After a recent meeting with a prominent Overstrand ratepayers’ association, I found myself reflecting on the different roles of the various stakeholders in local government. There appears to be considerable confusion about who is accountable to whom, and what responsibilities each party carries.
Many large ratepayer associations place great value on maintaining a “good working” relationship with the Overstrand Municipality. They are often reluctant to rock the boat. As long as municipal officials respond to their emails, the mayor’s door remains open, and a few relatively minor requests are accommodated, they feel they have fulfilled their purpose.
Unfortunately, between all the politeness and gentlemanly/ladylike engagement, major issues often go unaddressed.
In many respects, some of these organisations have failed the very ratepayers they are supposed to serve, calling their very existence into question.
When considering these matters, I always return to the original and fundamental roles of everyone involved.
Ratepayers pay rates and taxes in exchange for municipal services. The municipality exists to provide those services. The Constitution is clear that local government must be accountable to the communities it serves.
It may be best to think of it as a business arrangement. If you pay a painter to paint your house and he instead paints your car’s windscreen, there will be consequences. The same principle applies to local government – or at least it should.
Councillors are elected to represent the interests of residents in local government. By implication, they should always act in the best interests of the communities they represent. When they fail to do so, residents have every right to be dissatisfied and to demand better.
Think of them as your attorney. You appoint an attorney to represent your interests. If he starts acting against you in court, you have clearly made a very bad choice. The same principle applies to councillors. They are there to represent you, not the municipality, the political party, the municipal manager, or themselves. Refusing to engage with you is not an option, and yet, in the Overstrand, it is common practice.
Both the municipal administration and the council have clear duties towards the ratepayers they serve. Accountability is impossible without communication, and yet ignoring valid concerns has become standard practice in the Overstrand administration. A municipality cannot claim to be accountable while refusing to engage with the people who fund it and whom it is supposed to serve.
A convenient myth has developed, often perpetuated by politicians and officials and frequently reinforced by ratepayer associations, that municipal officials only need to engage with residents who are sufficiently polite. This creates a convenient trap. Pointing out misconduct, incompetence, broken promises, or violations of policy is rarely comfortable or pleasant. Officials then portray criticism as impoliteness and use it as justification for avoiding engagement altogether.
This is not supported by the law.
There is nothing wrong or unlawful about being angry or upset by perceived misconduct. It is a normal response and should be expressed within the limits of the law. In a well-functioning society it should lead to prompt corrective action. Now think about the major issues we have highlighted in the Overstrand and consider what corrective action has been taken, if at all.
The municipality is not a pretty girl who needs to be courted until she agrees to speak to you, nor are our officials medieval royalty that can set its guards upon you because it dislikes the way you are dressed. Meaningful two-way communication is not a favour to be granted as a reward for being “nice” — it is an obligation to be fulfilled.
Anton Kruger
OVAC
