Daily Dispatch

BCM must pay back the R1.4m

IN THE larger picture of wasteful, irregular or corrupt spending of public funds, the R1.4-million paid by the Buffalo City Metro for a music show to wrap up its Mayor’s Cup sports tournament on Youth Day may seem like chicken feed.

But while the amount may be relatively minor, it highlights a continuing culture of managing public funds that is alarming.

There are several aspects of this expenditure that raise red flags.

The first is that senior municipal officials thought fit to award the contract without going through a standard tender process, required for such an amount.

The “deviation” from tendering was approved by the city manager Andile Sihlahla on the recommendation of the head of executive support services, Ncumisa Sidukwana, because they believe it was “impractical” to book performing artists on the basis of their popularity “which is intangible”.

Sidukwana apparently found, with Sihlahla’s concurrence, that it would be “impossible” to choose a quote as artists were different and had unique music.

That the rest of the council was able to sagely nod their heads in agreement is astounding.

To start with, there is no requirement to accept the “lowest” tender, as long as it is within a budgetary limit and to suggest it would be “impossible” to set a budget for an entertainment event is nonsense. Impresarios around the world do it every day without problem. If they didn’t they would go bankrupt.

The whole point of a tender is to be able to select a product or service that is both affordable and suitable. The fact it may be unique or creative does not make the slightest difference to the process of buying it.

The second worry is that some of the artists who did perform their “unique” and “intangible” acts claim they have not yet been paid. Remember, the whole point of the event was to encourage and uplift youths, not crush them.

And, yes, for the benefit of the municipal officials involved who apparently do not know, private entertainment events involving someone’s private money are very strictly organised according to budgets.

Performers know exactly how much they will earn, and if they don’t like the amount offered, someone else will get the job who does like it. It’s called the law of supply and demand. Or perhaps the city thinks music is so unique that there were no other options.

Which raises the third concern – the fact that the “impossible to budget” event was organised by a relative of a senior municipal official.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with relatives of city officials having private business dealings with the metro, but that is exactly why a purchasing process has to be impeccably fair and transparent. In this case it most certainly was not.

The fact that the officials and council saw nothing wrong in the way in which this was managed shows an almost arrogant disregard for process and prudence in looking after the public money entrusted to them.

The R1.4-million should be paid back by the negligent officials and councillors.