review capacity-building and training programmes for both councillors and officials and to drastically improve them. Greater and more effective co-operation and co-ordination among the relevant service providers is crucially necessary.
If formal and informal participation in municipal activities is put together, traditional leaders are more active in municipal affairs than is made out in the public discourse. Traditional leaders can play an extremely important role in municipalities. The potential for this has to be developed. The White Paper and national framework legislation on traditional leadership and institutions to be introduced to parliament this year should be directed at this.
Provincial governments can do more to assist municipalities, notwithstanding their financial and other limitations.
Despite its limitations of funds, resources and personnel, SALGA has to be far more effective than it currently is.
Some municipalities, without the most minimal financial, economic, revenue or other base, are simply not viable – unless drastic measures are taken, not just by the municipalities concerned, but by provincial and national government, the private sector, communities and other stakeholders. Of course, fundamental changes to municipal boundaries should be approached cautiously. Boundary issues, moreover, should not be conflated with the many other issues affecting the viability of municipalities. But the Municipal Demarcation Board might well have to reconsider the boundaries of these municipalities.
The quality of leadership in a municipality, especially councillors, but also officials and community representatives, signally influences its effectiveness, notwithstanding the constraints of funds and resources, and the magnitude of the challenges.
17.20 Understandably, perhaps, the new local government system has become a major site of waging i ntra-party struggles, apart from the obvious inter-party struggles. It is important that these political party struggles do not serve to deter the implementation of the new local government system. In fact, political parties can play an important role in consolidating the new local government system. It is vital that a productive relationship develops between all political parties and municipal structures.
17.21 Municipalities find the deadlines set by DPLG to implement certain provisions of the legislation or other aspects of the new local government system too onerous to meet. Also, the deadlines do not sufficiently acknowledge that municipalities have significantly differing capacities. Clearly, it is important that DPLG sets deadlines as a way of nudging and even prodding municipalities. But these deadlines have to be set after effective consultation with organised local government and by taking more account of the differing capacities of municipalities.
17.22 On the one hand, there are those who say that municipalities have to conform to far too much legislation and that some of this legislation is contradictory. On the other hand, there are those who say that the legislation is not prescriptive enough and leaves the municipalities with too much discretion. Often the same people would hold both views. The balance between crafting legislation that is not too enabling and not too prescriptive is difficult to strike.
It is clear that unless municipalities get more resources and increase service delivery, the new local government system will not be effectively implemented. At the same time, unless the new local government system is more effectively implemented, municipalities will not be able to secure more resources and significantly increase delivery.
In short, municipalities are in the early stages of a major transformation to a fundamentally new system of local government. With huge challenges and limited resources and capacity, municipalities are certainly making more progress than is commonly made out, even if less than they should. However together with national and provincial government and other key roleplayers they have to be significantly more effective.
18. The Way Forward
In all sections of this report, the Portfolio Committee has identified issues that we believe should be acted on by different roleplayers. The major tasks identified are for DPLG to attend to. The Portfolio Committee recognises, of course, that DPLG has a wide range of responsibilities, and limitations of funds, resources and staff. Moreover, local government is a sphere of government in its own right, and there are limits to how far DPLG can intervene. The Portfolio Committee is not suggesting that all the many tasks identified in this report should be attended to immediately. However, over time, with due recognition of the department’ constraints, the Committee believes that action should be taken on these issues. We will discuss with the department what is practically possible, and we will, over time, actively monitor developments in this regard.
Of course, it is recognised that DPLG on its own cannot address the many issues raised in this report. Other national departments, provincial departments of local government, and other provincial departments, SALGA, community organisations, trade unions, the private sector and other stakeholders have a crucial role to play as well. So too do parliament and the legislatures, and in particularly our Portfolio Committee. We, in fact, need to do more. But so too do the municipalities. They simply cannot become over-reliant on other spheres of government and other roleplayers. They have to do more for themselves.
The report should be published in the ATC (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports) of the National Assembly.
The report should be debated and adopted in the House early in the next quarter of parliament.
There should be briefings on the report with our respective party caucuses, the Ministry and DPLG, other relevant Ministers and national departments, SALGA, MECs and provincial departments, trade unions, traditional leaders and other structures.
We should pursue the possibility of securing a researcher for six months who would follow up on issues raised during the study tour and keep in touch with the relevant municipalities and inform them of developments. The researcher could also assist with our monitoring and oversight functions in regards to the issues for practical action raised in the report.
We should send copies of the report to all municipalities in the country and seek to ensure that all those we interacted with during the study tour get a copy of the report. We should also send the report to other stakeholders.
We should consider putting the report on an appropriate website to encourage engagement with the issues raised in it.
We should explore the possibility with the relevant authorities in parliament of allocating a week of constituency work to local government. Ideally, this should involve all MPs from both Houses taking part and should take place in the second half of this year.
Together with the NCOP Local Government and Administration Select Committee, we must effectively fulfill our oversight functions, especially in respect of DPLG and SALGA, in regards to proposals for action in this report.
18.11 Obviously what and how much we can do to take forward the issues raised in this section depends on a very wide range of factors. Among these, obviously, are our legislative and other parliamentary responsibilities; constituency work; political party deployments; availability of research, technical and other resources; funding; and the co-operation of a wide range of stakeholders. Aspects of the programme set out above may not be realizable, but whatever we can do, we should actively seek to do! We should also, in other words, monitor ourselves!
19. Note of Appreciation
19.1 Almost all municipalities were extremely co-operative and received us very warmly. We convey our sincere appreciation to them. The organizational details were dealt with by our outstanding committee secretary, Mr Llewellyn Brown – and to him too we express our gratitude. Ms Pikkie de Villiers of the Municipal Demarcation Board was especially helpful. We also thank the researchers who accompanied the 3 teams of MPs on the study tour – Chris Sibanyoni, Thys Liebenberg and Mcebisi Dingela - for the background reports they did which were helpful in drafting this final report.
Annexure
Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government
Study Tour of Municipal
Programme
Itinerary – Group 1 (Limpopo, Gauteng, Mpumalanga)
Delegation: Y Carrim (ANC), B Komphela (ANC), J Kgarimetsa (ANC), G Borman (DP), W Doman (NNP), C Sibanyoni (Researcher)
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - Delegation flies to Johannesburg from home.
Day 1 - Monday, 20 January 2003
[A] Johannesburg Metropolitan
09:15 – 10:15 Meet MEC
10:30 – 11:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:45 – 13:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
[A] Ekurhuleni Metropolitan – Germiston
14:30 – 16:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
16:30 – 17:30 Drive
17:30 – 19:30 Meet Alexandra Node / ward committees
Overnight in Pretoria
Day 2 - Tuesday, 21 January 2003
[C] Metsweding District Municipality - Bronkhorstspruit (CBDC2)
08:30 – 09:30 Drive (Pretoria to Bronkhorstspruit - +/- 30 km)
09:30 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 12:45 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
12:45 – 14:30 Lunch + Drive (Bronkhorstspruit to Rayton - +/- 28 km)
[B] Nokeng tsa Taemane Municipality - Rayton (GT02b1)
14:30 – 16:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:30 – 18:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
Overnight in Pretoria
Day 3 - Wednesday, 22 January 2003
[B] Mogalakwena Municipality – Potgietersrus (NP367)
08:30 – 11:00 Drive (Pretoria to Potgietersrus - +/- 200 km)
11:00 – 12:45 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:45 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 16:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
16:00 – 18:00 Drive (Potgietersrus to Polokwane – +/- 60 km)
Overnight in Polokwane
Day 4 - Thursday, 23 January 2003
[B] Polokwane Municipality - Pietersburg (NP354)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 12:45 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
12:45 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 15:00 Drive (Pietersburg to Greater Tzaneen Municipality - +/- 100 km)
[B] Greater Tzaneen Municipality (NP333)
15:00 – 17:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
17:30 – 19:00 Ward committee/Community meeting
Overnight in Greater Tzaneen
Day 5 - Friday, 24 January 2003
[B] Bushbuckridge (CBLC6)
08:30 – 10:00 Drive (Tzaneen to Bushbuckridge - +/- 150 km)
10:15 – 12:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:15 – 14:00 Lunch
14:15 – 16:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
16:30 – 18:00 Drive (Bushbuckridge to Nelspruit - +/- 170 km)
Overnight in Nelspruit
Day 6 - Saturday, 25 January 2003 Overnight in Nelspruit.
Day 7 - Sunday, 26 January 2003 17:00 – 21:00 Meeting and dinner with MEC and provincial department.
Overnight in Nelspruit
Day 8 - Monday, 27 January 2003
[B] Mbombela Municipality – Nelspruit (MP322)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multiparty team of councilors
11:15 – 13:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:15 – 14:15 Lunch
[C] Ehlanzeni District Municipality (DC32)
14:30 – 15:00 Drive (Nelspruit to Ehlanzeni District Municipality - +/- 10 km)
15:00 – 16:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:30 – 17:30 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
17:30 – 19:30 Drive (Ehlanzeni to Middleburg - +/- 200 km)
Overnight in Middleburg
Day 9 - Tuesday, 28 January 2003
[C] Nkangala District Municipality - Middleburg (DC 31)
09:30 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 12:45 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
12:45 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 15:30 Pims Centre – Nkangala
[B] Delmas Municipality
16:30 – 18:00 Joint meeting with multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
18:00 – 19:00 Drive to Roodepoort
Overnight in Roodepoort
Day 10 - Wednesday, 29 January 2003
[C] West Rand District Municipality - Randfontein (CBDC8)
07:00 – 10:30 Drive (Middleburg to Randfontein - +/- 350 km)
10:45 – 12:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:45 – 15:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
15:30 – 17:30 Drive (Randfontein to Johannesburg - 80 km)
17:30 Delegation returns to home base
Programme
Itinerary – Group 2 (Western Cape, Northern Cape, North West)
Delegation: B Solo (ANC), C Lobe (ANC), J Ngubeni (ANC), A Goosen (ANC), P Smith (IFP – unable to participate), L Brown (Secretary), T Liebenberg (Researcher)
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - Delegation flies to Johannesburg from home. Overnight in
Pretoria.
Day 1 - Monday, 20 January 2003
[B] Moretele Municipality – Makapanstad (NW 371)
08:15 – 10:15 Drive (Pretoria to Makapanstad - +/- 120 km)
10:30 – 12:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:45 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 15:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
15:00 – 17:00 Drive (Makapanstad to Rustenburg - +/- 200 km)
[B] Rustenburg (NW372)
17:15 – 19:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
19:30 – 20:30 Drive (Rustenburg to Koster - +/- 100 km)
Overnight in Koster
Day 2 - Tuesday, 21 January 2003
[B] Kgetleng River Municipality – Koster (NW374)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 12:45 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
12:45 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 16:00 Drive (Koster to Mmabatho - +/- 170 km)
Overnight in Mmabatho
Day 3 – Wednesday, 22 January 2003
[B] Mafikeng Municipality – Mmabatho (NW383)
09:00 – 10:00 Meet MEC
10:15 – 12:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:30 – 13:30 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:30 – 14:15 Lunch + Drive (Mmbatho to Mafikeng - +/- 2km)
[C] Central District Municipality – Mafikeng (DC38)
14:30 – 16:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:15 – 18:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
Overnight in Mafikeng
Day 4 - Thursday, 23 January 2003
[B] Naledi Local Municipality
07:00 – 08:30 Drive (Mafikeng to Naledi Local Municipality)
08:30 – 09:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager
and senior managers
[B] Greater Taung Municipality
09:30 – 10:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager
and senior managers
[B] Sol Plaatjie Municipality – Kimberley (NC091)
10:45 – 12:30 Drive (Naledi to Kimberley - +/- 180km)
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 14:15 Meet MEC
14:30 – 16:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:45 – 18:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
Overnight in Kimberley
Day 5 - Friday, 24 January 2003
[C] Frances Baard District Municipality – Kimberley (DC9)
08:00 – 09:00 Drive (Sol Plaatjie to Frances Baard - +/- 7 km)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 13:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:15 – 14:15 Lunch
14:30 – 15:00 Drive (Frances Baard to Galeshewe - +/- 20 km)
15:00 – 16:30 Galeshewe Urban Node
16:30 – 18:00 Drive (Kimberley to Bloemfontein - +/- 177km)
Overnight in Bloemfontein
Day 6 - Saturday, 25 January 2003 Fly Bloemfontein to George.
Overnight in George
Day 7 - Sunday, 26 January 2003 Day at leisure - Overnight in George.
Day 8 - Monday, 27 January 2003
[C] Garden Route/Klein Karoo District Municipality – George (DC4)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 13:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
[B] George (WC044)
14:30 – 16:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:15 – 17:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
Overnight in George
Day 9 - Tuesday, 28 January 2003
[C] Overberg - Bredasdorp (DC3)
07:00 – 10:30 Drive (George to Bredasdorp - +/- 360 km)
10:45 – 12:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:45 – 14:45 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
15:00 – 16:30 Drive (Bredasdorp to Worcester - +/-170 km)
Overnight in Worcester
Day 10 - Wednesday, 29 January 2003
Boland Pims Centre - Worcester
10:30 – 13:00 Meet Boland Pims Centre
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 15:30 Drive (Worcester to Cape Town - +/- 120 km)
Overnight in Members’ Parliamentary Villages
Day 11 – Thursday, 30 January 2003
[A] Cape Town Metropolitan
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 13:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 16:00 Ward Committee/Community meeting
16:30 – 17:30 Meet MEC
17:30 Delegates return to home base
Programme
Itinerary – Group 3 (KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Eastern Cape)
Delegation: N Nobunga (ANC), A Lyle (ANC), S Mshudulu (ANC), G Grobler (DP), R Southgate (ACDP), Mr M Dingela (Researcher), Ms B Madikane (Committee Assistant)
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - Delegation flies to Port Elizabeth. Overnight in P.E.
Day 1 - Monday, 20 January 2003
[A] Nelson Mandela Metropolitan – Port Elizabeth
08:00 – 10:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
10:15 – 12:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
12:15 – 13:15 Lunch
13:30 – 15:30 Motherwell Node
[C] Western District Council – Port Elizabeth
15:30 – 16:00 Drive (Motherwell to Western District Council - +/- 30 km)
16:00 – 17:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
17:30 – 18:30 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
Overnight in Port Elizabeth
Day 2 - Tuesday, 21 January 2003
[B] Kouga – Humansdorp/Jeffreys Bay
09:00 –10:00 Drive (Port Elizabeth to Humansdorp/Jeffreys Bay - +/- 80
km)
10:15 – 12:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:30 – 14:30 Lunch
14:30 – 16:30 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
17:00 – 19:00 Ward committee/Community meeting
19:00 – 20:00 Drive (Humansdorp/Jeffreys Bay – Port Elizabeth - +/- 80
km)
Overnight in Port Elizabeth
Day 3 - Wednesday, 22 January 2003
[B] Bisho – King Williamstown
06:30 – 08:00 Fly (Port Elizabeth to East London)
08:00 – 09:00 Drive (East London to Bisho - +/- 70 km)
09:15 – 10:15 Meet MEC
[B] East London (EC125)
10:30 – 11:30 Drive (Bisho to East London - +/- 70 km)
11:45 – 13:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
13:30 – 14:30 Lunch
14:30 – 16:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
Overnight in East London
Day 4 - Thursday, 23 January 2003
[C] Alfred Nzo District Municipality - Mount Ayliff (DC44)
08:00 – 13:00 Drive (East London to Mount Ayliff - +/- 380 km)
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
14:15 – 15:45 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:00 – 17:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
Overnight in Mount Ayliff
Day 5 - Friday, 24 January 2003
[A] Ethekweni Metropolitan – Durban
07:00 – 09:00 Drive (Mount Ayliff to Durban - +/- 180 km)
09:00 – 11:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
11:15 – 13:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
13:15 – 14:00 Lunch
14:15 – 15:30 Drive (Durban to Pietermaritzburg - +/- 87 km)
Umgungundluvo DC Pims
15:30 – 16:15 Meeting with Indlovu Pims
[C] Umgungundluvo District Municipality
16:15 – 17:15 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
[B] Msunduzi Municipality – Pietermaritzburg (KZ225)
17:15 – 17:30 Drive (Umgungundlovu to Msunduzi Municipality)
17:30 – 19:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
Overnight in Pietermaritzburg
Day 6 - Saturday, 25 January 2003
[C] Uthukela District Municipality
11:30 – 13:30 Drive Pietermaritzburg to Uthukela District Municipality - +/- 150 km
14:00 – 16:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager and senior managers of the municipality
16:15 – 20:00 Drive Uthukela to Bloemfontein - +/- 350km
Overnight in Bloemfontein
Day 7 - Sunday, 26 January 2003
Day at leisure - Overnight in Bloemfontein.
Day 8 - Monday, 27 January 2003
[B] Mangaung Municipality – Bloemfontein (FA172)
09:00 – 10:00 Meet MEC
10:00 – 12:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:15 – 13:30 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:30 – 14:30 Lunch
14:30 – 15:00 Drive (Mangaung to Motheo District Municipality - +/- 10
km)
[C] Motheo District Municipality – Bloemfontein (DC17)
15:15 – 16:30 Meet multi-party team of councilors
16:45 – 18:00 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
Overnight in Bloemfontein
Day 9 - Tuesday, 28 January 2003
[B] Moqhaka Municipality – Kroonstad (FS201)
08:00 – 10:00 Drive (Bloemfontein to Kroonstad - +/- 240 km)
10:15 – 12:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:15 – 13:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:15 – 14:00 Lunch
[B] Ngwathe Municipality – Parys (FS203)
14:00 – 15:00 Drive (Kroonstad to Parys - +/- 100 km)
15:00 – 18:00 Meeting multi-party team of councilors, municipal manager
and senior managers of the municipality
18:00 – 19:00 Drive (Parys to Sasolburg - +/- 40km)
Overnight in Sasolburg
Day 10 – Wednesday, 29 January 2003
[C] Northern Free State District Municipality – Sasolburg (DC20)
10:00 – 12:00 Meet multi-party team of councilors
12:15 – 13:15 Meet municipal manager and senior managers of the
municipality
13:15 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 15:00 Drive (Sasolburg to Johannesburg - +/- 70 km)
16:00 Delegation return to home base
Report to be considered.