Meeting with JB Marks Local Municipality on issues raised during oversight visit

Meeting report

JB Marks Local Municipality report back following Committee visit

Opening remarks

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was dissatisfied that officials of the municipality had delayed the meeting's proceedings. 

Mr I Groenewald (FF+) suggested that the meeting adjourn for five minutes, to allow for the officials to fix their gadgets.

Mr B Hadebe (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Mr Mmoloki Cwaile, Member of the Executive Council ( MEC), Department of Cooperative Development, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs (DCoGHSTA), North West (NW), apologised on behalf of the delegation.

The Chairperson said it was unacceptable that the delegation had logged into the meeting late. This conduct disrespected the decorum of the Committee. She requested that the Administrator elaborate as to whether the municipality was functional.

Prior to this meeting, the Committee had conducted an oversight visit at the JB Marks Local Municipality (JBMLM) from 2 to 7 May. This visit had formed part of the oversight visits the Committee conducted in the province. During the visit, Members had posed a number of questions to the officials, such as the municipality’s plan to address its various challenges, which were not answered due to time constraints. Members had then requested that officials submit written responses to the questions by 13 May, but the Acting Municipal Manager (MM) had asked for an extension to 19 May, which was granted. However, the responses were submitted only on 16 July, two months after the initial deadline.

The Committee had been concerned at the fact that the JBMLM had received unqualified audit opinions over the past three years. Prior to the amalgamation, Tlokwe had been recording unqualified audits from 2012 to 2015, and Ventersdorp had been attaining disclaimer audit opinions during the same period. These poor audit findings showed that the merger had had a negative impact on the municipality. 

Shortly after the oversight visit, the municipality had elected a new Mayor.

Matters for discussion

Ms Mapule Mataboge, Executive Mayor: JBMLM, said that the municipality was currently attending to its shortfall in revenue and sought to increase the collection rate in Ventersdorp to 95% of revenue. With the election of the new Mayor, the municipality had been unable to coordinate its work. However, there was a renewed focus and commitment in dealing with the issues faced by the community.

Mr Makwe, Acting Speaker: JBMLM, said that he had been appointed as Speaker on 11 June, as the current Speaker was on sick leave.

In line with the Rules of Order, Council had to sit on a quarterly basis. Council had sat seven times during the previous financial year.

All questions were submitted through the Council agenda, which showed that its Rules of Order were intact. Councillors were also able to pose questions to the Speaker’s Office. If all questions were posed to the Council, the Mayor would refer them to the relevant accounting officer or member of Cabinet. Currently, there was no backlog of questions that had been posed to the Mayor.

Allegations of fraud and corruption by the previous Mayor had been investigated by a committee appointed by the Speaker. However, as the matter was sub judice, the committee could not continue its investigation.

The Chairperson asked that he provide a brief explanation on the matter, without discussing the merits of the case.

Mr Makwe said that he could only state that there were officials in the municipality who had been taken to the courts. As a result, he could not discuss the merits of the cases.

Mr Ofentse Masibi, Municipal Manager (MM): JBMLM, said that the municipality agreed that going forward, senior managers would have to attend various workshops in order to further their understanding of the legislation in the country, particularly section 78 of the Municipal Structures Act (MSA).

Referring to the asset register, he said that the municipality was compliant with Generally Recognised Accounting Practices (GRAP) 17, and currently did not have an audit finding on personal protective equipment (PPE) for the audited 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years. Furthermore, the municipality’s by-law and property rates were compliant with the Municipal Rates Act of 2004, as was the tariff ratio. These rates had been promulgated.

The municipality submitted lists of the current contracts it had with service providers, its central supplier database (CSD) number, as well as the costs of its court cases.  

Not all debt collection was outsourced. Some was done internally as well.

To cut expenses, the municipality had resolved to buy items on an "as and when" basis, instead of buying in bulk.

All the officials who were competent to carry firearms did have the required licences. Uniforms had been issued to both fire fighters and traffic officials.

A report on the unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful (UIFW) expenditure had been compiled and would be submitted to the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) which, after studying the report, would submit it to Council, which would then consider the recommendations made by the MPAC.

The municipality had resolved the sewer spillage that occurred in Section 11. Sewer spillages had increased because the population of the municipality was increasing, but plans had been put in place to address all service delivery issues. One of the plans was to decrease the outsourcing of service provision, as the municipality currently did not have the capacity to fulfil all the functions, particularly waste removal, as the municipality’s current fleet of trucks were old and not functioning properly. These trucks were soon to be auctioned, and the municipality hoped that with the money attained from their sale, they could purchase new trucks.

Services had been provided to residents in informal settlements, even though they had not paid municipal rates.

Expenditure on overtime had been high. The municipality would submit a report to Council, and if there was a need to retrieve money from councillors, they would do so.

A serious concern for the municipality had been the R100 million in outstanding debts owed to it by government departments and agencies. Due to the non-payment, the municipality had decided to turn off the utilities in the buildings used by the departments and agencies.

Service level agreements (SLAs) had not been put in place. However, the municipality was working on the draft documents and the memorandums of understanding (MOUs). 

Referring to the Disaster Management Centre (DMC), he said there had been discussions between the Office of the MM, the administration team and the contractor around the completion of the project, and it had been agreed that the centre would be completed at the original amount budgeted for in the tender. Based on those discussions, and not wanting to undergo the tender process once more, the municipality had decided to appoint the contractor. This centre should already have been operational, but since his appointment, there had been progress in the construction of the facility. There were letters and reports on this matter.

The municipality had a court interdict to remove the settlers from the Mooibank informal settlement area, but Council had decided against doing so until the pandemic had subsided.  

Due to the security issues at the landfill sites in Ventersdorp, the municipality decided that it would outsource security services from a prospective service provider. The terms of reference had already been developed and they would be advertised. During the closing of the tender, the owners of small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) in the municipality had decided to disrupt the application process for the tender by tearing up applicants' documents and threatening violence towards officials. Such instances had also occurred in Rustenburg, where the MM was assaulted and had to be admitted to hospital. As a result of this disruption in the JBMLM, the service would be re-tendered.

The Chairperson asked how long he had been the Acting MM.

Mr Masibi said he was appointed on 19 February 2021, and after three months in his position, the administration submitted an application for concurrence to the MEC, which had been given.

The Chairperson asked how long the concurrence was for, and when the position would be filled permanently.  

Mr Osibi responded that no date for the concurrence had been given, and its extension would depend on both the Administrator and the MEC. The current MM had been on precautionary leave since 19 February.

Mr Rufane Makousa, MPAC Chairperson, said that there were 11 members in the MPAC -- six from the ANC, two from the DA, one each from the EFF and Freedom Front+, and one independent councillor. The administration team included an MPAC manager, a researcher and an assistant. MPAC had struggled to meet, because councillors had not attended meetings. Letters had been sent to the political parties and the Speaker to address this issue. He clarified that MPAC usually met ten times a year.

The Chairperson asked how many meetings had occurred this year.

Mr Makousa said that six meetings were called for the previous financial year.

According to the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA), the Accounting Officer should investigate instances of UIFW. Once these were concluded, he should submit a report to MPAC, which would then conduct further investigations. After the conclusion of the investigations, MPAC must generate and submit a report with recommendations for Council to deliberate on. Three oversight reports on UIFW in the municipality, with recommendations, had been submitted to Council, but none of them had been implemented. As a result, MPAC had decided to sit and deliberate on why Council had not implemented the reports, and what action should be taken.

The Chairperson opened the floor for discussion

Discussion

Mr C Brink (DA) said he had heard that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and MM had been suspended after an investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) into Covid-19 expenditure, yet this information had not been shared by the Municipal Council. He asked whether this was true, and if the matter had been referred to and agreed upon by Council, as required by the MSA. 

He asked if there had been a Council meeting this year.

As it had been mentioned that MPAC had been unable to form quorums, he asked why no investigations had been instituted into which councillors were responsible. If there had been investigations, he asked if details could be provided. Further, was the MEC aware of this issue, and if so, why had he not acted? The boycotting of MPAC meetings would prevent it from investigating UIFW. This was concerning, as the municipality had recorded R300 million in irregular expenditure during the 2019-20 financial year, which amounted to 20% of its budget.

He asked whether a financial disciplinary board had been established, as required by the MFMA. If not, had MPAC followed up on the reasons it had not been established?

Presently, the outstanding amount owed by councillors was R58 000. He asked why no disciplinary charges had been instituted.

In the response submitted by the municipality, it had been stated that there had not been a backlog of questions by councillors to the Mayor, yet some councillors had countered this claim. If the municipality had provided incorrect information, it had misled the Committee, either by negligence or intent. He asked for clarification on whether there was a backlog of questions to the Mayor.

Mr Groenewald asked whether the Mayor had been elected through a secret ballot.

Acting Speaker Makwe said that Council did not vote through a secret ballot. There had been a proposal by the opposition that the vote be done through a secret ballot, but after deliberation, it was agreed that the vote would be done through a show of hands.

Mr Groenewald said that the municipality had gone against the MSA, which states that if more than one candidate was nominated for Mayor, the vote must be taken by secret ballot.

He asked why the Mayor had not yet tabled the municipal budget, as required by the MFMA.

R1.3 million per month was spent on waste removal on an ad hoc basis for the past two years. He asked what they meant by on an ad hoc basis.  

Had the municipality engaged with the departments in an attempt to retrieve the outstanding debt? If they had, what had been the result?

When would the next report on UIFW be tabled to Council?

The municipality’s asset management showed that the division of orders in the department was not correct. He asked why this was so.

Why had the municipality’s waste removal trucks not been auctioned and sold, as the storage fees of the vehicles were a burden on the ratepayers?

Mr K Ceza (EFF) said that the Committee should not allow the officials to arrive late for a meeting from now on. He asked eight questions.

Firstly, to what extent had the municipality capacitated its internal audit, as its capacitation would reduce the reliance on consultants?

Secondly, he asked for both the municipality and the provincial DCoGHSTA to explain when they anticipated the conclusion of the Section 100.

Thirdly, how many quarterly district forums had been held with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA)? This forum should assist municipalities in understanding the methods that could be used to correct dysfunctional MPACs, which remained a critical committee to root out misconduct by officials in the municipality.

Fourthly, to what extent had the DCoGHSTA addressed the low R30 000 per annum allocation to traditional leaders. This amount was an insult to traditional leaders.

Fifthly, how much of the R100 million debt was owed by government departments, and how much was owed by businesses? What action had been taken to recoup the money?

Sixth, what action had been taken to correct the issues in poor communities?

Seventh, had a turnaround strategy been developed that would deal with the culture of nepotism and cronyism in the municipality?

Residents in the municipality had complained that the environment was poor, and he asked what action had been taken to collect refuse and fix sewage plants.  

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) said that the Committee could not tolerate the misbehaviour shown by the officials at the beginning of the meeting. Residents in the municipality had complained that the leaders did not have the political will to address their matters, and the conduct shown by them did not reflect good leadership. With the new administration currently in place, it would be expected that there would be greater urgency.

The Committee had engaged with the municipality on several occasions, and many of the same issues had persisted. Officials were able to submit their written responses only on 16 July, two months after they had been requested to do so. She asked how long the municipality would continue with its tendency to not readily inform the Committee on the developments.

There were several challenges facing the municipality, such as financial mismanagement, inflated amounts being paid to service providers, irregularities in supply chain processes, and poor service delivery.

During the previous oversight visit, Members had expressed their concern at the amount of money owed by councillors to the municipality, and the action taken by the officials against the councillors -- which had been to send each councillor a letter. This action had disappointed the Committee and showed that there was no political will in the municipality. 

Mr Hadebe said that the MSA and the code of conduct for councillors was clear on the issue of non-attendance, and stated that those who failed to attend three meetings in a row should be removed from office. He asked how many meetings had not formed a quorum. Further, how many councillors had missed three MPAC meetings, and what sanction had they faced?

The MSA states that if more than one candidate is nominated for the Mayoral position, the vote must take place by secret ballot. This did not occur during the election of the JBMLM. He asked whether the DCoGHSTA had sought to rectify the issue.

Ms E Spies (DA) said that much money had been put into refuse removal, yet many communities had not had their refuse collected, particularly the Marikana community. She asked why there had been no refuse collection, if so much money had been spent already. Further, when did the municipality anticipate collecting the refuse?

Mr S du Toit (FF+) said that the Mayor had been a councillor of the municipality for five years, and was aware of the issues.

He asked whether there was a plan in place to deal with the water leaks and the potholes in the municipality. If so, could it be submitted to the Committee, as residents had resorted to paying private businesses and AfriForum to repair potholes? Roads were deteriorating due to the leakage of water.

The Chairperson asked if AfriForum had been repairing potholes in only one area within the municipality.

Mr Du Toit clarified that these repairs were occurring in different areas of the municipality.  

The response submitted to the Committee had included the names of councillors who were no longer at the municipality. He therefore asked that a new report be compiled and re-submitted to the Committee. 

The reinstatement report for the disaster management centre (DMC) was signed on 13 April 2021 by the Administrator. He asked what the completion costs of the centre were, and whether the municipality would be getting value for money.

He asked why the updated overtime report had still not been served to the Council.

Residents of the Mooibank informal settlement had alleged that they did not have wheel bins. He asked what steps had been taken to investigate whether councillors were involved in the placement of people in the settlement. If an investigation had been instituted, what were the findings?  

Ms D Direko (ANC) said that the responses provided were not adequate. Officials’ failing to attend a meeting on time was an indication of the culture of tardiness in the municipality. The officials of the JBMLM were a disgrace to the people.

Mr Groenewald asked if there was a plan for the chlorination of their water resources.

Executive Mayor Mataboge said she had noted a change in the municipality since she had been appointed.

The Chairperson asked what tangible evidence she had to show the change she referred to.

Ms Mataboge replied that the municipality had repaired several potholes and fixed sewage pipes. Two officials in the supply chain division had been suspended. If there were any outstanding issues in the municipality, they should be brought to the attention of the Mayor. The municipality had not been selective in the services it provided, as it wanted to provide for all.  

The Chairperson requested that she respond to the question on overtime, and also whether the municipality was aware that private businesses were repairing potholes.

Ms Mataboge said she was unaware of residents repairing potholes. She asked that the Committee provide the information on which communities were repairing potholes, so that her office could follow up on the matter. Her office was willing to work with all residents in the municipality.  

Cllr Makousa said that the MPAC had referred the issue of non-attendance to the Speakers’ Office, and it was hoped that this matter could be resolved as soon as possible, as it was unable to fulfil its duties.

Mr Makwe said that the Committee had not requested the municipality to state how many times Council had met this year.

There had been an investigation into the allegations of councillors not attending MPAC meetings, and once his office received the final report, it would implement the recommendations.

No information had been provided on the allegations of councillors encouraging people to settle in the Mooibank informal settlement.

It was untrue that councillors owed R58 million to the municipality -- they owed it only R58 000. Some councillors had settled their debt.  

The Chairperson asked which councillors had settled their debt.

Ms Mataboge said that the municipality would provide a list of those who had settled their debt.

The Chairperson asked if there were members of the executive who were on that list.

She replied that there were not.

The Chairperson said that several questions were still outstanding.

The MM said that the answers on the report sent had been based on the questions asked. All answers referred to the 2019-20 financial year.  

Mr Brink said that the questions referred to 2019 to date.

The Chairperson clarified that to date referred to 7 May 2021.

The MM admitted that the municipality had not correctly interpreted this meaning.

During the 2020-21 financial year, the Council had sat for 12 special meetings and three general meetings. The minutes of each meeting could be made available to the Committee.

A significant portion of the R300 million in fruitless and wasteful expenditure recorded during the 2019-20 financial year formed part of Ventersdorp's existing debt. As one of the municipal buildings had been burnt down, the municipality could not recover Ventersdorp’s financial information. A report on the UIFW incurred had been compiled, and would be sent to the Committee. 

The disciplinary board had been established, but it had never sat and was never functional.

The Chairperson asked what the Accounting Officer was doing to correct this. In addition, when would a new board be established?

The MM indicated that the new board would be in place before the end of August.

Council had approved a funded budget for the 2020-21 financial year. JBMLM was one of only three municipalities to have done so, and it had received a complimentary letter from the NW Provincial Treasury.

Referring to the municipal vehicles, he said that several vehicles were at separate service points in the municipality. Consequence management had been instituted against the supply chain manager, but he had filed for resignation before the disciplinary process could begin. Some of the vehicles had been found and brought back to the municipal workshop. Currently, the municipality was busy with the process of appointing a service provider who would auction the vehicles. This process would be done in a legal manner. Furthermore, a process for the recruitment of qualified individuals to fix some of the vehicles was under way. All vehicles that had been recently procured contained a service plan, to avoid vehicles being serviced by people who were not approved by the original manufacturers.  

Master plans which dealt with the service delivery issues had been developed. Also, several workshops on improved service delivery had been conducted.

All of the municipality’s investments could be shared with the Committee.

He said that where price inflations was detected, the Executive did take action. For instance, disciplinary action had been taken against the Supply Chain Management (SCM) Manager and a SCM employee for financial misconduct. Action was taken without fear, favour or prejudice. SCM committees had been established to help curb the deviations for this financial year, and the municipality anticipated that there would be improvements.  

Referring to the question on waste removal, he said that municipal trucks that entered certain areas like Marikana to collect refuse were either hijacked or vandalised. There had been seven cases of trucks being hijacked, which was one of the reasons why they had failed to go into the area. However, after engaging with leaders in the community, the municipality had managed to bring trucks into the area to collect refuse.  

All water leaks would be addressed by the master plan. The process of appointing senior managers in the technical services had been delayed, as qualified civil engineers were difficult to find. This skill had even been listed as scarce by SALGA. To date, seven highly qualified individuals had been appointed in the infrastructure department, and this was a cohort of youth, women and men.

Referring to the DMC, gave an assurance that the municipality would get value for money. There was a letter of commitment by the contractor stating that he would complete it at the same cost as when the tender had been awarded.

Both the municipality and the Administration team had agreed that water should be sampled and chlorinated, to ensure that it was of good quality. Two individuals had been appointed to handle water purification.  

Ms Matsapola said the Chief Whip at the JBMLM had mentioned that as a chapter 7 institution, the municipality strived to deliver excellent services to the people. It was also able to take criticism where it may be going wrong, but she felt that being referred to as a disgrace by a Member was unfair, and requested that the Member withdraw the comment.  

The Chairperson asked how she would define the officials’ behaviour earlier in the meeting. The request made had indicated that the apology provided by the municipality was not genuine. Officials must respect the House decorum.

Ms Matsapola apologised. She then said that the municipality was working on disciplining councillors who had not taken their work seriously.

She said that the municipality followed the usual procedure to appoint individuals. This consisted of first advertising the vacant position, and then interviewing the chosen candidates. When the Mayor first arrived in the municipality, she had called a meeting with senior management, where they had discussed how best to deal with the irregularities and misconduct occurring in the municipality. There were policies in place that should be followed, but they had not been, as the municipality had been in disrepute. However, both the political leaders and the Administration were working on all the challenges together, and were certain that all actions taken within and by the municipality would be in line with the law.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Administrator had been sent to support the municipality, and not to take over the powers and responsibilities of the executive team. She asked what the status of the disciplinary charges laid against the chief financial officer (CFO) and the MM were. How long had they been suspended for, and when did they expect their cases to be finalised?

Ms Matsapola agreed with the Chairperson, and said that the Administration usually only provided advice to them.

The Chairperson asked what the terms of reference adopted by Council on the work of the Administrator were.  

Ms Matsapola indicated that the terms of reference referred to all the challenges faced by the municipality.

The Chairperson asked what challenges the municipality had faced.

Ms Matsapola responded that issues of corruption, particularly those related to tenders, and how individuals were appointed in the municipality, were some of the issues faced. As a result of these challenges, the MEC had placed the municipality under administration. Subsequently, both the CFO and the MM had been suspended, based on the findings of an SIU investigation.

The Chairperson asked what the status of the cases were.

Ms Matsapola requested that the Administrator answer that question.

Mr Brink said that during the oversight visit in May, Members hadasked the Speaker whether there was a backlog of questions at the Mayor’s Office, and in the written response, the Speaker had said that there was no backlog. However, the Committee had provided a question from a councillor which had not been answered since it was posed in 2019. The Speaker should not mislead Parliament by providing false information. He requested that the municipality provide the correct answer to the question, and also inform the Committee why false information had been provided.

He asked if the SIU report that informed the suspension of the CFO and the MM had been shared with Council. In respect of the MSA, Council must resolve on the disciplinary hearing of the CFO and MM, even during an administration. At the very least, Council should be aware of the findings of the SIU. Earlier, officials had said that Council had received the report. He asked for the date on when the report was presented to Council, and asked for the minutes to be provided.

He also asked whether the municipality had said that waste collection was not taking place because of hijackings in specific areas.

Ms Mkhaliphi commented that no official had explained why the municipality had failed to respond to the Committee’s questions for two months. the fact that an official had requested that Members withdraw the word "disgrace" indicated the arrogance of the municipality.

No timeframes had been provided on the implementation of the master plans. She asked what the municipality done with the ratepayers’ money, besides steal it. More concrete information needed to be provided. The municipality had undermined the residents, particularly black people, as it had not done much in terms of improving service delivery. She asked that the DCoGHSTA explain why the municipality was in its current state.

She also asked how many cases had been laid against the officials alleged of wrongdoing.

Mr G Mpumza (ANC) said that the Auditor-General (AG) had raised a concerning finding, which was that there was an absence of diligent leaders in the municipality. There was a clear lack of leadership, and leaders had not fulfilled their mandate. Their behaviour earlier in the meeting was concerning.

He asked how much the municipality budgeted for infrastructure maintenance. Secondly, did the municipality have a dedicated division to maintain infrastructure? This would ensure that the assets were in a good state.

He asked why Council’s committees were in a dysfunctional state. Why had governance and stability in the municipality been absent? Furthermore, why had no consequence management been taken? As the political head, the Mayor must answer such questions.

Mr Ceza said that the municipality had not indicated why its MPAC was dysfunctional. Section 79 of the MSA provides that the Council must develop committees, as per the terms of reference. This section gave power for the MPAC to conduct its work.

Section 165 of the Local Municipal Finance Act 2003 requires each municipality to have an internal audit team. He asked if their internal audit team was capacitated to conduct its work without relying on consultants. If not, had the consultants shared their expertise with the officials to better capacitate them.  

Ms Spies said that the questions asked were not technical, and required simple answers. The Committee deserved answers, and the residents of JBMLM deserved good leadership.

Ms S Buthelezi (IFP) asked three questions.

Firstly, had there had been any significant change since the election of the Mayor, particularly with regard to financial management?

Secondly, were there short term plans to address the financial challenges present in the municipality?

Thirdly, why had none of the MPAC recommendations been implemented.

Mr Ceza asked why the residents were still being charged for refuse removal if their refuse had not been collected. Where had all the money for waste removal gone to.

Ms Mkhaliphi asked if EFF members had been among the councillors who had failed to attend MPAC meetings.

The Chairperson said that a report would be made available on the MPAC, and those who had missed meetings.

MEC's response

Mr Cwaile first apologised on behalf of the municipality for their behaviour earlier in the meeting.

The national government had decided that the Section 139 (1)(b) intervention in JBMLM must be continued until the municipal elections. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had recommended the continuation of Section 100 in the province until all the challenges had been resolved. Since that recommendation, national government had appointed the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) to lead the interventions in the province, and the Executive Council (EXCO) would be expected to process and make clear the issues plaguing the NW. Currently, they had been analysing which municipality should be subject to business rescue, in terms of Section 139 (5) of the Constitution, and also in terms of the MFMA, and which should be dissolved. The provincial government did not want all 13 municipalities to be placed under business rescue, and would prefer to intervene in them when required. The intention was that by 1 July, the provincial government would begin its intervention in various municipalities.

The provincial government appraised the performance of the administration team, and had made plans on how to improve the situation further. It was also pleased with the Council’s decision to appoint a new Mayor, as she had shown interest in supporting the administration team. An Acting Speaker had been appointed because the current Speaker had fallen ill with Covid-19.

The R300 million UIFW recorded in the municipality was a consequence of the merger. Potchefstroom, prior to the merger, had a surplus in its accounts, but after the merger, it had to carry Ventersdorp’s debts. The provincial government had been unable to retrieve the financial records due to the destruction of one of the municipal buildings. As a result of this, the provincial government wanted to establish a records management system for all 13 municipalities that would interface with the system of the Auditor General (AG). This would improve a municipality’s ability to manage all of its information and improve its knowledge system; thus ending the use of consultants. In the JBMLM, R15 million had been spent on consultants whilst it had employees occupying the substantive posts. This system would also ensure that managers were held accountable.  

The DCoGHSTA had looked into appointing investigators, in line with Section 106 of the Municipal Act, to investigate material irregularities in the municipality. However, it had decided to refer all material irregularities to the forensic investigators in the database, and had requested that the SIU assist it in recovering all of the losses.

Councillors not attending to their duties should be reported to the Cepartment. In terms of the MSA, both the Speaker of the municipality and the provincial government could initiate a disciplinary process of non-performing councillors. The Department had not been provided with information on this matter, but it would attend to the issue and deal decisively with the councillors.   

Presently, the Department had been looking into ways to assist with ensuring that the committees of the municipality were functional.

According to Section 160 (2) of the Constitution, there were four things that could not be delegated by Council, one of which included the approval of the budget. If Council could not approve its budget, it must apply to the Provincial Treasury for approval. Nevertheless, the JBMLM had managed to pass its budget, and it was one of three municipalities whose budget had been geared to fund service delivery.

The DCoGHSTA had requested that the legal division in the Department lodge a complaint with the legal practice council, using Schedule 5 forms, to request the investigation of legal practitioners charging high costs. This had been done as the Department had recognised that much of the money intended for service delivery had been used for litigation. All practitioners who had stolen from the public should be dealt with.

With the assistance of the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), the provincial and national Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), the DCoGHSTA had worked out how all the issues faced by municipalities could be resolved. The first step was to characterise each municipality, based on whether they were relatively stable, at risk or unstable. The Department had also looked at whether the municipalities were stable politically and financially.

Potholes had been a major challenge in the JBMLM, and the municipality estimated that it requires R4 million to cover all the potholes. The municipality had also agreed that refuse collection should be done correctly, that street lights must be repaired, and that water and sewage infrastructure must be improved.

The Department was looking to move long-term projects in municipalities to the short-term, for instance, with the newly developed non-chemical methodology which had been developed in the Mamusa Local Municipality. The Department wanted to attend to water treatment immediately.  

The DBSA had been requested to establish a project management unit at the NW DCoGHSTA for all municipalities. This unit would be expected to manage all the assets in the municipalities. PPE had been a serious area of weakness in municipalities, and the DBSA was expected to deal with this. The Department had written to National Treasury, through the national Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, to seek the conversion of a portion of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) for the direct management by the nationally appointed implementing agency, which would use the available municipal budget, in addition to the MIG, the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG) and the Water Services Infrastructure Grant (WSIG). It would also utilise resources made available by the DBSA for the purposes of project management. Once this resolution was agreed to by EXCO, all that remained was for this to be expressed at the municipal level.

The provincial government had sought to target the immediate basic service issues, one of which was related to the implementation of the National Health Act, which required that there be an improved health inspectorate. The DCoGHSTA had written to the NW Department of Health, requesting that it enter into an MOU which would clarify the scope of work that should done by the district and the local municipalities. In that same letter, the Department had also outlined how districts should assist the local municipalities.

It had been suggested during the Ministers and Members of Executive Councils Meeting (MINMEC) that for the purpose of the Khoisan and Traditional Leadership Act, municipalities should re-orientate their standing role. This should be implemented in the new electoral term. The DCoGHSTA had proposed the appointment of a service provider who would appoint the traditional councils. A framework for local beneficiation was also currently being prepared, with the assistance of the House of Traditional Leaders.  

The terms of reference for JBMLM to institutionalise capacity, and for the transfer of skills to its officials, had been developed.

All the master plans that the municipalities had developed had been budgeted for, and had clear timelines. Municipalities were supposed to begin implementing these plans from 1 July, but they had been delayed. One of the reasons for this delay was that the DCoGHSTA had to consult and persuade municipalities to allow the Section 100 (1)(b) intervention to unfold. Many of the municipalities had interdicted the national and provincial governments from doing so, and the only way to allow it to unfold was through dissolution. Recently, the Deputy Ministers of Finance and DCoGTA had led a road show to explain what measures should be enforced when placing municipalities into business rescue. The provincial government did not want to dissolve municipalities, but it was aware that if it did not, civic organisations would approach the courts to do so.

There had been considerable improvement in the JBMLM.

Mr Groenewald said that in terms of the MSA, the Mayor had not been legally appointed and her appointment could be challenged in the court. He asked what the DCoGHSTA would do to ensure that Council followed the legislation, as it was complicit. He suggested that she be removed from her position, and that a new election be held legally.

MEC Cwaile said that the current Mayor was the substantive Mayor of the municipality. She had been appointed correctly by the processes of Council. However, the Department would consult legal advice to identify if there had been an irregularity.

Mr Brink disputed that the source of UIFW at the JBMLM emanated from the amalgamation of Tlokwe and Ventersdorp. The financial statements of the municipality indicated an opening balance, with irregular expenditure incurred. It had then added that there had been irregular expenditure amounting to R300 million in this financial year. He requested that officials ensure that they had the correct information at hand.

Mr Hadebe asked whether the DCoGHSTA had said that the current Mayor had been elected according to the correct procedures and legislation. The MSA clearly stated that if more than one candidate was nominated for Mayor, the vote should be done through a secret ballot. This procedure also occurred in Parliament, when voting for the President. If the vote had been conducted through a show of hands, he asked what provision of law allowed for this.

The Chairperson requested that the MEC explain whether he stood by his statement that the Mayor had been appointed through the correct procedures.

MEC Cwaile requested that he have five working days to investigate the matter and provide a report. There had been no mention of irregularities previously, prior to this meeting.

The Chairperson said that the standing order should be in line with the legislation, and it must be followed to the latter.

Mr Hadebe said that the municipality had not provided details of what action it would take against councillors who had missed three meetings in a row without an apology. It had been mentioned that there was a report with all of the details on the matter, and he asked that it be submitted to the Committee.

The Chairperson also asked what remedial action had been taken by the Speaker against councillors who had missed three meetings.

Mr Groenewald suggested that the Committee demand consequence management be implemented where wrongdoing had been found.

The Chairperson said that the legislation was clear on how an election process of a Mayor should unfold. There had been an intervention in the municipality because the officials had disregarded the laws. She asked what the standing order stated, and whether it was line with the law.

As the meeting had gone overtime, she requested that the remaining questions be answered through written responses.

Mr Groenewald said all political parties had objected to the process, but the Speaker had continued, so it had been wrong for the DCoGHSTA to state that there had been no objections to the vote being held through a show of hands.

The Chairperson clarified that the MEC had not said that. Instead, he had mentioned that the complaints made by political parties had not been given to him.

She asked why the Administrator had not raised the irregularity of the election with the MEC.  

Cllr Makousa indicated that after the lockdown, the MPAC had had to amend the rules of order so that they could have virtual meetings. For the election of the mayor, two councillors were not present due to isolation. The rules of order allowed for them to be a part of the meeting virtually, but the Council had decided to conduct the election through a show of hands because the two councillors could not vote in a secret ballot.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee allow the Department to compile and submit a report on this issue.

Mr Hadebe agreed with the proposal.

The Chairperson requested that the outstanding responses be provided, together with the provincial Department’s report, in the next five working days.

Mr Hadebe asked for clarity on whether the MPAC report would be provided to the Committee as well.

The Chairperson said it would be expected.

Ms Mkhaliphi asked whether the responses would include the master plans and the date of their implementation.

The Chairperson said that they would include that information.

She thanked the MEC for his responses, and said that the Committee would meet with the DCoGHSTA the following week.

The meeting was adjourned.