Clarity on ‘failed to serve’

I NOTED with concern the report “Failed to serve” (DD June 4), which names 15 councillors as not holding their required monthly public meetings. The report was published in the public domain even though it was never tabled and discussed in council. It is unfortunate that the narrative projected in the Daily Dispatch creates an impression that the report represents the outcome of a performance assessment on the serving councillors. Its main purpose was instead to account on the functionality of ward committees, whereby ward councillors are required to submit quarterly reports to council.

Another impression generated was that the underlying motive of the report was “naming and shaming” councillors who do not perform their duties. This is not correct.

The main reason for the withdrawal of the report was the discrepancies that were raised by the affected councillors, primarily as they felt the report did not incorporate some rights of reply with reasons on the allegations.

The damage done has huge implications for the councillors, especially since the country – including BCM – is being confronted with a heightened level of violent protests.

Another aim of the report was ensuring that council makes interventions in areas where public participation need strengthening.

The speaker calls upon communities to interact with his office when they are concerned about councillor conduct and behaviour. — Alfred Mtsi, Buffalo City Metro speaker