EDITOR – It is understood many Metro Police members source, through public donations, or even sometimes purchase, partly or outright, their own police dogs. Such members are then required to relinquish ownership to Metro Police, free of charge, in order to be permitted to work with these dogs.
The recent directive regarding police dog boarding procedure issued by Dir Chin of Specialised Enforcement dated 27 March 2014, requires members to submit a report, other documentation and disposal form, for his approval and subsequent transfer of papers and dog to the SPCA. The SPCA will then decide if the animal is worth keeping alive. Members wishing to adopt their dogs may apply, provided they pay R585 and meet SPCA adoption criteria. The SPCA however, makes the final decision.
Last year Metro Police Logistics Head Innocent Chamane claimed, in terms of the city’s asset disposal policy, police dogs are considered an ‘asset’ in the same manner as a municipal vehicle or other municipal property. All assets are equal, right?
Now let’s apply this consideration to a different type of asset – all assets being equal before Chamane.
Municipal staff who use their personal vehicles to commute to and from work should therefore be required to hand over their ownership to the city if they wished to continue using them. These cars, now deemed municipal property, on experiencing mechanical failure of one form or another, or the model becoming outdated, could then be donated, say, to a scrap yard for disposal. If the scrap yard deemed the vehicle unusable, the municipality would be required to pay for its scrapping. However, if the municipal staff member can, or is, prepared to pay for its road worthy certificate and necessary repairs, the suitability of that staff member must be assessed by the scrap yard owner before he may repurchase what was originally his own vehicle. Either way the scrap yard benefits at the expense of the municipal staff member who, despite displaying a proactive work ethic, has had little choice in the matter from the outset and will be out of pocket twice, for the same ‘asset’.
Not only would this appear to be expropriation without compensation, but in addition, when one considers the strong emotional bond that exists between Metro members and their police dogs, seemingly enters a rather grey area bordering on extortion.
Perhaps Mr Chamane and Dir Chin may like to reconsider their stance on asset classification and their disposal before a clever animal rights lawyer makes a great deal of money from the city, and of course, ultimately the taxpayers.
Perhaps not all ‘assets’ are equal, Dir Chin, especially those that breathe, serve the city loyally and, in their final days, deserve the respect and companionship of the members they served with, without a fat price tag on their heads.
V Burger
Umbilo
