POLOKWANE – The Polokwane Municipality is going to take a report by the Public Protector, finding the municipality guilty of maladministration, on review. This was confirmed by Municipal Spokesperson, Matshidiso Mothapo.
The municipality was found guilty of maladministration following the irregular appointment of the Assistant Manager: Billing and Customer Care, according to the report.
You might also want to read: A look at Polokwane Municipality’s (dire) debt
A complaint to this effect was received by the Public Protector from a certain TG Maponya in May 2017. Maponya was employed as Manager: Finance -Expenditure by the municipality.
Maponya stated that the person appointed to the position was shortlisted, interviewed and appointed despite the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements for the position. He claimed the municipality ignored concerns raised by himself and the unit manager about the alleged irregular appointment of the candidate.
The Office of the Public Protector took into account Section 195(1) (a) and (f) of the Constitution, the municipality’s Recruitment Policy of 2009 and the Personnel Code no. CR24/2/1998 to establish and make a decision if there had been improper conduct or maladministration and prejudice caused to other candidates due to not complying with key laws and policies, and found the municipality wanting.
Several officials as well as the Mayor were issued with notices on 9 April this year and in response the former chairperson of the shortlisting and interviewing panel replied that the person’s appointment was conducted in terms of legal prescripts.
The person had a Gr 12 certificate, did a certificate programme in management development for public finance, a certificate in municipal finance management and 26 years’ experience in the finance field.
Having considered evidence supplied, the Public Protector found the appointment irregular, stating that certain requirements had not been included in the advertisement for the position.
This denied any other interested qualified member of the public who did not have a degree or diploma, but vast relevant years of experience, an opportunity to apply.
The assistant manager appointed had extensive experience, but did not meet the post requirements reflected in the advertisement. The Public Protector found it was improper for the municipality to have considered clause 2.18 of the Personnel Code to justify the shortlisting and appointment of the candidate.
This clause stated that ‘each full three year’s experience over and above the prescribed minimum experience for a position may be accepted as an alternative for one year academic, professional or scholastic training which is prescribed for a post.’
The Public Protector said this provision should have been included in the advertisement.
The conduct of the municipality was also found to be in violation of clause 2.17 of the Personnel Code referring to appointment requirements and clause 5.3.5 of the Recruitment Policy regarding processes to be followed when appointing personnel. This constituted improper conduct and maladministration in terms of the Constitution and the Public Protector Act.
The Public Protector also found that ‘the unfair, unequitable and therefore improper selection and subsequent appointment’ of the candidate caused the municipality to incur irregular expenditure and prejudiced other applicants who had similar RPL requirements as the candidate which were not included in the advertisement.
Remedial action proposed was that the Speaker and Municipal Council, within 30 days, in consultation with the municipal manager, declared the appointment as irregular and the salary paid to the assistant manager as irregular expenditure. Disciplinary action must be taken against officials who caused the irregular appointment. The recruitment policy of the municipality among other specified actions, must also within 30 days be reviewed, especially the provisions addressing equity in the workplace. Employment equity requirements must be clearly articulated in the advertisement and clause 2,18 of the Personnel Code must be removed from the code.
