Cape Town City councillors are exploiting park upgrades for votes. That’s according to a community liaison officer (name withheld) of mayoral committee member for community services Zahid Badroodien.
He also said park budgets are not spent resulting in work to complete projects being performed up to midnight on the last day of the financial year before budgets lapse. In some suburbs no one uses recreational facilities like Gugulethu that has five astro-turf courts costing R5 million each within a small radius.
The official told me this on December 9 during a meeting about unneeded politically driven developments to our local park (see here). When I heard about these “upgrades” – a pathway, and for the next financial year, exercise equipment and multi-purpose courts – in September, I raised it with Badroodien, Mayor Dan Plato and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo. Badroodien promised to investigate according to the liaison officer but nothing came of it and the pathway was constructed. Three months later, no one is using the pathway.
On November 30 I sent Badroodien and the others a report about developments – the completed first phase, the pathway which cost R280 000, the ward’s entire park upgrade budget for 2020/21 (in 2019/20 the ward budget was R250 000) – comparing it to other neglected parks in the area, most in a poor state. The officer contacted me and requested a meeting.
He said parks cause the most trouble among the community and take up 80% of his department's time. They are in a difficult position because they have to hear all sides and often a community wants different things.
For our park, he said the city had to consider a petition in favour of upgrades. Some argued the park hadn’t been “improved” while other parks have.
But he ignored the facts I had already given his superiors. First, the developments were unasked for and unwanted except by the clique who never canvassed residents. And although the city says residents allegedly “overwhelming” support it, the petition had been circulated among a very small section of the neighbourhood, about 50 people, a number he later tried to retract, out of up to 10 000 people who live in the neighbourhood.
He also said park budgets are not spent resulting in work to complete projects being performed up to midnight on the last day of the financial year before budgets lapse. In some suburbs no one uses recreational facilities like Gugulethu that has five astro-turf courts costing R5 million each within a small radius.
The official told me this on December 9 during a meeting about unneeded politically driven developments to our local park (see here). When I heard about these “upgrades” – a pathway, and for the next financial year, exercise equipment and multi-purpose courts – in September, I raised it with Badroodien, Mayor Dan Plato and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo. Badroodien promised to investigate according to the liaison officer but nothing came of it and the pathway was constructed. Three months later, no one is using the pathway.
On November 30 I sent Badroodien and the others a report about developments – the completed first phase, the pathway which cost R280 000, the ward’s entire park upgrade budget for 2020/21 (in 2019/20 the ward budget was R250 000) – comparing it to other neglected parks in the area, most in a poor state. The officer contacted me and requested a meeting.
He said parks cause the most trouble among the community and take up 80% of his department's time. They are in a difficult position because they have to hear all sides and often a community wants different things.
For our park, he said the city had to consider a petition in favour of upgrades. Some argued the park hadn’t been “improved” while other parks have.
But he ignored the facts I had already given his superiors. First, the developments were unasked for and unwanted except by the clique who never canvassed residents. And although the city says residents allegedly “overwhelming” support it, the petition had been circulated among a very small section of the neighbourhood, about 50 people, a number he later tried to retract, out of up to 10 000 people who live in the neighbourhood.
This was months after the decision had been made in private by a cabal including the councillor, sub-council manager, city officials and the unrepresentative residents group (it was only formed on September 12).
The city should know a petition, while useful, has no relevance to a proper, lawful public participation process. And decisions made privately or in an exclusionary way is not public participation. It’s obvious the project’s organisers – councillor, sub-council staff and residents group – are too lazy, negligent or ignorant of community consultation to have done it properly.
Petitioners were duped into believing they had approval power – the city told them including me they did – when the decision had been made in private over a period of 12 months. It’s amazing that with the constitution, decided law and city’s resources they don't understand public participation, how it and the IDP process works and requirements for expenditure resulting from that process.
Critically, ward committee members were not involved in the proposals (someone who knows the committee was surprised when I mentioned them) as they ought to have been by the Municipal Structures Act. The proposals originated and were pushed by this clique in particular the residents group which lacks a community mandate. Remarkably, as emails I have show, they gave the city and councillor orders about acquisitions, specifications and location on the park of proposed facilities. And the city asked them for “permission” to proceed.
Almost three months after it was completed the pathway is still not used especially by those who wanted it. This proves it and proposed future developments were never needed which the city would’ve known if they conducted a community needs assessment. They developments serve no purpose and detract from the park’s existing utility and are costing money to maintain. As it is, users are happy with the park as it is.
Under the Public Management Finance Act and Municipal Management Finance Act, the developments are irregular and unauthorised (irregular expenditure cannot be authorised) and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure applies to capital and operational expenditure. It can be recouped personally from those responsible. In this case it's primarily the councillor and sub-council manager who had a key role.
But since the executive – Mayor Dan Plato, mayco for community service Zahid Badroodien and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo – were aware before work proceeded because I told them and they were in a position to do something about it but didn't, they too are liable.
Technically, under the common law principle of joint and several liability, petitioners who “overwhelmingly signed” off on the project are also liable to pay for the wasted expenditure. But since they were willingly duped, it's unfair to hold them accountable.
The city has no intention of investigating the abuse of taxpayer resources, law and process that occurred despite their promise they would. Not investigating probable and potential problems violates the PFMA and MFMA. The accounting officer, primarily city manager and executive mayor, are liable.
It's remarkable the DA, which claims it's against corruption and financial incompetence, doesn’t want to get to the bottom of what was clearly the waste of taxpayer money and abuse of process for political ends, a former controversial councillor’s (then investigated for misconduct) involvement effectively proving the allegation. But as the liaison officer said, unfortunately it's quite common.
I reported the irregularities to the auditor-general. Should they find impropriety I will lay an ethics complaint against the ward councillor and sub-council manager for abdicating the responsibilities of their office and that they actively and proactively allowed a politically connected group to usurp their and the ward committee’s role, authority and decision-making power. I will ask council to investigate why the executive – those mentioned – refused and still refuses to act when they are aware of potential problems.
The city should know a petition, while useful, has no relevance to a proper, lawful public participation process. And decisions made privately or in an exclusionary way is not public participation. It’s obvious the project’s organisers – councillor, sub-council staff and residents group – are too lazy, negligent or ignorant of community consultation to have done it properly.
Petitioners were duped into believing they had approval power – the city told them including me they did – when the decision had been made in private over a period of 12 months. It’s amazing that with the constitution, decided law and city’s resources they don't understand public participation, how it and the IDP process works and requirements for expenditure resulting from that process.
Critically, ward committee members were not involved in the proposals (someone who knows the committee was surprised when I mentioned them) as they ought to have been by the Municipal Structures Act. The proposals originated and were pushed by this clique in particular the residents group which lacks a community mandate. Remarkably, as emails I have show, they gave the city and councillor orders about acquisitions, specifications and location on the park of proposed facilities. And the city asked them for “permission” to proceed.
Almost three months after it was completed the pathway is still not used especially by those who wanted it. This proves it and proposed future developments were never needed which the city would’ve known if they conducted a community needs assessment. They developments serve no purpose and detract from the park’s existing utility and are costing money to maintain. As it is, users are happy with the park as it is.
Under the Public Management Finance Act and Municipal Management Finance Act, the developments are irregular and unauthorised (irregular expenditure cannot be authorised) and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure applies to capital and operational expenditure. It can be recouped personally from those responsible. In this case it's primarily the councillor and sub-council manager who had a key role.
But since the executive – Mayor Dan Plato, mayco for community service Zahid Badroodien and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo – were aware before work proceeded because I told them and they were in a position to do something about it but didn't, they too are liable.
Technically, under the common law principle of joint and several liability, petitioners who “overwhelmingly signed” off on the project are also liable to pay for the wasted expenditure. But since they were willingly duped, it's unfair to hold them accountable.
The city has no intention of investigating the abuse of taxpayer resources, law and process that occurred despite their promise they would. Not investigating probable and potential problems violates the PFMA and MFMA. The accounting officer, primarily city manager and executive mayor, are liable.
It's remarkable the DA, which claims it's against corruption and financial incompetence, doesn’t want to get to the bottom of what was clearly the waste of taxpayer money and abuse of process for political ends, a former controversial councillor’s (then investigated for misconduct) involvement effectively proving the allegation. But as the liaison officer said, unfortunately it's quite common.
I reported the irregularities to the auditor-general. Should they find impropriety I will lay an ethics complaint against the ward councillor and sub-council manager for abdicating the responsibilities of their office and that they actively and proactively allowed a politically connected group to usurp their and the ward committee’s role, authority and decision-making power. I will ask council to investigate why the executive – those mentioned – refused and still refuses to act when they are aware of potential problems.
Comments
Post a Comment