COUNCIL 28 AUGUST 2008 CLIVE NAPIER
PART 1 ITEM 3 IDP PROCESS PLAN AND BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR 2009/2010
PART 1 ITEM 3 IDP PROCESS PLAN AND BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR 2009/2010
Mr Speaker – since the time I was first elected to sit in this chamber, I have spoken on several occasions on the chaos around the IDP and budgeting process. Much of what I am going to say now I have said before. I will not repeat what one of my colleagues on this side of the chamber has/will say about public participation and the IDP.
Public participation is supposed to be an integral part of the IDP formulation process. Public participation just does not happen to any significant extent. There are in my view several reasons for this.
First. Communication from the Speaker’s office is poor. Very little warning if any, and short time periods are allocated to making inputs into the IDP process.
Secondly, no feedback is received by those who make inputs. My ward 57 committee has made inputs over several years including many reasonable and essential requests like for example, the need for additional toilet facilities in the ward or additional street lights or road upgrading. One never get a response except by way of a formal question in council to the mayor and then the responses are not very satisfactory.
Thirdly, there is no mention in this item of the role of ward committees in the IDP and budgeting process, although this is supposed to be one of the important functions of ward committees as forums for public participation. The ward committee elections which have recently taken place seem to me to be a charade – they take place simply because the law permits the establishment of ward committees – they are not taken seriously by this council or the officials involved in policy execution.
From my experience – the IDP formulation process has not improved. What should be done? Perhaps the process itself should be subjected to a thorough public participation process.
Further, the public should be given the necessary information to decide on what is needed and what the priorities should be in their respective wards – like the capacities of infrastructure like water pipelines and electricity infrastructure which are not always known to the ordinary resident so that such requirements can be prioritised.
Finally, ward committees in particular, should be given proper feedback within a certain period of time on their IDP inputs and further ward committees must be given fair warning of the need to make inputs into the IDP.
Mr Speaker – to improve the IDP process , I would like to request that at a minimum, an inclusion be made administratively in Annexures A and B in which reference is made to the role of ward committees in the IDP process.
I thank you.
Annexure A. Item 9. Progress report on reviewing and rationalization of by-laws.
This is a confusing report. How can a by-law for example - the one on ‘Keeping of animals, birds and poultry’ have been promulgated and effective when further down on the page it is stated that this particular by-law is still ‘under public participation’? It makes no sense to me. There are other similar instances.
There are other instances where the revision of by-laws have taken too long to materialize. More than two years back, a portfolio committee began the process of reviewing the Building control by-law which I assume is subsumed item (a) being a supplement to the National Building Regulations. Likewise that on the control of informal settlements. When are these by-laws going to be finalized? These are critical matters affecting many people. I must ask – why are they not being referred to the City Planning, Development and Regional Services Portfolio Committee for consideration? They are surely extremely relevant to that portfolio? The process to be followed in finalizing by-laws leaves a lot to be desired. This is a poorly drafted report.
Public participation is supposed to be an integral part of the IDP formulation process. Public participation just does not happen to any significant extent. There are in my view several reasons for this.
First. Communication from the Speaker’s office is poor. Very little warning if any, and short time periods are allocated to making inputs into the IDP process.
Secondly, no feedback is received by those who make inputs. My ward 57 committee has made inputs over several years including many reasonable and essential requests like for example, the need for additional toilet facilities in the ward or additional street lights or road upgrading. One never get a response except by way of a formal question in council to the mayor and then the responses are not very satisfactory.
Thirdly, there is no mention in this item of the role of ward committees in the IDP and budgeting process, although this is supposed to be one of the important functions of ward committees as forums for public participation. The ward committee elections which have recently taken place seem to me to be a charade – they take place simply because the law permits the establishment of ward committees – they are not taken seriously by this council or the officials involved in policy execution.
From my experience – the IDP formulation process has not improved. What should be done? Perhaps the process itself should be subjected to a thorough public participation process.
Further, the public should be given the necessary information to decide on what is needed and what the priorities should be in their respective wards – like the capacities of infrastructure like water pipelines and electricity infrastructure which are not always known to the ordinary resident so that such requirements can be prioritised.
Finally, ward committees in particular, should be given proper feedback within a certain period of time on their IDP inputs and further ward committees must be given fair warning of the need to make inputs into the IDP.
Mr Speaker – to improve the IDP process , I would like to request that at a minimum, an inclusion be made administratively in Annexures A and B in which reference is made to the role of ward committees in the IDP process.
I thank you.
Annexure A. Item 9. Progress report on reviewing and rationalization of by-laws.
This is a confusing report. How can a by-law for example - the one on ‘Keeping of animals, birds and poultry’ have been promulgated and effective when further down on the page it is stated that this particular by-law is still ‘under public participation’? It makes no sense to me. There are other similar instances.
There are other instances where the revision of by-laws have taken too long to materialize. More than two years back, a portfolio committee began the process of reviewing the Building control by-law which I assume is subsumed item (a) being a supplement to the National Building Regulations. Likewise that on the control of informal settlements. When are these by-laws going to be finalized? These are critical matters affecting many people. I must ask – why are they not being referred to the City Planning, Development and Regional Services Portfolio Committee for consideration? They are surely extremely relevant to that portfolio? The process to be followed in finalizing by-laws leaves a lot to be desired. This is a poorly drafted report.
Thank you.
Dr Clive Napier ( 082 827 5578)
Speech by Cllr Casper MacDonald
Baie dankie vir die geleentheid om die Raad toe te spreek.
Chapter 4 of the Municipal Management Act of 2000 paragraph 16.(1) and others states clearly that a municipality must encourage and create conditions for the public to participate in municipal affairs.
The Act states further that the public should participate in the preparations of the budget (IDP process).
Die wet stel dit ook dat die munisipaliteit die publiek se kapasitiet moet bou om aan die sake van die Raad deel te neem deur meganismes prosesse en prosedures daar te stel wat die gemeenskap sal bemagtig om aan die publieke deelname prosesse deel te neem.
Die wet verplig die Raad om die publiek betyds van die publieke deelname geleenthede te verwittig en dat die Raad aan die publiek terugvoering moet gee.
Hierdie verslag sêt die volgende oor publieke deelname prosses, en ek haal aan”it is a program of action which guides the IDP of the City of Tshwane and enables proactive participation, cooperation and integration of role players of which residents is one. And on page 54 of the report it is stated that, as stipulated in the MSA, the IDP process should provide for the PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
Mr Speaker how does the ANC deal with the public in Tshwane? This Council disregard its residents and deals with public participation in the most disgusting manner thinkable. The public participation session in Centurion regarding the budget did not even take place. We are still waiting for the officials to set a new date. More important, up to today, nobody rendered any reason why they did not honoured their appointment with Centurion residents.
Het die inwoners die geleentheid gehad om proaktief aan die begrotings en IDP prosessse deel te neem. Mnr die Speaker weet die ANC wat pro aktief beteken? Dit beteken voordat ‘n besluit geneem word moet die inwoners die geleentheid kry om hulle insette te lewer. Pro aktiewe deelname skep darem die indruk dat die insette oorweeg gaan word. In die proses wat hier uiteen gesit is, is dit weereens duidelik dat die IDP opgestel en goedgekeur gaan word en dan aan publieke deelname ondrewerp gaan word. Net soos met die jaar se begroting gaan daar weer nie ‘n behoorlike publieke deelname proses wees wat aan al die wetlike vereistes gaan voldoen word nie.
Mr Speaker the question to be asked is whether there is sufficient time to adjust the IDP after the public participation? Anybody with half a brain cell will know the answer.
Meneer die inwoners van Centurion wil weet wat van hulle dienste gelde word? Hulle dra mildelik by tot die finansiele koffers van die Raad. Hoekom het die Burgemeesters komitee nie die tyd of wil om die inwoners ook toe te spreek nie? Hoekom weier die Burgemeesters komitee om verantwoording te doen en terugvoering te gee ivm die prioritisering en spandering van fondse nie. U kan tog seker nie soveel vertroue in die DA hê dat u verwag dat ons aan hulle gaan verduidelik dat u op verantwoordelike wyse die Raad se finansies bestuur nie? Of weet u dat u,u gaan vasloop teen kundigheid wat nie alles wat u gaan sê vir soet koek gaan opeet nie. Of is dit ‘n geval dat u nie die vermoeë het om ingeligte inwoners met u antwoorde gerus te stel nie.
Die afgelope 3 jaar se IDP proses het groot dele van die Stad elke keer verby gegaan. Hierdie een gaan geen uitsondering wees nie..
What kind of logic was followed to in determining the process table of the IDP? How and what information was used to compile the MTREF (three year strategic agenda)? Did you take any inputs from residents into consideration? What is the use of a public participation process at the end of an 8 month IDP cycle? Will council be able to make the necessary changes to the IDP if residents input require it in March2009? Will u and is it possible to change an 8 month process in March 2009, as indicated in the process plan. Will council really change the budget in March, taking into consideration that the mayoral committee will approve the IDP on a special meeting to be held on 13 May and Council to approve the IDP ON 28 May 2009. It should be stressed that according to all relevant legislation the IDP have to influence the budget. Legislation requires that the budget have to be approved 30 days before the new financial year. How on earth do you expect us to believe that this is possible?
Maybe this is one of the many reasons why the finances of the City are in such a mess.
Speaker dit is uit die verslag baie duidelik dat die inwoners weereens aan ‘n nikssegende publieke deelname proses gaan deelneem. ‘n Proses wat geen doel het nie en wat slegs oë verblindery is. As u dink dat ons nie deur u veragtelike optrede sien nie, dink weer. Die opmerking is al baie hier gemaak dat ons die ANC net kritiseer. Wel Speaker as u ons en ons kiesers op so ‘n minagtende wyse behandel kan u eintlik lojalitiet of erkening verwag nie.
Dankie
Raadslid Casper Mc Donald
Wyk 64
Deel 1 item 3
Chapter 4 of the Municipal Management Act of 2000 paragraph 16.(1) and others states clearly that a municipality must encourage and create conditions for the public to participate in municipal affairs.
The Act states further that the public should participate in the preparations of the budget (IDP process).
Die wet stel dit ook dat die munisipaliteit die publiek se kapasitiet moet bou om aan die sake van die Raad deel te neem deur meganismes prosesse en prosedures daar te stel wat die gemeenskap sal bemagtig om aan die publieke deelname prosesse deel te neem.
Die wet verplig die Raad om die publiek betyds van die publieke deelname geleenthede te verwittig en dat die Raad aan die publiek terugvoering moet gee.
Hierdie verslag sêt die volgende oor publieke deelname prosses, en ek haal aan”it is a program of action which guides the IDP of the City of Tshwane and enables proactive participation, cooperation and integration of role players of which residents is one. And on page 54 of the report it is stated that, as stipulated in the MSA, the IDP process should provide for the PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
Mr Speaker how does the ANC deal with the public in Tshwane? This Council disregard its residents and deals with public participation in the most disgusting manner thinkable. The public participation session in Centurion regarding the budget did not even take place. We are still waiting for the officials to set a new date. More important, up to today, nobody rendered any reason why they did not honoured their appointment with Centurion residents.
Het die inwoners die geleentheid gehad om proaktief aan die begrotings en IDP prosessse deel te neem. Mnr die Speaker weet die ANC wat pro aktief beteken? Dit beteken voordat ‘n besluit geneem word moet die inwoners die geleentheid kry om hulle insette te lewer. Pro aktiewe deelname skep darem die indruk dat die insette oorweeg gaan word. In die proses wat hier uiteen gesit is, is dit weereens duidelik dat die IDP opgestel en goedgekeur gaan word en dan aan publieke deelname ondrewerp gaan word. Net soos met die jaar se begroting gaan daar weer nie ‘n behoorlike publieke deelname proses wees wat aan al die wetlike vereistes gaan voldoen word nie.
Mr Speaker the question to be asked is whether there is sufficient time to adjust the IDP after the public participation? Anybody with half a brain cell will know the answer.
Meneer die inwoners van Centurion wil weet wat van hulle dienste gelde word? Hulle dra mildelik by tot die finansiele koffers van die Raad. Hoekom het die Burgemeesters komitee nie die tyd of wil om die inwoners ook toe te spreek nie? Hoekom weier die Burgemeesters komitee om verantwoording te doen en terugvoering te gee ivm die prioritisering en spandering van fondse nie. U kan tog seker nie soveel vertroue in die DA hê dat u verwag dat ons aan hulle gaan verduidelik dat u op verantwoordelike wyse die Raad se finansies bestuur nie? Of weet u dat u,u gaan vasloop teen kundigheid wat nie alles wat u gaan sê vir soet koek gaan opeet nie. Of is dit ‘n geval dat u nie die vermoeë het om ingeligte inwoners met u antwoorde gerus te stel nie.
Die afgelope 3 jaar se IDP proses het groot dele van die Stad elke keer verby gegaan. Hierdie een gaan geen uitsondering wees nie..
What kind of logic was followed to in determining the process table of the IDP? How and what information was used to compile the MTREF (three year strategic agenda)? Did you take any inputs from residents into consideration? What is the use of a public participation process at the end of an 8 month IDP cycle? Will council be able to make the necessary changes to the IDP if residents input require it in March2009? Will u and is it possible to change an 8 month process in March 2009, as indicated in the process plan. Will council really change the budget in March, taking into consideration that the mayoral committee will approve the IDP on a special meeting to be held on 13 May and Council to approve the IDP ON 28 May 2009. It should be stressed that according to all relevant legislation the IDP have to influence the budget. Legislation requires that the budget have to be approved 30 days before the new financial year. How on earth do you expect us to believe that this is possible?
Maybe this is one of the many reasons why the finances of the City are in such a mess.
Speaker dit is uit die verslag baie duidelik dat die inwoners weereens aan ‘n nikssegende publieke deelname proses gaan deelneem. ‘n Proses wat geen doel het nie en wat slegs oë verblindery is. As u dink dat ons nie deur u veragtelike optrede sien nie, dink weer. Die opmerking is al baie hier gemaak dat ons die ANC net kritiseer. Wel Speaker as u ons en ons kiesers op so ‘n minagtende wyse behandel kan u eintlik lojalitiet of erkening verwag nie.
Dankie
Raadslid Casper Mc Donald
Wyk 64
Deel 1 item 3
PART 1: FROM THE MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 23 JULY 2008
REPORT ON THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ON THE DECLARATION OF CERTAIN STREETS AND AREAS AS RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED FOR TRADING
Mr, Speaker,
It is with great appreciation that we, the DA and members of Ward 50, have noted that the Tshwane Metro has decided that hawkers will not be permitted to trade in Zambezi Drive, Braam Pretorius, Linveldt, Lavender Roads and all demarcated areas / streets in Tshwane. Furthermore, they have decided to train the hawkers in business principles and allocate them to specific areas outside the above mentioned roads. This will also protect them from being injured by the traffic when doing business in busy streets like Zambezi Drive. This will have a positive effect on the hawkers Mr. Speaker.
This decision and the implementation of restricted trading areas / streets, will have a positive influence on the flow of traffic in our busy area and that it will also lead to a decrease in crime in our area. The residents will react positively to this decision of the Tshwane Metro as they are in favor thereof and requested such steps to be taken. Hopefully Mr Speaker, the same restrictions will apply to illegal businesses on residential stands and sidewalks and areas as restricted for trading in Tshwane.
Mr. Speaker, residents and persons driving in our area are requested not to support hawkers doing business in these prohibited roads and also to report them to the Metro Police. I am happy that the Metro Police support this cause. We sincerely trust that the Metro Police will enforce these bylaws and decision by the Tshwane Metro to the advantage of everybody, and to deal with the negative elements like hawkers and traders amongst themselves.
Mr. Speaker, urgent attention and completion of the Wonderboom Station and Taxi Rank will also be a solution for the hawkers to do business in a controlled manner, in new stalls and proper public toilets.
Mr. Speaker, the community makes uses of these hawkers, legally or illegally, which means, Mr. Speaker that a need does exist, but it needs to be exercised in an orderly, controlled fashion.
Mr. Speaker, our request is that there be looked at other urgent matters such as traffic dangers and unhygienic conditions and to implement the needed dustbins in the needed areas.
Cllr. B.J Wannenburg
Ward 50
REPORT ON THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ON THE DECLARATION OF CERTAIN STREETS AND AREAS AS RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED FOR TRADING
Mr, Speaker,
It is with great appreciation that we, the DA and members of Ward 50, have noted that the Tshwane Metro has decided that hawkers will not be permitted to trade in Zambezi Drive, Braam Pretorius, Linveldt, Lavender Roads and all demarcated areas / streets in Tshwane. Furthermore, they have decided to train the hawkers in business principles and allocate them to specific areas outside the above mentioned roads. This will also protect them from being injured by the traffic when doing business in busy streets like Zambezi Drive. This will have a positive effect on the hawkers Mr. Speaker.
This decision and the implementation of restricted trading areas / streets, will have a positive influence on the flow of traffic in our busy area and that it will also lead to a decrease in crime in our area. The residents will react positively to this decision of the Tshwane Metro as they are in favor thereof and requested such steps to be taken. Hopefully Mr Speaker, the same restrictions will apply to illegal businesses on residential stands and sidewalks and areas as restricted for trading in Tshwane.
Mr. Speaker, residents and persons driving in our area are requested not to support hawkers doing business in these prohibited roads and also to report them to the Metro Police. I am happy that the Metro Police support this cause. We sincerely trust that the Metro Police will enforce these bylaws and decision by the Tshwane Metro to the advantage of everybody, and to deal with the negative elements like hawkers and traders amongst themselves.
Mr. Speaker, urgent attention and completion of the Wonderboom Station and Taxi Rank will also be a solution for the hawkers to do business in a controlled manner, in new stalls and proper public toilets.
Mr. Speaker, the community makes uses of these hawkers, legally or illegally, which means, Mr. Speaker that a need does exist, but it needs to be exercised in an orderly, controlled fashion.
Mr. Speaker, our request is that there be looked at other urgent matters such as traffic dangers and unhygienic conditions and to implement the needed dustbins in the needed areas.
Cllr. B.J Wannenburg
Ward 50
