Comments

LIVE COMMENT FEED

Displaying 25 comments. Reload the page to see more.

Vanessa
Not fully
I believe that the various legislative requirements had been put in place for 2 reasons:
1) To make it easier at provincial level to report to the national level on issues regarding the local government (which is an unnecessary burden on the local government); and
2) To have the necessary checks and balances in place in order to find and address theft, fraud, mismanagement, and corruption.

In regard to point 1, the problem might be cleared up by having standardized forms and procedures. There are a handful of municipalities that consistently come through with clean audits. They are clearly doing something right. Use them as models for other municipalities.

In regard to point 2, it must be noted that it does not matter how many checks and balances you have if you don't take action against the people responsible for mismanagement, theft, fraud, or corruption. What happens is that the Auditor General audits a municipality and provides them with a report and tells them how they can go about correcting their faults. The municipalities rarely follow through with any corrective measures. If your CFO has been found to be mismanaging funds, disciplinary action need to be taken against him/her. Limpopo has a huge problem with regard to corruption, mismanagement and nepotism - you can't fix that by taking away a legislative framework designed to catch such deeds. You need to put effective measures in place to identify problems, address those problems effectively, and ensure accountability of the persons responsible.

In closing, I don't think that this proposed review focuses on the root of the major problems that local government experiences. It is only a small portion of it and won't have the desired results - if the result that you are looking for is better run local government.
Mark
No I do not
It would like governent to elaborate more on what constitutes a legislative burden.