PRESENTATION TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

PRESENTATION TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF

PROVINCES

SELECT

COMMITTEE ON CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS (“SELECT COMMITTEE”)

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERVENTION

MTUBATUBA MUNICIPALITY – KWAZULU-NATAL

11

FEBRUARY

2015Slide2

content

Purpose

Overview of

Mtubatuba

Municipality

Summary of Interventions

Legislative Basis for submission to the NCOP

Discretionary Intervention

Intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution

Engagements with the Municipality

Allegations against the Municipal Manager and Investigation

Non-Compliance with the MPRA

Council Response to Investigation and following extension of Intervention

Progress on Disciplinary case against the Municipal Manager

Council

Dysfunctionality

Further Engagement and Communication by the Provincial Executive

Conclusion on

need

for Intervention

in terms of section 139(1

)(c)

of the ConstitutionSlide3

purPose

To brief

the Select Committee on the

Constitutional

intervention at the

Mtubatuba

Municipality; and

To request

the Select Committee to approve

the intervention

in terms of the of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, (“Constitution

”)Slide4

Overview:

mtubatuba

municipality

One

of five municipalities within

Umkhanyakude

District Municipality in

KwaZulu-Natal

Situated

on the north-east coast

of KZN

Population: 175,425

More urbanised than other municipalities

within the district, with 15% of the municipality falling under urban

areas

Number

of

households: 34,905Slide5

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTIONS

June

2012

Executive Council of KZN

resolved to institute a

Discretionary Intervention

at

Mtubatuba

Municipality in terms of

sections

136-138 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act No. 56 of 2003 (“MFMA”).

The

discretionary intervention was in place for a period of three

months

Extremely

low probability of the intervention support team succeeding in respect of the financial recovery plan

.

Result

of a lack of political and administrative leadership, weak decision making and poor service delivery at

Mtubatuba

municipality

.

For

these reasons

the

Executive Council resolved on

19 September 2012

to intervene in terms of

section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution

, which resolution included the appointment of a representative of the MEC

COGTA,

to assume certain executive functions of the municipal council.

As

a result of poor

progress,

on

04 December 2013

, the Executive Council resolved to further

extend the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution

until

30 September 2014.

On

06 August 2014

, the Executive Council

resolved to extend the intervention until 31 December 2014 and to extend the scope of the intervention by

assuming the functions referred to in section 67(1)(h) and Schedule 2 of the Municipal Systems Act, read with any other relevant legislative provisions dealing with disciplinary matters and the function of preparing the municipal valuation roll in terms of section 32(3) of the MPRA.

Although

the scope of the intervention

was extended

the municipality

regressed

into a state

dysfunctionality

and on

30 January 2015

the Executive Council

resolved to intervene in

terms of

section 139(1)(c) of the

Constitution

in

order to dissolve the municipal Council and to appoint an Administrator until new elections are

held.Slide6

LEGISLATIVE BASIS OF SUBMISSION TO NCOP

 In terms of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution,

if a municipal council is dissolved, the provincial executive must immediately submit a written notice of the dissolution to–

the Cabinet member responsible for local government affairs; and

the relevant provincial legislature and the National Council of Provinces.

 The dissolution takes effect 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the National Council of Council (“NCOP”), unless set aside by that Cabinet member or the NCOP before the expiry of those 14 days.Slide7

DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION

Based on an assessment of the finances of the

Mtubatuba

Municipality by

COGTA in

terms of section 131(2)(a) of the MFMA as well as the assessment of the Provincial Treasury of the reports of the Municipality in terms of section 71 of the MFMA and the Annual Financial Statements it was established that the

Mtubatuba

Municipality

was facing

serious financial problems.

The

MEC for

COGTA in

consultation with the MEC for Finance, considered it prudent to commence the process towards a Discretionary Intervention by consulting the Mayor of the Municipality in terms of section 136 of the MFMA.

Following

this consultation, an intervention support strategy

would be

implemented through the deployment of a suitably qualified financial expert as a Financial Administrator to support the

Mtubatuba

Municipality to manage and implement a financial turnaround in consultation with the MEC for Finance The Provincial Treasury will provide resources via the Municipal Support Program to undertake key operational activities in the treasury department of the municipality. This

was accepted

by the Mayor and Executive Committee of the municipality

.

The Executive Council then resolved

to implement an intervention at the municipality in terms of section 137 of the MFMA

.Slide8

Discretionary intervention

Financial Recovery Plan

developed

and

implemented

COGTA financial expert –

Mr

Tumelo

Ratau

a certified Chartered Accountant

Provincial

Treasury

via

the Municipal Support Program to undertake key operational activities in the treasury

department

Although

the Financial Administrator attempted to implement the financial recovery plan, it was clear that problems persisted as a result of lack of co-operation by the municipal management,

weak performance and lack of

accountability.Slide9

Intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the constitution

On 19

September 2012, the Executive Council resolved to intervene in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution, which resolution included the appointment of a representative of the MEC

COGTA,

to assume certain executive functions of the municipal council.

MEC

was authorized to appoint a ministerial representative to undertake the function in terms of section 51 of the Municipal Systems Act to establish and organize the administration in a manner that would enable the municipality to achieve the objects of local government as set out in section 152 of the Constitution

.

MEC conveyed the decision of the Executive Council at a meeting held on 03 October 2012

Appointed

Mr. K.

Mpungose

as the ministerial

representative and introduced him to the EXCO and senior

management

of

Mtubatuba

Comments

were made by certain

councillors

objecting

to the intervention

.

Stated that they would not

co-operate with the ministerial representative and the intervention itself.

Even at that stage,

certain

councillors

expressly invited an intervention in terms of section 139(1)(c

).

Despite

such comments the

Mayor

indicated that the intervention was supported by the

EXCO of the

municipality and that they

would

co-operate with the efforts of the ministerial representative to ensure a

turn-around

of the municipality

.

EXCO was

clearly split on the question of the intervention by the Provincial Executive.Slide10

Basis OF 139(1

)(

b) INTERVENTION

The

municipality failed to meet the following executive obligations:-

The

Mayor and Executive Committee

, amongst others, failed to fulfil the following specific executive obligations relating to the Executive Committee of the municipality:-

section 99 of the Systems Act, by failing to exercise supervisory authority in relation to the implementation and enforcement of the municipality’s credit control and debt collection policy and by-laws;

section 52 of the MFMA, by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the municipality performs its constitutional and statutory functions within the limits of the municipality’s approved budget; andSlide11

Basis OF 139(1

)(

b) INTERVENTION

The

Municipal Council

had, amongst others, failed to fulfil the following executive obligations relating to the administration of the municipality:

section 41 of the Systems Act, by not including measurable priorities, objectives and performance targets for certain functions as reported by the Auditor-General;

section 46 of the Systems Act by not providing adequate performance information in the annual report of the municipality for the 2010/2011 financial year as reported by the Auditor-General;

section 32 of the MFMA by not recovering

unauthorised

, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and not informing the MEC responsible for local government and the Auditor-General of such expenditure;

section 54 of the MFMA by not exercising budgetary control and early identification of financial problems over two consecutive years;

section 72 of the MFMA by not conducting a mid-year budget and performance assessment of the municipality within the statutory deadlines for two consecutive financial years;

section 121 of the MFMA by the exclusion of performance information in the annual report of the municipality; and

section 131 of the MFMA by a failure to address issues raised in the Auditor-General report on the municipality for consecutive years

.Slide12

Achievements: 139(1

)(

b) INTERVENTION

Despite challenges, the intervention achieved positive progress at its inception in respect of a number of matters in the recovery plan, such as:-

The overdraft had been

removed

The MIG deficit R1.2 million had also been addressed as well as the R2.4 million for electrification.

The collection for October 2013 was 128% (R3 358 827.79

)

Outstanding creditors amounted to R5.8 million as at 31 October 2013 (including R3.4 million for Rural Metro

)

The audit action plan had been developed to address findings raised by the AG for the year ended 30 June

2012

All

four top management positions had been

filled

Adherence to policy was monitored through improved oversight role played by the relevant Portfolio Committees and

MPAC

The role of MPAC and Audit Committee was being reinforced through regular sittings

thereof

Council committees were functional and sitting as per their meeting

schedules

There was improved participation by Sector Departments during the IDP

process

An audit of Ward Committees had been developed and a comprehensive Ward Committee support plan had been developed to assist the few dysfunctional Ward

Committees

A monthly municipal Newspaper was introduced to be distributed in all 19

WardsSlide13

OVERALL Challenges:

section 139(1)(b) intervention

Although some achievement is recorded, there are still numerous activities on the recovery plan that have not been achieved.

Political

instability

and

political tensions

were

exacerbated between February and June 2014

.

This

heightened level of “tension” affected the functionality of Council, its Committees and the administration

.

The

SAPS

were required to be present at

Council meetings to contain or dissipate chaos that characterized

meetings

.

In

addition,

there was consequential significant

lack of progress in five key performance areas which were used to measure progress in the implementation of the recovery

plan

.Slide14

Challenges: Key performance areas

Leadership & Oversight

Persistent

institutional

weaknesses reported also by the AG over

four financial

years with a lack

of political input on critical frameworks of the

Municipality as follows:-

Draft

IDP did not contain Organizational Performance Management System (OPMS) which was supposed to inform the budgeting process

;

No

evidence of the Mayor/

ExCo

discussing and deciding on the priorities specifically for the 2014/15 budget.

Final

budget was brought back to the Council on 29 May 2014 without a discussion between the Mayor/

ExCo

and management particularly to consider public comments and inputs (if any

). There

was no public participation on the 2014/15 budget.

The draft budget and the final budget were prepared without a Council approved OPMS and without any draft SDBIP to be finalized after the approval of the budget

.

Mayor

was alerted to these systemic defects and he in turn informed the Council of all these flaws in the budget and the fact that these must be corrected. The Council deliberately ignored the Mayor’s

advice. The

Mayor was attacked by some of the Councilors for making what was seen as anti-management

comments.

For three consecutive financial years (2011/12-2013/14) there was no evidence of quarterly and annual Performance Information Review/Evaluations of the Municipal Manager and Managers reporting to

him.

The Mid-Year Review (section 72 MFMA) report for 2013/14 contained contradictory and inaccurate figures; when the same was brought to the attention of the Councilors in a Council meeting, the Council ignored the information. In simple terms, the Council was not monitoring the performance of the

management.

The Municipality received a Disclaimer in the year ended June 2012 and Qualified Opinion in the year ended June 2013. The Municipal Manager and his senior management were never asked to give reasons for such bad

performance.

During

the first half of 2013/14 the National Treasury withheld R4.2million of the Equitable Share of the Municipality because of the under-expenditure on the MIG and Electrification Grants. There was never a report from the Municipal Manager to the Council on the matter

.Slide15

Challenges: Key performance areas

Governance & Compliance

Unauthorized, Irregular, Fruitless and Wasteful expenditure

incurred by the municipality was certified by council without conducting an investigation to determine if any person was liable for the expenditure, in accordance with the requirements of section 32(2) of MFMA. The condoning of irregular expenditure was not approved by the appropriate relevant authority, in accordance with the requirements of sections 1 and 170 of

MFMA. There

was

further irregular

expenditure in

2013/14.

For

the 2013/2014 financial year there were

unspent conditional grants of R14.1 million

per note 12 of the Annual Financial Statements which were not cash backed to the total of R12.4 million. This therefore indicated that conditional

grant funding was

utilised

for daily operating expenditure

, which is contrary to the requirements of

DoRA

and therefore deemed to be irregular expenditure. The AFS were therefore misstated by R12.4 million as no Irregular expenditure was reflected in the financial statements and notes to address the above.

In

2012/13, 2013/14 & 2014/15 the report on the budget from the Provincial Treasury was not tabled in council

together with the budget or before approval of the budget.

Although

there was an

Action Plan on the AGs findings

the implementation of such plan was not monitored by the

ExCo

/Council. There were

no reports to the Council on the implementation of the Action

Plan

.

The

Audit Committee

was not fully

functional

.

There

was

persistent abuse of Regulation 36 o

f the Supply Chain Management Regulations in circumstances where it was not

applicable.

Council

did not effectively implement the recommendations of the internal audit unit and the audit committee

resulting in the ‘misstatement’ risks in the 2013/14 Annual Financial Statements not being mitigated. For instance, management did not effectively

utilise

the findings of internal audit regarding the review of the financial statements. Issues noted by internal audit were not rectified by management in the financial statements submitted for auditing

purposes

.

The

forensic

Investigation Report of 13/9/2012 prepared by the MEC had not been implemented by the Council

and the Council had not given any reason for non-implementation. The MM and later the Acting MM stated that the Council had not even adopted the said report to make way for him to implement it. The Municipal Manager advised that a copy of the report was delivered to the SAPS but no case was

reportedSlide16

Challenges: Key performance areas

Basic Service Delivery

In September 2012, the Municipality took delivery of the completed construction of

KwaMsane

Taxi Rank which

cost

about R4 000 000.

In

March 2013, the Taxi Rank Roof structure curved in and finally collapsed to the ground.

There

is no evidence of a report being made to Council on the collapse of the new asset nor is there evidence of the Municipal Manager pursuing the relevant Service Providers (Consulting Engineer and the Contractor) for answers and recoupment of at least part of the R4 000 000 paid for this asset.

There

is no evidence to suggest that the Council had called upon the Municipal Manager to explain this extreme dereliction of duty by the Municipal Manager

.Slide17

Challenges: Key performance areas

Financial Viability and Management

Progress in terms of internal control indicators in the recovery plan stood at 30% as at the end of November 2014.The main drivers of weaknesses in this area included the following:-

Poor budgeting and budget control;

Poor expenditure management; there are no operational plans with specific activities confined to a specific budget figure;

Creditors are not paid on time; in some cases creditors were not paid for more than three years, thus attracting interest and legal fees;

As at June 2014 there were outstanding creditors to the value of R11.3 million who could not be paid during the 2013/14 financial year because the Municipality had no revenue/money. About 50% of this amount had been outstanding for more than a year. These liabilities were not budgeted for in 2014/15; and

Staff and Councilors salaries and allowances account for 46.6% of the operating budget. Slide18

Challenges: Key performance areas

Institutional Development & Transformation

The municipality still

does not

have a functional Performance Management System. The Internal Audit reports of the last two financial years bore witness to that effect. Training was provided to the management on PMS, but there was no will to implement

it

.

The staff complement grew without any work study of any kind having been undertaken.

The Organogram review was under way and could address some of the issues of over-staffing; however some posts were seriously over-graded and therefore over-paid. There were ongoing discussions between the Ministerial Representative and SALGA on this issue in order to find a solution

.Slide19

ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE MUNICIPALITY

25

June

2014: Meeting of

delegation

from KZN

Cogta

,

ExCo

,

Speaker

,

Ministerial

Representative and

Municipal

Manager of the

Mtubatuba

Municipality, in order to establish facts and to consider the following issues:

proceedings of the Council meeting held on 19 June 2014 at which the Council purported to remove and replace all political office bearers (Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Speaker);

the failure by council to adopt municipal budget for 2014/2015; and

the status of the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution at the Municipality.

Agreed

that a Technical Task Team, comprised of

Ministerial

Representative,

MM

and all Senior

Managers,

would consider issues related to the budget and that Council would pass the budget at the council meeting which was to be held on 27 June 2014. The meeting

took place

and

the

2014/15

budget was approved.

In respect of the intervention

in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution at the Municipality it was noted that the recovery plan had not been adopted by the Council. The municipality was advised of consequences of not adopting the recovery plan drafted by the Ministerial Representative, and Council finally considered and approved the recovery plan at the council meeting held on 27 June 2014.

MEC

for

Cogta

approached the High Court and obtained an interim order declaring the proceedings of the meeting of the Council held on 19 June 2014, and all resolutions passed at that meeting, to be null and void and invalid, which effectively returned Mayor

Ntuli

to office. A section of the Council had attempted to formally oppose the matter in court, as Council. After engagement, this formal opposition was withdrawn and the court order was granted in

favour

of the MEC

.Slide20

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MM

Prior to his purported removal, Mayor

Ntuli

, had also levelled certain allegations against the Municipal Manager, Mr.

Ntuli

.

CoGTA

designated an internal investigator to investigate the allegations.

As

the municipality was the employer, such report had to serve before Council to consider disciplinary action and the possible suspension of the municipal manager. (Details of findings of investigation provided later)

CoGTA

completed

the investigation

and attempts were made to present the report at a Council meeting held on 22 July

2014.

The

volatile Council meeting ended with the IFP

councillors

walking-out and leaving the meeting inquorate.

It

became clear that a number of

councillors

were intent on protecting the Municipal Manager and frustrating any attempts to implement required disciplinary action. Slide21

Allegations against the mm

The following are allegations which the Department

investigated:

Staff overtime payment for the months of March, April and May 2014 without the ratification of the administrator;

Non-payment of creditors within 30 days;

In the first week of March 2014 a certain municipal vehicle is alleged to have been confiscated by the Deputy Sheriff:

Mtubatuba

. This was never reported to council;

Sometime in August 2012, it is alleged that about five municipal vehicles were attached by the Deputy Sheriff in

Mtubatuba

for public auction as a result of a default judgment against the municipality in the amount of about R451 189.20;

Non-compliance with supply chain management procedures;

Extortion of donations from service providers;

KwaMsane

taxi rank collapse, no action has or is being instituted by the accounting officer against the contractor; and

MPRA Non-compliance. (This aspect will be elaborated on below herein).Slide22

Findings: investigation into conduct of mm

Generally, the Accounting

Officer

had:

Disregarded

the authority and powers vested in the administrator by authorizing overtime payments without the ratification of the

administrator resulting in irregular

expenditure in terms of the MFMA Section

32

Failed

in his duty to exercise effective expenditure management resulting in the municipality incurring fruitless and wasteful expenditure in the form of legal

costs

and interest on late payments

.

Violated laws

, regulations and council policies governing Supply chain management, thus failing to exercise his fiduciary responsibility towards the municipality. This

was regarded as maladministration

.

Failed to report

the

collapse of the taxi

rank to council and making necessary follow ups with the responsible contractors and project manager with the view of recovering the costs incurred in the construction of the

asset

resulted in the municipality incurring fruitless and wasteful expenditure and

deprived

the community of

KwaMsane

access to this amenity

.

Failed

to implement the new General Valuation Roll on 01st of July 2014 as required in terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act (MPRA). The resultant non-compliance has

implications

on the budget of the municipality as

Mtubatuba

by law cannot levy rates on an expired Valuation Roll

.Slide23

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE MPRA

Subsequent

to the meeting with the Mayor on 4 July 2014, it

became

evident that the Municipality

did not

have an approved General Valuation Roll, which

posed

a serious challenge to the financial viability of the Municipality.

This

issue was raised by the Ministerial Representative with the Municipal Manager as early as March 2014, but that the Municipal Manager and the municipal

valuer

were unable to

finalise

the Roll before the 30 June cut-off date.

This

also despite support and communication from the

CoGTA

MPRA Project Team in providing assistance to the Municipality in

finalising

its General Valuation Roll, and notwithstanding the fact that this was already the fifth year that the Roll was in use, after the

Honourable

MEC had granted

condonation

in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act, 2003 (“the MPRA”), extending the validity of the Valuation Roll for one additional year until 30 June 2014.

As

the extension was already granted, and as the Municipality did not complete its consultation process envisaged in section 49 of the MPRA, it effectively means that the Municipality currently has no valid Valuation Roll, as section 32(1) of the MPRA states that “[

A valuation roll

]

(a) takes effect from the start of the financial year following completion of the public inspection period required by

section 49

;

”, and that its Valuation Roll

expired on 30 June

2014.

This

effectively

meant that

the Municipality

would not

be able to levy any property rates for the whole of the

2014/2015

financial year, and that the new Roll can only be implemented on 1 July 2015, as the public inspection period required by section 49 will only be completed during the current financial year. It may even result in the Municipality having to conduct the whole valuation process afresh, as the process started

the previous

year

had

effectively been aborted in light of the failure by the Municipality to finalise its processes before 30 June 2014.

T

his would have rendered

the Municipality bankrupt as it

would lose

an amount of approximately

R24

million in rates revenue out of an operating budget of R 135 million, which is nearly 20% of the operating budget.

The MPRA provides for the municipality to continue rating on the current roll by extending its validity period by a further year

if under a Constitutional intervention

. On 06 August 2014, the Executive Council further resolved to assume the responsibility for the function of preparing the municipal valuation roll in terms of section 32(3) of the MPRA.Slide24

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO INVESTIGATION

The then Mayor

Ntuli

had previously drafted an item to Council to institute disciplinary action against the Municipal Manager in terms of the regulations on Disciplinary Procedures for Senior

Managers. This

item was placed on the Agenda for the Council meeting held on 19 June 2014.

It

was at this same meeting

that

an additional item, being a Notice of Motion to remove the Mayor from Office was placed on the Agenda. The Council meeting held on 19 June 2014, unlawfully purported to remove the Mayor from Office and degenerated into chaos and a volatile situation developed. The matter of the disciplinary action against the Municipal Manager was therefore not considered by the Council

.Slide25

Extension of intervention

On the basis of ongoing challenges the Provincial Executive Council resolved on 06 August 2014 to extend the scope of the intervention

by

Assuming

the responsibility for the function of preparing the municipal valuation roll in terms of section 32(3) of the

MPRA;

and

The

functions referred to in section 67(1)(h) and Schedule 2

(Code of Conduct for Municipal Officials) of

the Municipal Systems Act, read with any other relevant legislative provisions dealing with disciplinary matters

.

The

intervention was also extended to 31 December 2014

.Slide26

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO INVESTIGATION following extension of intervention

A

Council meeting was convened on 20 October 2014 for the purpose of considering the suspension of the Municipal Manager by the Ministerial Representative. The KZN

CoGTA

representative who attended the meeting indicated the following:

The meeting was

chaotic and

the

Speaker

, declined to grant an opportunity to the KZN

Cogta

representative to explain the legal position to the Council or to confirm that the disciplinary function was taken over by the Provincial Executive Council, which mandated Mr.

Ndwandwe

(Administrator) to suspend the Municipal

Manager.

The Speaker lost total control of the meeting and allowed several derogatory remarks to be made about the Honourable MEC for

CoGTA

and the departmental representative;

Council

was in

disarray

, dysfunctional and decisions were not being taken within the framework of legislation;

Councillors were screaming at each other with no order whatsoever;

It was clear that Council did not agree with the Ministerial Representative on the suspension of the Municipal Manager; and

All the while the Municipal Manager was seated next to the Speaker notwithstanding the fact that he was suspended and the Speaker allowed this to occur.

It

became clear that the Council was intent on protecting the Municipal Manager.

On

18 November 2014, the Executive Committee of the municipality took a resolution which stated that:

They

were in support of the Municipal Manager;

They

disputed the Ministerial Representative’s authority to charge the Municipal Manager; and

Any

official who co-operated with the Ministerial Representative in the Municipal Manager’s disciplinary action would ultimately vacate the municipality post/after the intervention

.Slide27

PROGRESS: DISCIPLINARY CASE – MM

On 10 October 2014, the Ministerial Representative issued a letter to the Municipal Manager informing him of an intention to be placed on suspension pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct and requesting his representations thereto

.

The

Municipal Manager did not submit his representations to the Ministerial Representative, but instead questioned the authority of the Ministerial Representative to institute disciplinary processes against him in a letter addressed to Council

.

The disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 28 November 2014 but postponed to 12-13 February 2015 due to non-availability of the suspended Municipal Manager’s Legal representative due to serious illness

.Slide28

Council

dysfunctionality

O

n 2 December 2014, a special Council meeting was convened by the Acting Municipal Manager at the request of the majority of

councillors

of

Mtubatuba

municipality. Only one item was the subject of discussion, namely, the resignation of the former Speaker of council and the election of the new Speaker. At the commencement of the Council meeting, all 38

councillors

were present, before the meeting could proceed to elect the Speaker, the ANC requested a caucus but however did not return to the Council Chamber. The remaining 22

councillors

continued with the meeting and Cllr.

Nyawo

was elected as the Speaker of Council.

A

further Notice of Motion was submitted on 4 December 2014, which provided that Notice was being given in terms of section 48(4)(b) and 53 of the Structures Act to remove the Mayor, Cllr. M. R.

Ntuli

from EXCO. This Motion served at a Council meeting held on 12 December 2014

.

The

Ministerial Representative then informed Council that the Motion was

flawed. The

Motion was nonetheless voted on, and 18

Councillors

voted that the Mayor be removed from the Office of Mayor. Based on the above, the Ministerial Representative declined to ratify the decision to remove

Councillor

Ntuli

from the Office of Mayor, and

Councillor

Ntuli

accordingly remained the Mayor of the Council

.Slide29

Council

dysfunctionality

Subsequently

, on the same day, 12 December 2014, a new Notice of Motion was submitted. The Motion provided for the removal of Cllr.

Ntuli

as both a member of the Executive Committee and from the Office of Mayor.

On 15 January 2015, the Municipal Council had a Special Council Meeting, with three items on the Agenda, two of which for information only. The 3

rd

item was the Motion to remove Councillor

Ntuli

from EXCO and consequently from the position of Mayor. The Ministerial Representative advised that the Motion complied with all the formalities of a Motion of that nature. The Motion was adopted unanimously by the Council and there was no counter-motion.

A new mayor was subsequently elected by the Mtubatuba Council.

Between

2012 and 2014, various meetings

could not sit

due to political tensions and disagreements, as follows:-

Out of 172 Portfolio Committees, 79 meetings could not sit;

Out of 56 EXCO meetings, 9 meetings could not sit; and

Out of 56 Council meetings, 2 did not sit. Slide30

Further ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION BY THE PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE

On 19 August 2014,

COGTA

invited the mayor,

MM and

the

EXCO of

the municipality

met to

communicate the resolution of the Provincial Executive Council dated 06 August 2014. Only the Mayor, Cllr.

Cele

and the

MM were

present. This confirmed the lack of commitment to the Constitutional intervention and the lack of political will to implement the recovery plan, which posed a threat to the Constitutional intervention itself.

On

16 September 2014, the

Honourable

Premier visited the municipality to

address

councillors

, members of the

Mtubatuba

community and

Mtubatuba

community stakeholders on the prevalent challenges at the Municipality and to ascertain the reasons for the lack of progress on the constitutional

intervention. Most

community stakeholders registered dissatisfaction with the state of the municipality and requested that drastic steps be taken to alleviate the challenges.

The community stakeholders were concerned that service delivery at the municipality had deteriorated yet the town is entirely dependent on tourism.

There

was an undertaking that there would be engagements with the relevant structures and Ratepayers Associations to address the infrastructure challenges, and the

Honourable

Premier also made it clear that the municipality would be afforded a final opportunity for a period of six months, to address its challenges, co-operate with the intervention and the Ministerial Representative and to ensure good governance to allow effective implementation of the recovery plan.

CoGTA

immediately convened a meeting with the St. Lucia Ratepayers Association to consider the report submitted to the Honourable Premier and to forge a way forward in dealing with the service delivery challenges. A multi-disciplinary team was also established to support the municipality in terms of accelerating resolution of the service delivery challenges. The Association has pledged its support to the Municipality and has prepared a comprehensive report on their concerns, which also contains proposals in addressing the concerns raised. Despite best efforts, minimal progress has been registered in addressing service delivery issues due to financial challenges, and the uMkhanyakude District Municipality has now been requested to provide assistance with regard to water and sanitation issues

.Slide31

FURTHER ENGAGEMENT AND communication by the provincial executive

On

20 January 2015, the MEC for

CoGTA

visited the Municipality and met with all

Councillors

to ascertain the reasons for the lack of progress with the intervention and the prevalent challenges. Most

Councillors

agreed that governance at the Municipality is

dysfunctionality

and that there is a low level of co-operation with the Ministerial Representative. It was also notable that

Councillors

are not intent in dealing with discipline at the Municipality.

The

MEC

emphasised

the importance of ensuring co-operation with the intervention to ensure implementation of the recovery plan, highlighted service delivery challenges and requested

Councillors

to

prioritise

service delivery solutions. It was apparent that the general feeling amongst most

Councillors

was that political intolerance, tensions, instability, disregard of the rule of law, weak political leadership, in-fighting, finger-pointing and blame-shifting had rendered the Municipality dysfunctional, and several

Councillors

openly requested a dissolution of the Council in terms of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution

.Slide32

conclusion

Based on the abovementioned challenges at the

Mtubatuba

Municipality

, it became clear that the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution is frustrated by

Councillors

and officials alike, to such an extent that the Municipality will not

recover.

Minimal

progress has been made with the implementation of the Recovery Plan, and as

indicated,

Councillors

have openly indicated that they will not co-operate with the Ministerial Representative, and that any official who does, will be dismissed once the intervention is terminated.

For

these reasons, on 30 January 2015, the Executive Council resolved to intervene in terms of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution at the

Mtubatuba

Municipality

.Slide33

CONCLUSION

Cont

/d…

The MEC for

CoGTA

was also

authorised:

T

o

appoint an

Administrator

Facilitate

the election of a new Municipal

Council

Co-ordinate

a

programme

of visits by all KZN MECs at the Municipality to fast-track service delivery

challenges and restore

public confidence in the system of local government.

T

he Cabinet Member responsible for local government affairs, the National Council of Provinces and the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature have been informed of the dissolution in keeping with section 139(3) of the Constitution, 1996

.

The National Minister has approved the intervention in a letter dated 6 February 2015.Slide34

Room 03, 06th Floor

Southern Life Plaza

271 Church Street

Pietermaritzburg, 3201

Tel: +27(0) 33 355 6512

Fax: +27(0) 33 355 6289

E-mail: hodenquiries@kzncogta.gov.za

Website: www.kzncogta.gov.za