Report of the
Select Committee on Local Government and Administration on the oversight visit
to Xhariep district municipality
1. INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) delegated the
Select Committee on Local Government and Administration to conduct a fact finding visit
to the
2. OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of the visit was to interact with
internal and external stakeholders in the Provincial Executive Council (PEC)
through the Office of the MEC for Local Government and Housing in terms of
section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution.
3.
DELEGATION
The delegation of the NCOP consisted of the following
members and officials:
·
Hon S Shiceka (
·
Hon F Nyanda (Mpumalanga
Province)
·
Hon D Worth (
·
Hon M Mzizi (
·
Hon Kgoshi M L Mokoena (Limpopo
Province)
·
Hon A T Manyosi (
·
Hon N J Mack (
·
Hon A L J Moseki (
·
Mr D Mokoena (Research
Unit)
·
Mr M Manele (Committee
Section)
·
Mr V Mfuniselwa (Committee Section)
4.
DISCUSSION
On the 11 October 2008, the
Delegation of the Committee conducted a fact finding visit to the
4.1 Administrator
In briefing the Committee, the
Administrator indicated that on 28 May 2008 the Free State Provincial Executive
Committee decided to intervene at
Some of the major challenges
faced by the
·
Non
adoption of IDP and Budget.
·
Restoration
of the culture of work and accountability.
·
Strengthening
of oversight capability.
·
Enhancing
financial controls and management.
In order to deal with the
above-mentioned challenges, the Administrator indicated that a turn-around
strategy had been developed to:
·
Provide
system support and strengthening of internal controls;
·
Support in
the establishment of internal audit function,
·
Ensure
development and implementation of performance agreements that could hold
Section 57 Managers accountable for performance.
4.2 Municipal Councillors
In her submission, the
Executive Mayor indicated that she did not support the intervention as issued
by the MEC of Local Government and Housing. She indicated that the Municipal
Council was not properly consulted on the processes and rationale for the
issuing of the notice of intervention. The Chief Whip indicated that the
majority of the Municipal Councillors were supporting
the intervention because the
4.3 Municipal Manager
The Municipal Manager indicated
that he did not fully support the intervention as issued by the MEC of Local
Government and Housing. He indicated that some of the problems identified in
the notice of intervention emerged as the result of lack of funding and
suitable human resources. Some of the concerns raised by the Municipal Manager
related to understaffing of Local Economic Development Unit, Finance and
Corporate Unit and other departments, non existence of Internal Audit
Committee, lack of experience by some of the Section 57 Managers, lack of
proper qualification among certain employees, political interference in
administrative operations, lack of proper financial control due to lack of
qualified personnel.
4.4
The Free State Youth Commission
welcomed and supported the intervention.
It indicated that its interest
in the whole process was informed by the implications that the process had on
youth, for example, skills development; poverty; unemployment; and
vulnerability to drug and substance abuse. Noting the political,
administrative, strategic and operational problems identified by the MEC of
Local Government and Housing, the Free State Youth Commission was of the view
that Section 139 (1) (b) was the best intervention.
4.5
Organized Labour
The representative from SAMWU
Union indicated that organized labour supported the
intervention as issued by the MEC of Local Government and Housing. In support
of the intervention, the representative raised concerns relating to lack of
consultation on processes leading to the development of IDP and Budget, non
compliance by the municipal administration on organizational service
agreements, non setting of labour forums within the Xhariep District Municipality and lack of funding
mechanisms for local economic development projects.