MATSAPHA – Wild accusations of improper use of ratepayers’ monies rock Matsapha Town Council.
This transpired during Matsapha Town Council’s statutory meeting which was held last Thursday at the council chambers.
In fact, the management of Matsapha Town Council was warned that explanations are not acceptable when ratepayers’ monies have been improperly used.
This warning was sent to council management by Matsapha Deputy Mayor Siphesihle Sibandze and this was after the council issued a tender to rehabilitate one of the roads of the town, where about two years ago, the council paid over a million of Emalangeni for rehabilitation of the same road’s drainage system.
The deputy mayor stated that councillors were elected by ratepayers to provide oversight within the council. He emphasised that explanations are not acceptable when ratepayers’ money has been misused.
“We will not allow ratepayers’ money to be spent in ways that do not add value. We will not let taxpayers’ money go down the drain simply because someone has a technical explanation,” the deputy mayor declared.
He added that the engineer claimed it was an oversight on the contractor’s part.
Some of the councillors echoed the deputy mayor’s sentiments, stating that those in managerial positions should be seen actively working. He further insisted that they should be cautious in their use of ratepayers’ money. However, another councillor said when addressing issues, they should do so with respect.
Again, the deputy mayor raised a concern that the council is planning to do a traffic study for its planned bus rank, yet it paid for a similar study during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the town council says cannot be used now.
On another note, the deputy mayor questioned which was more negative – being fired by the office of the chief executive officer (CEO) or being reinstated in office.
The deputy mayor directed this question to the CEO Lucky Sukati, after a report that was tabled during the council meeting indicated that a media report, which was about his reinstatement as a councillor, was categorised as negative media coverage.
He asked whether it was negative for him to be back in office, as stated in the report. He added that the only inference he could draw from the report was that media reports about him being fired by the CEO constituted positive media coverage.
He noted that a specific media report, with the headline ‘Matsapha CEO wants deputy mayor out’, was not included in the report. “So, does this mean it is considered positive when we are fired?” he asked again.
Meanwhile, when Mayor Councillor Lindiwe Dlamini asked management to respond to the councillors’ submissions, the CEO stated that there was nothing else they could say, other than to acknowledge what the councillors had submitted.
Again, a concern was raised regarding negative media reports, as there is a policy which states that such reports could affect their gratuity as councillors. In fact, it was said that some of them are victims of this policy as they previously lost their gratuity.
Therefore, he requested clarification from the management on the issue of negativity, questioning who decides if a media report is negative or positive.
In response, the CEO acknowledged the deputy mayor’s concern. He then requested permission to take the report back to the relevant department for revisions, as it was indeed incomplete.
The CEO also clarified that the determination of negative and positive media reports is conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development from a public relations standpoint and is assessed by an independent auditor. Additionally, the CEO informed the council that when the councillors lost their gratuity, it was because issues which were discussed during the council committee were published by the media, even though they were not intended for public consumption.
Leave a comment