Report of the Select Committee on Local Government
and Administration (Intervention in
1.
BACKGROUND
In August 2006, the
Department of Local Govt. Housing and Traditional Affairs received a report
containing allegations that within the Municipality there were certain
activities/practices that were being undertaken that were not within the ambit
of good governance. The MEC was petitioned to initiate an investigation to see
if these were not of such a serious nature as to warrant a full investigation.
The investigation was
conducted by ESP consulting and a report was submitted on 14 May 2007. The
investigation focused on allegations of Mis-Management;
Mal-Administration; Fraud and Corruption. Subsequent to this, the MEC, on 21
May 2007, wrote a letter to the Mayor, Cllr. M E Khoza, notifying him of the completion of the investigation
and availability of a report.
The letter required that a
Special Council meeting be convened to decide what action was going to be taken
in respect of the comments; observations and recommendations contained in the
report. This had to be done within 21 days.
On 22 August 2007, the MEC
notified the Municipality of a decision of the Provincial Executive Council,
taken on the same day, to intervene in terms of section 139 of the
Constitution. The notification carried the suspensions of Cllr.
Khoza, the Municipal Manager, Mr
V M Khubeka and an employee of the Municipality.
On 23 October 2007, the MEC
briefed the Select Committee, in Parliament,
The visit to
2.
SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
2.1
Meeting with the Mayor and Councillors
The delegation comprising of
2 ANC; 1 IFP and 1 DA, met with all the Cllrs. of the
At the meeting oral
submissions were mainly made by Cllr. Mabaso (IFP) supported by Cllr. Vundla, on the one hand, while Cllr.
Msibi supported by Cllrs.
Nene and Ntshangase, made the main submission. Cllr. Stannard (DA) also made a
submission.
The Cllrs.
were divided along party political lines in terms of how they saw the
intervention.
The IFP and the DA opposed
the intervention although for different reasons. In the main the IFP’s Councillor Mabaso contended that the intervention was a politically
motivated. Cllr. Stannard
cited amongst other reasons for opposing the intervention, the breakdown in
service delivery since the intervention; vast amounts of money in terms of
extra costs.
The ANC Councillors
supported the intervention citing amongst other things party biased service
delivery, fraud and corruption and political interference in the main.
Documentation was submitted
for the committee’s perusal.
2.2
Meeting with the Mayor and Manager
This also was convened in
the Council Chambers and main presentation was done by the Acting Municipal
Manager, Mr T Tubane.
In his report to the
committee he highlighted the re-examination of the structure and functioning of
the Administration and Council as the main thrust of his responsibility. This, to ensure that the Municipality executed its mandate to
deliver services to the people of
He shared with the committee
their identification of the issues that needed speedy and urgent intervention,
citing among others, the Audit of Leave; Employment Contracts (no salary
details, some not signed, expiry of contracts); Payment of incorrect salaries;
Non-existence of employee files and Payment of a non-existent employee.
With regards to Finances he
pointed out that the Development Bank of Southern Africa was conducting an
assessment which revealing that the CFO was not sure about the financial status
of the Municipality; was not sure of available cash and investments balances;
deposits and withdrawals, to mention but a few. He further reported to the
committee that with Technical services the challenge was that the department
performed functions that would otherwise be done by Community services had it
existed.
2.3
Meeting with Municipal employees
The meeting took place in a
Town/Community Hall, housing the South African Social Security Agency offices.
Everyone was welcomed by the Mayor, Cllr. Msibi.
The Hon. Mr
Shiceka requested the Hon. Mr
Ntuli, member of the delegation to outline to the
employees the purpose of the meeting.
In his short address to the
gathering, the Hon. Mr Ntuli
pointed out that the visit was occasioned by an intervention by the MEC,
emphasizing that once an MEC intervened it was the committee’s responsibility
to verify the matter; to look into whether it was necessary; what is needed;
whether it was helping and to also find out whether there was an improvement
since the intervention.
The leader of the delegation
gave the employees an opportunity to express themselves and share their
perspective on the intervention.
After some hesitation or
reluctance by the employees and upon their request, the Mayor; the Municipal
Manager and everyone seen before, were asked to excuse themselves from the
meeting.
One gentleman stood up and
said he was speaking both in his personal and professional capacity. He cited
political infighting as a cause for the paralysis in the functioning of the
Municipality. He mentioned, for example, that the Lodge that is run by the
Municipality had developed new tariffs but that these could not be implemented
as the Municipality has not met to officially endorse them. He concluded by
saying that the situation was infact worse than
before the intervention.
The majority of the
employees spoke in favour of the intervention.
Their grievances ranged from
alleging abuse by managers; being forced to drive unroadworthy
vehicles; absence of skills to why government has been waiting all the time.
The Hon. Mr
S Shiceka responded to some of the issues raised. His
explanation ranged from the issue of where the Acting Municipal Manager was
paid from; to an agreement on a skills audit; grading of the municipality in
relation to wages, raising sharply the issue of the wage gap.
He concluded the meeting by
assuring staff that as the committee they would give an instruction to the
Acting Municipal Manager to convene a meeting and address staff on issues
affecting everyone.
He concluded the meeting by
outlining the process that would unfold on returning to parliament mentioning
debating the report and whether to recommend a continuation of the intervention
or not.
And, a
follow up on recommendations by the Acting Mayor and the Acting Municipal
Manager.
He assured staff that the
committee would make a follow up on the implementation of the recommendations.
He also expressed the hope that the Municipality could run without outside
help.
3. FINDINGS
The Committee found that the
It was also found that even
though the area has huge potential the municipality still depended on grants
and it was necessary for other spheres of government to assist
The Committee found further
that the municipality was under-skilled, that some staff members were casuals
even after 15 to 20 years of service, furthermore, that municipal employees are
forced to drive unroadworthy municipal vehicles.
The Committee is also
concerned about the high degree of bickering between and amongst political
parties and interference in the smooth running of the municipality.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends
that the Council approve the Intervention on the following conditions –
Report to be
considered