Municipal Demarcation Board, Commission for Promotion & Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious & Linguistic Communities
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SELECT
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
8 May 2007
BUDGET BRIEFINGS BY MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD, COMMISSION FOR PROMOTION AND
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES
& LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY
Chairperson: Mr S
Shiceka (ANC – Gauteng)
Documents handed out:
Municipal
Demarcation Board: Budget Review presentation
Commission on Cultural,
Religious and Linguistic Communities: Business Plan 2007/08 presentation
Local Government
Sector Education and Training Authority: Progress Report presentation
Audio Recording of the Meeting Part1 & Part2
SUMMARY
The Municipal Demarcation Board briefed the members of the committee on its
strategic objectives and budget for the 2007/08 financial year. Key issues
raised were the potential effects of legislation changing the provincial
boundaries and the necessity of meeting the deadlines and timeframes imposed by
the upcoming elections in 2009 and 2011. Challenges included lack of interest
by provinces and municipalities, limited timeframes for consultation, new
legislation that might affect the preparations for elections and delays in
formulas. Full details of the expenditure and allocations for past and future
years were given. The Chairperson proposed that a workshop must be held to
fully address the issues raised. Questions by Members related to the number of
changes to municipal boundaries, the cross boundary cases referred to the Department
of Provincial and Local Government, non-viable municipalities, the sufficiency
of the amounts allocated, whether the Board was spending on core mandates,
funding on staff costs, and the research that could not be undertaken due to
financial constraints. The problems in Khutsong were discussed. Other
discussions centred around district management areas, the continued use of old
demarcation names, the high vacancy rate, the reasons for under-spending, use
of private consultants, the possibility of the Board buying office
accommodation, the need to revise criteria on viability of wards, and the
objections by the Board to the White Paper proposals.
The Commission on Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities briefed the
committee on its objectives and budget for 2007/08 and described its
programmes. The Commission listed limited financial and human resources as the
most important constraints on achieving its objectives. Members suggested that
the CRL must do more marketing, perhaps involving the SABC, and commented that
the Commission had a pivotal role in bringing about an African renaissance.
Questions were raised on the lack of profile in rural areas, the small staff
contingent, the number of cases resolved by mediation, the discrepancy in financial
support to festivals, interventions with traditional leaders, the need for
detailed plans on ubuntu, the roles of the Departments of Arts and Culture and
Education, the need to achieve more and have a better resource allocation.
The Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority reported on its
sector skills plans and listed the five strategic priority areas for
discretionary grant funding. Most municipalities did not have an infrastructure
asset maintenance plan and experienced difficulties with service delivery and
the maintenance of infrastructure. The SETA was re-assessing the value of
qualifications and skills, knowledge and ability to do the job. It could not
carry out internal audit functions, that had to be outsourced. There was a challenge
to train 80 000 Community Development Workers over the next few years. The
integrated training and development framework for municipalities was listed,
together with the funding. There was a major concern that municipalities did
not actually spend funds allocated for training on training and failed to claim
back the 50% of the training levies. Members raised queries about the general
performance of SETAs, the outcome of the former CEO’s court action, the income
adjustments in 2004/05 and 2005/06, and mechanisms to deal with municipalities
that did not utilise the money for training as intended. There were gaps in the
system that could be manipulated. Further questions were asked around the
mobilization of service providers, the need to identify key performance areas,
the municipalities not spending funds on training, the criteria were applied to
the disbursement of unspent money in the discretionary fund, the criteria for
bursaries, monitoring of the effectiveness of training and the need to have information
on backlogs. It was noted that the Department of Provincial and Local
Government was assisting with training of Councillors and doing a skills audit
within the Department. Members noted the good work being done but suggested
that more needed to be done and suggested that a round table discussion be held
to identify areas where Members could assist.
MINUTES
Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) Budget Briefing
Mr Voyo Mlokoti, Chairperson – MDB introduced the members of the delegation and
gave an outline of the board’s presentation to the committee.
Dr Hillary Monare (CEO) briefed the committee on the MDB’s mandates and
performance during 2006/2007. A draft work plan for the period 2007/2011, to
meet the deadlines imposed in key performance areas by the upcoming elections
in 2009 and 2011, was compiled and tabled by the Board. Concerns included the
lack of interest in demarcation issues by provinces and municipalities, the
tight consultation timeframes, and the possibility of delay. He summarised the main
points under each of the Board’s mandates of declaring district management
areas, alignment of service delivery boundaries and assessment of boundaries,
and capacity assessment. He discussed the relationships with key stakeholders
and the MDB’s organizational and governance issues.
Mr Richard Somanje, CFO, MDB, briefed the committee on the MDB’s financial
management objectives and gave an overview of past budget, income and
expenditure performance. He provided details of the expected income and expenditure
for 1999 to 2011, and set out full charts of budget trends. 82% of the amount
requested had been received, being R20,6 million. MDB was projecting R164 500
from other income. A breakdown of expected expenditure was given as well as the
proposed acquisition of fixed assets for 2007/08 to 2010/11. The total income
in 2006/07 had been R19.7 million and although the final audit was yet to be
done, the estimated expenditure was R20.5 million
Mr Mlokoti concluded that there was limited staff, budget and infrastructure.
He expressed disappointment that the board was unable to conduct special
research because of budget constraints. It expected a clean audit report but
noted that adequate funding remained a challenge as this affected performance
of statutory duties.
Discussion
The Chairperson proposed that a two-day workshop be arranged for the
Committee and the Board to address the concerns raised by the Board, and that
the Committee needed the national report of the Board. He noted that the R120
million discussed in the last briefing by the MDB to be taken up in a meeting
with the Minister of Finance.
Mr A Worth (DA – Free State) noted that 119 cases of changes to municipal
boundaries were put on hold and asked how many had been resolved since March
2006.
Dr Monare replied that seven applications for boundary changes had been
approved since March 2006 and requested the Committee’s assistance in
motivating the MEC’s to fast-track the conclusion of the remaining cases.
Mr Worth asked how many cases were cross-boundary problems.
Dr Monare replied that all cross-boundary cases were put on hold and the board
was unwilling to proceed with them because of the constitutional issues
involved. He had written to the Minister for Justice who replied that this
matter was not her responsibility and it should have been referred to the
Minister of Provincial and Local Government. The Department of Provincial and
Local Government (DPLG) was to prepare a document highlighting the concerns for
consideration by the Department of Justice. He said that the cross-boundary
cases were removed from the board’s task list and referred to the DPLG.
Mr Worth asked who initiated investigations into non-viable municipalities.
Dr Monare replied that the MDB may receive requests from the Minister of
Provincial and Local Government, MEC;s and municipalities to change boundaries.
He said that submissions were requests and not instructions to the Board. He
explained that the Board’s role was to check submissions for legal compliance
before processing submissions and submitting them for approval.
Mr Worth noted that the MDB submitted a request for funding amounting to R56
million for the election year 2009/10 but received only R30 million (53%). In
the previous election year 2004/05, an amount of R34 million was requested but
only R22 million (66%) was received. He asked if the amount allocated for the
next election year was sufficient.
Mr Somanje replied that an additional amount of R9 million was requested in
2004/05 and approved but was only allocated in the following financial year. He
added that it was necessary for the Board to receive funds timeously in order
to be in a position to carry out its responsibilities on time. He explained
that the Board compiled its budget based on its planned strategic objectives.
He added that compromises had to be made when adequate and timeous funding was
not received.
Mr A Moseki (ANC – North West) raised a previous concern of the Committee that
the Board was not utilising the funds allocated to it for its core mandates and
that this could have been one of the reasons for it being under-funded.
Dr Monare replied that the perception that the Board was spending money on
non-core items was the result of a lack of understanding of the
responsibilities and necessary activities of the MDB.
Mr Moseki asked what was meant by the traditional areas referred to in the
presentation.
Dr Monare replied that the Board was asked to map the boundaries of the
regional and traditional tribal authorities and that this project was nearing
completion.
Mr Moseki noted that the largest expenditure in 2006/07 was for staff costs
(38%) and asked the Board for an explanation as it would appear that the funds
allocated were not used for the intended purposes.
Mr Somanje replied that the cost of the outsourced capacity assessment research
was included in the staff costs, amounting to R7 million. He added that if this
was excluded, the Board’s expenditure on staff would be reduced to 20% of the
total expenditure.
Mr Moseki asked what special research was not done in 2006/07 due to financial
constraints.
Dr Monare replied that research needed to be done into the definition, norms
and standards of municipal and district functions. He said that this was
necessary to establish whether non-performance by municipalities was due to
lack of capacity or an unwillingness to perform the functions.
Kgoshi Mokoena (ANC – Limpopo) commented on the adverse effects of the
demarcation changes imposed on the Khutsong community. He related the extreme
levels of anger in the community and cited several riotous incidents.
Mr Moseki commented that the laws of the country applied to the Khutsong
community as well and that the actions taken were acts of defiance that should
not be tolerated. He said that a meeting was called by the ANC to discuss the
issue but the community refused to attend.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that people did not attend the meeting because they were
intimidated.
Dr Monare replied that the Board noted the consequences of boundary changes
imposed by Parliament on the communities involved.
Kgoshi Mokoena stressed the importance of
expediting the outstanding requests for boundary changes and of ensuring that
any new submissions were made timeously so that changes can be approved in time
for the next elections.
Dr Monare confirmed that all applications for boundary changes must be
submitted in 2007 to meet the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC)’s deadline
of 2008.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked for details of the Board’s concern that new legislation
may cause delays and result in targets not being met.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked if Robben Island was regarded as a District Management
Area (DMA) similar to the Kruger National Park and Table Mountain.
Dr Monare replied that national parks and areas of international significance
declared as DMA’s were the responsibility of the districts as they cannot be
managed by municipalities. He said that research conducted by the Board
confirmed that DMAs were not the way to go and that the number of DMAs need to
be reduced.
Kgoshi Mokoena commented that reference to old demarcation names such as
Transvaal, Ciskei, Boputhatswana and Transkei must be discontinued.
Dr Monare replied that the use of names was not the responsibility of the Board
Kgoshi Mokoena commented that a vacancy rate of 34% of posts was very high and
asked if priorities could not be re-prioritized to avoid under-funding.
Mr Mlokoti agreed that the vacancy rate was too high.
Kgoshi Mokoena commented that an unspent allocation should be referred to as
under-spending rather than as a surplus and asked for the reasons for the
expected under-spent amount of R16.8 million in 2006/07.
Mr Somanje replied that the surplus of R3 million declared in 2005/06 included
the additional R9 million requested in 2004/05, which had only been received in
the following financial year. He said that the actual surplus declared to
Treasury in 2005/06 amounted to only R356 000.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked to what extent the MDB made use of private consultants.
Dr Monare replied that non-recurring projects and capacity assessment tasks
were outsourced to service providers while advisory matters, mapping and
establishment of boundaries were done internally.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked for a breakdown of the budget allocation and expenditure
per province.
Dr Monare replied that the board functioned on a national rather than a
provincial level. He said that more submissions for boundary changes were
received from some provinces than from others, for example KZN.
Kgoshi Mokoena noted the amount spent on office rentals and asked if the Board
was considering owning its own offices.
Mr Mlokoti replied that the Board had investigated the possibility of
purchasing its own building and came to the conclusion that a large cash
injection was required but that funds were not available. He added that the
Board had approached the Department of Public Works to rent office space at a
much lower rate than it was currently paying.
Mr Leon Fielding (DA – Northern Cape) asked how the Board would be affected if
the number of provinces were reduced from 9 to 4.
Dr Monare replied that if the number of provinces were changed, the boundaries
of the provinces, municipalities and wards as well as the number of
municipalities would change as well. He said that the Board needed to be
informed of the changes as soon as possible to assess the impact on the MDB’s
activities and timeframes.
Mr Worth asked for clarification of the vacancy rate reported in the 2005/06
annual report.
The Chairperson asked what criteria were applied to determine whether a ward
was regarded as a functional ward.
Dr Monare replied that the board felt strongly that the legislation needed to
be reviewed. He said that the current criteria determining the functionality of
wards needed to be raised and were too technical and number-driven. He said
that the MDB had made submissions in this regard.
The Chairperson asked what role the committee could play in ensuring that the
Board meets its objectives in time for the next election.
Dr Monare replied that delays were caused during the last elections by the lack
of experience of newly-elected MEC’s who requested more time than was available
to deal with demarcation issues. He said that the Board was also criticized for
not consulting enough with communities but this was the result of time
constraints.
The Chairperson asked the Board to comment on the White Paper on local
government and to indicate when the new bill needed to be promulgated to avoid
adverse effect on the programme set by the MDB.
Dr Monare replied that the MDB had raised a number of objections to the
proposals in the White Paper. He said that it was not practical to assess the
performance of all the municipalities once a year and those municipalities
could also not be expected to continually improve their performance if capacity
assessments were done only once in five years. He added that the Board must
know as soon as possible what changes were proposed in the Local Government
Amendment Bill in order for it to be ready for the 2009/10 elections.
The Chairperson asked when the Board expected to finalize the demarcation
changes in KwaZulu Natal (KZN) resulting from the judgment handed down by the
Constitutional court.
Dr Monare replied that the court invalidated the boundary changes because of
the anomalies in the process and referred the matter back to Parliament, not to
the Board. The judgment included a deadline of February 2008 for finalisation,
but allowed for application for extension of the deadline. He understood that
the matter was being dealt with by the relevant authorities.
Dr Monare said that he was confident that the Board will be able to complete
the current workload of boundary demarcation changes before 2008 with the
co-operation of all involved at the provincial and national level.
The Chairperson suggested that the Board involve the committee in matters of
national importance and strategy. He commented that old names were still in use
because the demarcation process was not completed. He said that the resolution
of outstanding submissions was critical as service delivery was adversely
affected.
Dr Monare replied that these were cases where provincial boundaries were
affected by the proposed boundary changes and were brought to the Minister of
Justice’s attention. He said that the Department of Justice was slow to respond
and to come to terms with the alignment of service delivery. He added that the
Board did not have the authority to implement alignment and could only
recommend and provide assistance.
The Chairperson referred to the fundamental issue of the two-tier system of
government and said that in his view Parliament had abdicated responsibility
and was waiting to be told what to do about the Constitutional Court judgment.
He said that the Committee was in a position to provide leadership in this
matter and must make a contribution at both the national and provincial levels
to ensure that the provinces carried out their responsibilities. The Committee
must also engage the provinces to ensure that the matters relating to
provincial and inner boundaries are resolved on time.
The Chairperson expressed appreciation for the Board’s handling of its staff
and noted that there were no dismissals and only three resignations during the
past year. He pointed out that the Board did not provide any information on
staff demographics and asked what the MDB was doing to meet the gender and
other staffing targets.
Dr Monare replied that the report on the staffing complement was omitted in
error and would be made available to the committee.
Mr Mbulelo Sigaba, Deputy CFO: DPLG, commented that the issue of adequate
funding was also a concern of SALGA. He proposed a quarterly assessment of
budgetary performance and requested that the DPLG be kept informed of the
Board’s activities and funding requirements. He added that requests for funding
might not always be granted but that the DPLG could assist with educating
decision-makers about the responsibilities of the MDB.
Ms Morongoa Letsoalo, Deputy Chairperson – MDB, said that although there was a
tendency to over-emphasise problems, the board wanted to ensure that the
committee was made aware of the issues faced by the MDB and the matters where
assistance was required. She said that the impending changes to the legislation
were a critical issue for the Board as it needed a level playing field to operate
effectively.
Kgoshi Mokoena thanked the MDB for providing valuable insight and information
that would allow the Committee to meet its oversight responsibility and assured
the Board of the committee’s support in achieving its objectives.
Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Cultural, Religious and
Linguistic Communities (CRL) Business Plan Briefing 2007/08
Dr Mongezi Guma, Chairperson – CRL, introduced the members of the CRL
delegation. He noted, in regard to the recent media furore over the slaughtering
of animals on Mr Yengeni’s release, that a meeting was held with the SPCA where
the CRL expressed its concern that people’s right to exercise their cultural
practices without fear of arrest was infringed. SPCA admitted to an
overenthusiastic response to the Yengeni matter in the meeting. He added that,
judging from the e-mails he received from around the world, there appeared to
be a concerted campaign by the animal rights lobby to attack the committee for
the position taken by the CRL.
Dr Guma tabled the mandate, vision and mission of the CRL and outlined its
values and principles. The Commission aimed to achieve constructive social
transformation and a development orientated approach, whilst addressing
people’s needs and being transparent. He listed the challenges faced by the CRL
in exercising its mandate, and the need to develop an appreciation of culture
without retreating back to the entrenched attitudes of the past.
Current concerns included the issue of repatriation and exploring appropriate
ways of achieving it. He said the right of children to return to the farms
where their parents had lived to exercise the rituals of the dead need to be
accommodated in a manner that was not threatening to the farmer.
Ms Pumla Madiba, CEO, CRL Commission, explained in greater detail the key
challenges and the environment in which the CRL operated. She listed the need
to restore the values of ubuntu, the definition of community and the
contribution of the concept of unity in diversity to building the nation. Other
challenges outlined included the diminishing of human and African values of
ubuntu, competing definitions of community, seeking unity in diversity, false
identities that had become historically entrenched, limited resources within
the organisation and the lack of funding.
Ms Madiba explained the integrated approach taken by the CRL with its three
main programmes of research and policy development, public education and
information and the establishment of community councils. She listed the commission’s
potential partners in carrying out its programmes and explained that its main
constraints were limited financial and human resources.
Ms Madiba presented the CRL’s detailed business plan and tabled the budgets
required to meet each of the strategic objectives.
Discussion
The Chairperson suggested that the CRL invest more in marketing itself
in order to become better known and improve communication. He mentioned the
Tony Yengeni episode as one example where a good marketer could have raised the
profile of the CRL, as well as the example set by the Human Rights Commission
in raising awareness.
Dr Guma conceded the Commission’s weakness in marketing itself and said that so
far the focus was on the CRL’s programmes and the day to day management of resources.
The Chairperson commented on the loss of culture and tradition and the critical
role the Commission could play in preserving the culture and restoring the
dignity of the people and thereby bring about the African Renaissance.
Mr Moseki agreed with the Chairperson that communication was important. He
added that the strategy used most often to undermine people’s culture was to
impose their own institutions and communities. He complimented the CRL on doing
a good job and suggested that radio stations were utilized to address the
commission’s moral regeneration programmes.
The Chairperson noted that culture was promoted in other countries by the use
of music and suggested that the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)
was added to the list of potential partners in order to reach people through
the medium of television and radio.
Mr N Mack (ANC – Western Cape) commented that the CRL was unknown in rural
areas and expressed concern that the efforts of the commission would not reach
isolated farm communities.
Mr Mack remarked that the CRL’s statement that it was accountable to the
National Assembly (slide no. 3) should be corrected to read that it was
accountable to Parliament.
Mr Mack expressed concern over the number of vacancies for financial staff and
the overall lack of human resources of the commission. He asked how the CRL
coped with so few staff.
Dr Guma replied that a committee was created to identify the staffing levels
needed by the CRL in order to meet its objectives and allow it to operate at a
higher level.
Ms Madiba responded that there was a discrepancy between the commission’s
planned outputs and the tools at its disposal to meet its objectives.
Mr Mack agreed that mediation was the best way to approach the complaints dealt
with by the commission. He asked what percentage of cases was dealt with
through mediation, how many were successfully resolved and how many hard-line
cases there were where mediation was rejected.
Mr Mack lamented the lack of support for local African artists and said they
received no exposure on television and had few opportunities to perform while
much effort went into promoting overseas artists. He added that there was a
large discrepancy in the financial support provided by the Department for Arts
and Culture for Afrikaner festivals like the Klein-Karroo Nasionale Kunstefees
(KKNK) and that given for any other festival.
Dr Guma replied that the Commission was involved in the promotion of two
cultural initiatives, namely African Day and Young People. He added that the
National Heritage Council had hosted a local music competition awards ceremony
in KZN and the Commission was involved in discussions on how recognition and
encouragement to artists to flourish could be promoted at both national and
provincial levels.
The Chairperson commented that the Commission’s responsibility was to protect
all cultures and to provide guidance and assistance to communities in
developing their cultural heritage.
Dr Guma replied that the CRL did work with traditional leaders and was also
engaged in interventions with traditional leaders. He cited examples in Limpopo
province and the work done with leaders in Pondoland regarding the deaths in
initiation schools. He said that a pilot programme was being developed in the Eastern
Cape where a need was identified to restore the dignity and historical position
of the chief in the community.
Kgoshi Mokoena agreed with previous comments made by the committee that the
commission needed to become better known and that a marketing strategy was
needed to achieve this.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that events like the soccer World Cup provided
opportunities to promote the country and its cultures to visitors. He said that
the CRL was in a better position than anyone else to provide advice.
Kgoshi Mokoena noted the CRL’s emphasis on the importance of ubuntu and said
that a detailed plan on how this objective can be achieved was needed. He added
that the perception than anything African was barbaric must be eliminated.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that the Department of Arts and Culture was a very
important stakeholder and he assumed that its omission from the CRL’s list of
potential partners was an oversight.
Dr Guma replied that the Commission was currently engaged with the Department
of Arts and Culture to review policies. He added that this engagement allowed
the CRL to interact with officials from the department and to raise issues
pertinent to provinces. He said that the interaction also allowed for the
development of constructive relationships.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked the commission to provide more details on its budget and
to include a breakdown of expenditure per province.
Ms Madiba replied that the major challenge faced by the Commission was the
extremely limited financial resources. She added that the Commission included
the provinces in the planning of activities but was limited by financial
constraints to implementing only relatively small projects.
Kgoshi Mokoena expressed appreciation for the Commission’s efforts but said
that more needed to be done.
Ms Madiba replied that the Commission was established fairly recently and was
only now beginning to get to grips with the extent of its mandate. She added
that the CRL had a single office in Johannesburg and no office in any other
province or municipality. She predicted a slow expansion rate to establish a
presence in more provinces.
The Chairperson explained the role the Committee plays at a provincial level as
opposed to the National Assembly which operated on a national level.
Dr Guma replied that in terms of the Commission’s outreach strategy, programmes
were introduced in both a rural and an urban area selected in each province.
Dr Guma said that the CRL was requested to develop a cultural profile of
provinces and cited the example of KZN where everybody living in the province
was not necessarily a Zulu. He added that the challenge to the Commission was
how to create space for these minority communities in the provinces.
Mr A Manyosi (ANC – Eastern Cape) commented that because of budget constraints,
the Commission did not have the resources to promote itself.
Mr Manyosi suggested that the Department of Education was an important partner
to the CRL in assisting with the promotion of culture to children. He added
that the children of wealthier parents that were sent to multiracial and Model
C schools tended to lose their background, identity and ability to write or
spell their language.
The Chairperson said that the Commission’s need for more resources to be made
available to it was apparent. He proposed that the Commission and the Committee
meet for a round table discussion of the CRL’s objectives and concerns to see
where the members of the Committee can assist in resolving issues and
challenges.
Dr Guma replied that this would be welcomed.
Ms Madiba responded that the CRL had produced a document describing and
explaining the environment in which it operated. She pointed out that the
Commission was mandated to protect all of the 11 language communities and that
everyone had a right to the CRL. She welcomed the comments of the members and
the offer of assistance and advice from the Committee.
Mr Fielding expressed concern for the number of young persons in correctional
centres. He suggested that the CRL interact with Local Government, the South
African Police Service (SAPS), the Department of Justice and the Department of
Correctional Services to reach those young men and girls.
Dr Guma commented that the Commission was not invited to contribute to the
development of Parliament’s new emblem. He further noted that although
indigenous names were preferred, new names chosen were not necessarily
indigenous, for example the name change from Port Elizabeth to Nelson Mandela.
He said that the Commission was concerned with ensuring that it avoids replacing
historical myths promoting political agendas with new myths.
Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA) Progress
Report briefing
Mr M Sebezo, LGSETA, apologized for the absence of Clr Gavin Lobelo,
Chairperson of the LGSETA and summarised the Chairperson’s foreword to the
committee.
Mr Sidwell Mofokeng, CEO, LGSETA, reported on the sector skills plans of the
LGSETA and listed the five strategic priority areas for discretionary grant
funding. He highlighted the importance of the infrastructure and service
delivery programme and said that most municipalities did not have an
infrastructure asset maintenance plan and experienced difficulties with service
delivery and the maintenance of infrastructure as a result.
Mr Mofokeng said that the LGSETA was re-assessing the value of qualifications
versus the skills, knowledge and ability to do the job and had found that in
most cases, the person carrying out maintenance tasks had no qualifications but
had the necessary experience and skills.
Mr Mofokeng said that there was no resident capacity within the LGSETA to carry
out internal audit functions and it was outsourced at great cost. He said that
most of the LGSETA’s functions were driven by legislation and noted that
municipalities were governed by 136 items of legislation.
Mr Mofokeng said that municipalities in total employed only 128 property
valuers and so most property valuations were outsourced. He added that every
ward was required to have a functional ward committee in terms of the Act and
the LGSETA was faced with the challenge to train 80000 Community Development
Workers (CDW’s) appointed over the next few years.
Mr Mofokeng explained the integrated training and development framework for
municipalities developed by the LGSETA and listed the approved projects and
funding allocated to each. He mentioned that a major concern was that
municipalities did not spend funds allocated for training on actual training
and failed to claim back the 50% of the training levies.
Mr Mofokeng said that it was most important to conduct impact assessments of
training done and include an assessment of the effectiveness of the funds
dispersed on training.
Mr Mofokeng tabled full details of the Skills Development Levy (SDL) income and
grant disbursements made per province during the 2006/07 financial year.
Discussion
The Chairperson asked the LGSETA to provide a report on its activities
per province.
Mr Worth mentioned that the Minister of Finance was allegedly unhappy with the
SETA’s performances. He referred to the LGSETA’s 2006 annual report and asked
if there was any outcome on the matter of the former CEO’s case against the
LGSETA, for which a contingency of R690 000 was provided in the 2005/06 year.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the previous incumbent would not be proceeding with
the case and the contingency was reversed in the 2006/07 year.
Mr Worth noted that a surplus of R35 million for 2004/05 was reflected in the
notes to the annual financial statements but a net deficit of R52 million was shown
at the beginning of 2005/06. He asked the LGSETA to explain how this could be
possible.
Mr Mofokeng replied that formal approval for income adjustments and the
correction of mis-allocated funds was received only after the end of the
2004/05 year.
Mr Worth asked for clarification on the investment income and also asked for
clarification on two conflicting statements under the notes on contingencies in
the 2006 annual report.
Mr Moseki asked what mechanisms were in place to deal with municipalities that
did not utilise the money for training as intended.
Mr Mofokeng expanded on the problem of “malicious compliance” by municipalities
in order to claim funds intended for training. He said that the sector skills
plan document often ended up with a skills development officer at a junior
municipal level and was completed with little or no consultation. He said that
the paperwork was completed and submitted but the details were not necessarily
a true reflection of the real situation. He said that where, in theory, the
municipality had complied the LGSETA was obliged to disburse funds. He said
that the LGSETA did not have the resources and capacity to check the situation
at every municipality and was powerless to take action.
Mr Mofokeng mentioned two cases where the LGSETA was taken to court when it
refused to disburse funds, and had lost the cases. He said that there were gaps
in the system that could be manipulated. He added that the LGSETA addressed
this problem by having provincial summits with the involvement of the DPLG and
the MEC’s. He said that memoranda of agreement (MOU’s) have been signed with
provinces.
Mr Mofokeng said that the information on incidences of malicious compliance
would be made available to the Committee.
Mr Moseki asked if the LGSETA was proactive in mobilising service providers and
available skills.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the state of affairs in municipalities was known to
some extent. He said that a detailed skills audit was to be conducted to gather
information to make informed interventions. He added that there was a need to
identify key performance areas and a conference was to be held to identify a
national agenda and strategy.
Mr Moseki asked what the opportunities for job creation were.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the number of posts should correlate to the number of
households to ensure service delivery. He said that no norms and standards for
benchmarking municipal posts existed. He mentioned that there were examples of
mismatching, such as where a person occupied a post for which he was not
qualified. He said that there were many other factors influencing service
delivery, not just training.
Mr Mack asked for details of which municipalities were not spending reclaimed
funds on training.
Mr Mack asked what criteria were applied to the disbursement of unspent money
that was held in the discretionary fund.
Mr Mofokeng replied that discretionary funds were spent on the five key
priority areas. He gave the example of the Siyanuma municipality that had paid
levies of R80 000, of which R40 000 may be reclaimed. He said that because it
had no skills whatsoever, it was allocated R2.5 million for capacity building
training out of the unclaimed fund.
Mr Mack asked if unclaimed money was available in the following year or if it
was forfeited.
Mr Mofokeng undertook to provide a list of unclaimed and forfeited amounts per
province to the committee.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked if information about the qualification criteria for
bursaries were available.
Mr Mofokeng replied that information about the grants and bursaries was
available from the LGSETA.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked if any monitoring of the effectiveness of Community
Development Worker (CDW) training was done.
Mr Mofokeng replied that there were some mixed reactions to the CDWs. He added
that although there were gaps, on the whole the CDW training provided was good.
Kgoshi Mokoena asked if any calculated outputs are in place to determine if
training was successful.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the quality of training could not be attested to. He
added that the development of a training assessment programme to measure the
effectiveness of training was underway.
The Chairperson remarked that project management skills were critical to ensure
service delivery.
Mr Mofokeng replied that project management was highlighted in the presentation
and that funds have been allocated for this.
The Chairperson said that the areas the LGSETA focused on were good but no
backlog information was provided and it was difficult for the Committee to
assess the progress made.
The Chairperson said that human resource capacity in municipalities was
non-existent and much needed to be done in developing skills in this area.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the lack of HR skills was identified in the priority
areas. He added that municipalities focused on industrial relations matters
rather than human resources and human resource development issues such as
skills audits and capacity assessments. He said that skills development
officers were often junior staff with little credibility. He noted that
municipalities needed assistance with IR matters as well.
Mr Shiceka asked what was being done in placing graduates and interns.
Mr Mofokeng replied that interns and graduates could be placed immediately.
Mr Shiceka remarked on the lack of basic financial skills at municipal levels.
Mr Mofokeng replied that the state of affairs in municipalities was known to
some extent. He said that a detailed skills audit was to be conducted to gather
information to make informed interventions. He added that there was a need to
identify key performance areas and a conference was to be held to identify a
national agenda and strategy.
The Chairperson said that the LGSETA was doing a good job but more still needed
to be done. He suggested a round table discussion between the LGSETA and the
Committee to discuss areas of concern and to assess where the members of the
Committee can provide assistance.
Mr Mofokeng replied that changes to the reporting structure were made every
time the LGSETA reported to the Committee. He suggested that a workshop be held
for the members of the Committee to understand the mandate of the LGSETA. He
explained that the LGSETA had no legislative authority and no authority to deal
with incidents of malicious compliance by municipalities to obtain funding. He
said that the LGSETA could merely identify areas where strengthening was needed
and assist with that.
Mr Nyanisile Jack, Chief Director, DPLG, advised that the DPLG was co-operating
with the LGSETA in the training of councillors and senior managers in
leadership skills. He added that this was an accredited programme towards an
accepted qualification.
Mr Jack said that a skills audit was being conducted to determine the skills
gaps in the DPLG and it was expected to be completed in eighteen months.
The Chairperson concluded that the Committee was committed to assisting the
LGSETA to find solutions for the challenges.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.