Download
1 / 28
280 likes | 430 Views
CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR. Presentation to the NCOP 20th April 2010. CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTATION. PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION LEGISLATIVE MANDATE STATUS OF THE REPORT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
E N D
CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR Presentation to the NCOP 20th April 2010
CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTATION • PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION • LEGISLATIVE MANDATE • STATUS OF THE REPORT • PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY • HIGHLIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE IN 2007/08 F/Y • CHALLENGES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND • RECOMMENDATIONS BY TECHNICAL MUNIMEC
1. Purpose of the presentation • Present to the members of the NCOP the performance of Eastern Cape municipalities as reflected in the s.47 Report for 2007–08 by the MEC • Give an outline on recommendations made by the Technical MUNIMEC and adopted by the MUNIMMEC on ways to improve Municipal performance reporting
2. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE • This Report is compiled in terms of s.47 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000 • To a large extent it is based on Annual Performance reports of individual municipalities as required by s.46 supra • National Treasury Circular No. 11 of 2003 • s.43 read with s.105 of the Municipal Systems Act • s. 41(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Republic of SA
3. STATUS OF THE S. 47 REPORT • 44 Reports submitted for 2007/8 as against 40 in 2006/7 – 09% improvement • Authenticity of the Reports • 30 were signed by both the Mayor and the MM • 05 by the Mayor only • 04 by the MM only and • 05 unsigned • s.47 Report was published in the Provincial Gazette as is required in terms of s.47(2)(c) of the Municipal Systems Act • Report submitted to the Provincial Legislature, NCOP & the Minister for COGTA to enable the compilation of s.48 Report for submission to Parliament
3. STATUS OF S. 47 REPORT – Cont. • All municipalities were provided with 2 copies – for the Mayor and the MM for their information and attention • The report reflected on weaknesses and strengths and proposed remedial actions to be taken by the MEC • Detailed information per each municipality, per KPI, per Quality Standard is available and was made available during feedback visits or on request • The reporting Format was work-shopped to all municipalities to strictly adhere to for the 2008/9 F/Y
4. Performance Assessment Methodology • All municipalities submit s.46 Performance Assessment Reports – Dates of receipt of which are recorded • The assessment of s.46 reports goes through three (3) phases: • The preliminary assessment – sometimes leads to returning the report to the municipality with comments • The Technical Assessment by teams with technical expertise from within the department • Final assessment – producing a consolidated provincial performance of local government
4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development
4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators (13) revealed the following situation: • A drop in performance in most DM areas including NMBMM compared to 2006/07. • Cacadu and OR Tambo were the only district municipal areas that showed a slight improvement in performance when compared with the previous year. • Cacadu District Area from 38% in 2006/07 to 42% in 2007/08 • OR Tambo District from 16% in 2006/7 to 32% in 2007/8; • The progress observed in OR Tambo DM area was due to the fact that most municipalities in this district did not submit their reports in 2006/7 Financial Year.
4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development
4.2 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS-BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators (23) revealed the following situation: • Most municipalities made progress with regard to basic service delivery in 2007/08; • The performance was still by no means satisfactory as evidenced by the fact that not a single district area managed to achieve an average of 50% performance rate. • Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality had the highest average score of 70% followed by Chris Hani DM area with an average score of 44%. • Alfred Nzo and OR Tambo DM areas were the worst performing districts at 35% and 32% respectively.
4.3 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators revealed the following situation • Despite the progress observed, the average performance across all districts was still below 50%. • Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Amathole and Alfred Nzo DMs were the best performing municipalities overall, yet they only scored between 40-45%. • Location also appeared to play a role in performance as the best performing municipalities were all in the urban areas. • Support provided to municipalities in respect of LED had therefore to focus on the rural municipalities. • Municipalities were persuaded to strive to mainstream LED in all their infrastructure development projects.
4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY
4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (10) revealed the following situation: • Though not yet satisfactory, the overall performance of municipalities improved in all DM areas as well as in Nelson Mandela Bay.; • NMBMM’s overall achievement rate was 80% which was “exceptional” with an unqualified AG report; • The next best was the Ukhahlamba DM area with an overall achievement of 62%; • Chris-Hani and OR Tambo district areas performed the worst at 44% and 28% respectively.
4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY
4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (08) revealed the following situation: • Despite the progress observed during 2007/08, the overall performance in the District Municipalities areas was still bellow 50%; • Amathole, Cacadu, OR Tambo, Ukhahlamba and Alfred Nzo Districts reported progress in their performance compared to 2006/07. • Chris Hani District and Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality performance regressed compared to 2006/07 Financial Years.
4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.6 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- CROSS CUTTING ISSUES • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (04) revealed the following situation: • There had been progress across all district municipalities including the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality. • The worst performing Districts were: OR Tambo (53%) and Ukhahlamba (54%); • Nelson Mandela Bay Metro was the best performing municipality with an “exceptional” achievement rate of (85%).
5. Challenges in municipal performance assessment process; • Late submission of reports by municipalities to the department; • Non cooperation of some municipalities regarding preliminary assessment feedback – non submission of vital information • Lack of uniformity in the reporting format – non-adherence to the format; • Some reports were not signed by either the Mayor and/MM
6. RECOMMENDATIONS BY T.MUNIMEC that were ADOPTed BY MUNIMEC • The new reporting format for Section 46 report developed by the Department should be used by ALL municipalities as from 2008/09 Financial Year; • Municipalities should fully cooperate with the Department and support the preliminary and final performance assessment processes set as follows: • Draft reports sent to the Department by latest February end; • Final reports (adopted by council) sent to the Department for final performance assessment by latest May end; • Municipalities should avail themselves for a detailed feedback by Department officials on the 2007/08 performance assessment
