Lesedi Local Municipality
1 HF Verwoerd Street
Civic Centre Building, Heidelberg
PO Box 201, Heidelberg, Gauteng, 1438
PMS Unit : Mrs R J Vorster
Tel: +27 16 340 4450
Fax: +27 86 601 9837
Email:
BACKGROUND
The Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000)Chapter 4, Sections 16-22, requires of a municipality to have community involvement with the planning of municipal objectives as well as the measurement of performance against pre-determined objectives and targets.
LesediLocalMunicipality invite community members via the local newspapers and ward committee meetings, to become involved and attend the arranged public meetings. During these meetings feedback of previous performances as well as future plans for the new financial yearare discussed.
After the approval of all the planning documents (i.e. IDP, Budget & SDBIP), Performance Contracts are prepared and signed by Senior Management to confirm that these pre-determined objectives will be implemented. The Members of the Mayoral Committee (MMC Councillors) in conjunction with the Section 54 & 56 Employees (Senior Management Team) remain accountable for the implementation thereof.
The Performance Management System assiststhe municipality with the implementation of all the pre-determined objectives. The Section 54 Managers are responsible to ensure that pre-determined objectives as recorded in the SDBIP are cascaded down between accountable and responsible employees to ensure ownership and proof of performance. A specific requirement of the performance management system is that all objectives as recorded in the SDBIP must be compliant to the SMART principle i.e.specific, measurable, achievable, realistic & time framed whilstproof of performance must be visible and available for audit purposes.
The approved performance management system requires quarterly performance reviews to determine the status quo and/or progress on strategic objectives of the planning documents, whereafter feedback is provided to the section 54Managers, who in turn will be assessed on their performance against pre-determined objectives as recorded in the SDBIP. The DPLG Regulations (1 August 2006) assist the municipality in this regard. Quarterly feedback reports on the performance of objectives against pre-determined targets are approved by council and submitted to Provincial Government as required by legislation.
In order for the municipality to complete the 3600 measurement, we allow feedback and/or inputs from the local communities, business men and service providers on the municipal performancewith regards to service delivery as a whole and the implementation of the batho pele principles. For that purpose two different questionnaires (External Appraisals) were developed for both the Political Pillar(with the main focus on the performance of councilors & in particular the different wards) and the Administrative Pillar (with the main focus on the Administration & Employees) of the council.
These questionnaires(External Appraisal Forms) consists of information by which the community can provide feedback to council on how they observe and experience the services of the council within the category of - basic services, communication, leadership, infrastructure, customer care and the cleanliness of the ward- & town areas, the implementation of batho pele principles and many more. With these questions a rating between 1–5 can be given for the way in which the community perceive the services rendered by the municipality. The rating scale is based on the following :-
RATNG / CLASSIFICATION / R I S K / WEIGHT / STARS1 / Unacceptable Performance / High / 40 points /
2 / Poor Performance /
3 / Acceptable Standard / Medium / 40 points /
4 / Good Performance /
5 / Excellent Performance / Low / 20 points /
The External Appraisal Forms(quiestionnaires)are available for all Ward Councillors, on the internet, at all pay points of the municipal offices, as well as all the libraries and clinics throughout the Lesedi municipal area on an ongoing basis. Herewith the total participants over two performance cycles:-
Previous Cycle359This Cycle180 Completed External Appraisals were received on the Political Pillar
PreviousCycle418ThisCycle234 Completed External Appraisals were received on the Administrative Pillar
On these appraisal forms a space is available for community members to provide feedback information and/or commentsfor the further attention.
OUTCOME OF THE SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
Feedback as recorded on the questionnaires were summarised in table format. The outcome thereof will be discussed and the general comments made by the participants will also be recorded.
The feedback of each pillar will be discussed separately, whereafter an executive summary for the municipality as a whole, will follow.
This survey adds value, as the council can take cognizance on the areas of concern to be focused on in the short term. What was observed is that most of the concerns raised by the community, can and will be managed via the complaint register system of the council.
The questionnaires makes provision for subjects (for example Customer Care) that were further divided into areas of concern (for example - Office of the Mayor, Speaker or Councillors). The participants provided feedback in the form of a star rating that was calculated to an average percentage. For the purpose of this report the high-risk percentage outcome will be discussed.
POLITICAL PILLAR
Attached as Annexure “A”, reflects the outcome in a summarised table format. With this survey we strived to identify whether the circumstances or conditions differ from ward to ward. All the comments of participants applicable to the different wards, will be recorded as such. All comments without ward numbers will be recorded under “other comments”
1) CUSTOMER CARE
JUL–DEC2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of57%(against 69.51% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the way in which complaints and/or feedback thereof to the community are handled.
2)INFORMATION
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average high risk factor of 55%(against 68.84% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the communication of important information to the community, for instance policies, systems, budget matters, MEC visits etc.
3)GENERAL COMMUNICATION
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 53%(against 67.43% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of communication by councillors towards communities during visits at political offices i.e. assistance and guidance.
4)MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 46%(against 50.04% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the maintenance of the municipal infrastructure.
5)FACILITIES
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 52% (against 56.23% of the previous cycle), indicates high risk factor in terms of facilities i.e. Clinics, Libraries, Sport Facilities, Parks and Open Spaces within the ward areas can improve.
GENERAL COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY
The following general comments were recorded on the completed forms. Almost none of the community members recorded a Ward Number.
OTHER COMMENTS
1. / Die krag is te duur vir ons pensioenarisse2. / The Library in Jameson Park is too small. The internet is off most of the time. Our clinic as well is too small. There is an empty building that can be used as community Clinic which is big enough and where services can be rendered without wasting time. The cutting of grass for the whole building is not done accordingly
3. / Library in Jameson Park has old books when there is staffed shortage, they took our librarian to cover in town
4. / Improvement at al sectors on the appraisal form is required
5. / Poor Service
6. / We need street lights in Extension 3 - Please
7. / Councillors mele batunde ukufela izithembiso zay emphakhathini
8. / Councillors think only for them, their service is poor
9. / Councillors must up their services
10. / Service is bad at the counters and by the enquiries. You always there and there are no people to help us. We must wait for 10 -1 5 minutes before we get helped
11. / But councillors are not doing a good job at all, they all want what is best for them
12. / The Library should be opened soon, we cannot afford to come to town dialy to use the internet
13. / Pay less rates and taxex and have cleaner environments – Please !!
14. / The town can be much cleaner and can look much better that it is currently looking
15. / Can we have a proper and clean sports grounds where our kids can play safely as well as cleaner parks with play rides for our children. Be creative in creating beautiful parks around our towns
16. / All councillors must go down
17. / Councillors are all bad
18. / We need jobs
19 / Lesedi services is so bad, cannot even describe it. All councillors must start to do their jobs
20 / The open spaces of the local municiplaity are dirty
21 / Do not employe people who do not do their jobs especially in the Parks
22 / Councillors are not doing their best when it comes to our community
23 / The Municipal Manager should have time to interact with community members
24 / Councillors are not fair on the community
25 / There is no stormwater even the electricity are not on a good standard. I do not want to talk about empty spaces because it is very dirty and grass is so high even the bull frog.
26 / There are many things which do not satisfy us. As residents of Jameson Park. Open spaces are not cared for, Grass Snakes, Spiders and Frogs. When its windy electric cuts off, and are lots of delays when such things happens
27 / ANC Councillors are not doing their utmost best
28 / Tampering with Electricity !
29 / Meter Billing
30 / Councillors should stop their corruption at the wards. Stop giving the communities hope where it is not needed
31 / Poor services from the councillors
32 / Councillors are not doing their jobs
33 / The Mayor must go down
34 / Councillors are not doing what it takes to provide for the community and the Mayor must go down
35 / Councillors are not doing enough at their wards and we don’t get enough of what they promise us
36 / I am not happy with the way councillors are handling our complaints
37 / Councillors are not doing their best job at all !
38 / All councillors must go down, they are not doing their jobs
39 / All councillors must start involving themselves in everything the community is doing and not think only for themselves
ADMINISTRATIVE PILLAR
Attached as Annexure “B”, reflects the outcome in a summarized table format.
This external appraisal survey assist the municipality to identify whether the delivery of services at the municipal offices and/or in the town areas has improved. All the comments of participants, will be recorded under general comments.
1)COMMUNICATION
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 57%(against 42.48% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of communication towards members of the public (i.e. switchboard, verbal, written).
2)CUSTOMER CARE & BATHO PELE PRINCIPLES
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 41%(against 45.12% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of attention to community complaints and feedback thereof (i.e. All Departments)
3)BASIC SERVICES
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 40%(against 35.51% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the standard of basic services (i.e. water, electricity, sewer)
4)INFRASTRUCTURE
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 40%(against 37.41% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the standard and maintenance of the municipal infrastructure (i.e. Roads, Streetlights, Road Signs)
5)CLEAN TOWN
JUL–DEC 2012 IN COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS CYCLE OF JUN-JUL 2012
With an average of 39% (against 40.36% of the previous performance cycle), indicates the high risk factor in terms of the neatness and cleanliness of the towns (i.e. Side Walks, Park Areas, Open Spaces & Town Entrances)
GENERAL COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY
Poor services is what I get everytime I am at Lesedi. The cashiers are rudeCustomer care to hold there phones
The billing of accounts and for the workers to respect the community, they should be patient with the community
Lesedi is not good in everything they do. The cashirs and Enquiries people are not helping in a good manner too
The councillors should make sure the communities needs to be satisfied
If you can focus on electricity booz, it’s the most important thing and is expensive
Electricity is the problem (most)
Roads are bad potholes are like graves empty stands grass long like forest. The electricity it’s a disgrace. The main problem when owning one month electricity, it is blocked
Lights, storm water drains, roads full of pot holes – are very bad. And we pay rates and services every monthy. Please rectify these problems – Wake Up from your sleep, it is high time
Service is poor
I always get bad service
Poor service every time I here
I always get good service from Mzwandile at the enquiries
We see the construction process is finished when are they opening the buildings
Poor services every time I am here
I will say so for I don’t have complaints
Lesedi services is poor
People at the cashiers do not smile with us or even greet
As the community we don’t even know the Municipal Manager
Poor Service
I am a new tenant in Heidelberg – I must say the service I get here is good, so far I am not complaining
Service is Poor
Hope the Service at your offies is also low
Customer Services is poor at Lesedi and all the tellers are unfriendly at all times
Lesedi has poor services
Am happy with the service I always get at the pay point
Ratanda has baad street lights. We need more street lights and parks for our families to sit and relax and just enjoy !
Street lights at Khanyile Drive need to be attended immediately with the ones in Heidelberg Road in Ratanda
Ek sal se dat Heidelberg ‘n baie skoner plek kan wees met die hulp va die stadsraad
Please fix the potholes in Rensburg area, the roads in Rensburg is terrible
There are too many speedhumps in Heidelberg ! - We also need cleaner parks and open spaces !
We need more streetlights and Apollos as we do not feel fafe walking around dark street s at night
Baie dankie Heidelberg vir ‘n redelike dienslewering – Ten minste het ons nog water en krag
Best advise I can put for Lesedi Municipality is that they must combine IDP with Sedibeng as District
Suggestion Box for all departments will be the answer for this invitation
Every time when I am here to pay for my rent. I always get bad service – Hope it gets better soon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a)The community participationin terms of the following completed submissions, are noted.
Completed submissions on the Political Pillar Previous Cycle 359This Cycle 180
Completed submissions on the Administrative Pillar Previous Cycle 418This Cycle 234
b)The decrease in the high risk factor in terms of the Political Pillar are noted whilst the general commentsin terms of the Political Pillar, made by the community and that reflects in the Comprehensive External Appraisal Feedback Report for the performance period between JulyDecember 2013, will be taken seriously and will receive the attention of the Councillors during the next performance cycle.
c)Thatthe increase in the high risk factor interms of the Administrative Pillar are noted whilst the general commentsin terms of the Administrative Pillar, made by the community for the performance period between July & December 2013, will be taken seriously and will receive management’s attention during the next performance cycle.
d)The recorded concerns as applicable to both the Political & Administrative Pillars as outlined in the Comprehensive External Appraisal Feedback Report for the performance period between JulyDecember 2013, are noted and will be of great assistance for the Executive Mayor and the Management of the Council.
e)The summary outcome in terms of the ratings, for the survey that was undertaken for the performance period between July – December 2013, are attachedin Table Format to the Comprehensive External Appraisal Reportas ANNEXURE “A” & “B”.
f)The threatsthat was identified by the community, are as follows:-
POLITICAL PILLAR
(i)Customer Care i.t.o complaints & feedback by the Political Pillar as a whole
ADMINISTRATIVE PILLAR
(i)Basic Services in terms of Water & Electricity & Streetlights
g)The weak points as identified by the community, are as follows:-
POLITICAL PILLAR
(i)Infrastructure in terms of WaterSewer
(ii)Facilities in terms of Parks & Open Spaces
ADMINISTRATIVE PILLAR
(i)Customer Care & Batho Pele Principles i.t.o the Commuinity Services & Corporate Services
(ii)Clean town i.t.o. Side Walks
i)Most of the issues listed in this report can be addressed via the complaint register system and the operational budget of the council.
j)With a clear understanding of the Vision & Mission the Lesedi Local Municipality that needs to be communicated throughout the municipality, we can work together as a team towards one goal.
k)Ward & PR Councillors can be of assistance by communicating the reason for and importance of the payment for services during ward committee meetings and in general discussions, that in turn will assist council with the cashflow and budget constraints.
l)With ownership, commitment and buy-in of the approved performance management system, the Lesedi Local Municipality can take the municipal performance to the next level.
Thank You
MR AYANDA MAKHANYA
MUNICIPAL MANAGER
2014-01-02
EXTERNAL APPRAISAL REPORT - 2ND PERFORMANCE CYCLE FOR THE 2011/2012 FINANCIAL YEAR
PAGE 1
180received & represents100 % of the community annexure “A”QUESTIONS
POLITICAL PILLAR / NUMBER / MEASUREMENT
CRITERIA / TOTAL PARTICIPANTS / HIGH RISK
+ 1 & 2 ÷ Participants
x 100% = Risk / MEDIUM RISK
+ 3 & 4 ÷ Participants
x 100% = Risk / LOW RISK / CALCULATED RISK / GENERAL
C O M M E N T S
AVERAGE OF EACH GROUP
Example
1. Add High Risk ÷ x = Average
2. Add Med Risk ÷ x = Average
1
STAR / 2
STAR / 3
STAR / 4
STAR / 5
STAR / THREATS
% / WEAK POINTS
%
/ / / /
UNACCEP-TABLE / POOR / ACCEP-
TABLE / GOOD / EXCELLENT
CUSTOMER CARE
What star rating would you give for the way in which your complaints and feedback thereof is handled. / 1 / COUNCILLORS / 146 / 17 / 68 / 48 / 10 / 3 / 58 % / 39 % / 57.6% of the participants are of the opinion that the customer care of councilors can improve against 69.51% of the previous assessment
2 / OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MAYOR / 148 / 14 / 72 / 50 / 10 / 2 / 58 % / 40 %
3 / OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER / 145 / 15 / 68 / 53 / 8 / 1 / 57 % / 42 %
INFORMATION
How would you rate the information communicated to you as community member during ward meetings(this includes Policies, Systems, Budget Matters, Imbizo’s, Road Shows, MEC Visits & other ) / 4 / COUNCILLORS / 149 / 20 / 65 / 53 / 9 / 2 / 57 % / 41 % / 55.3% of the participants are of the opinion that the communication of important information towards the community can improve against 68.84% of the previous assessment
5 / OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MAYOR / 149 / 17 / 65 / 57 / 10 / 0 / 55 % / 44 %
6 / OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER / 146 / 19 / 60 / 57 / 10 / 0 / 54 % / 45 %
GENERAL COMMUNICATION
What star rating would you give for Assistance, Guidance & communication when you visit our councillors or political offices. / 7 / COUNCILLORS / 147 / 19 / 63 / 56 / 8 / 1 / 55 % / 43 % / 53.0% of the participants are of the opinion that general communication of councilors can improve against 67.43% of the previous assessment
8 / OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MAYOR / 148 / 17 / 59 / 61 / 10 / 1 / 51 % / 47 %
9 / OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER / 147 / 17 / 62 / 58 / 10 / 0 / 53 % / 46 %
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
How would you rate the standard of the Infrastructure in your ward / 10 / WATER / 151 / 6 / 59 / 58 / 17 / 11 / 43 % / 49 % / 46.6% of the participants are of the opinion that the infrastructure in the residential areas are not on a required standard against 50.04%of the previous assessment
11 / ELECTRICITY / 151 / 8 / 64 / 50 / 18 / 11 / 47 % / 45 %
12 / SEWER / 150 / 6 / 59 / 55 / 17 / 13 / 43 % / 48 %
13 / ROADS / 152 / 9 / 65 / 51 / 15 / 12 / 48 % / 43 %
14 / STREET LIGHTS / 152 / 13 / 67 / 51 / 13 / 8 / 52 % / 42 %
FACILITIES
How would you rate the availability of other community services / 15 / HEALTH & CLINIC SERVICES / 153 / 15 / 68 / 54 / 13 / 3 / 54 % / 43 % / 52.3% of the participants are of the opinion that there is a lack of facilities for the communities against 56.23of the previous assessment
16 / COMMUNITY SERVICES / 151 / 15 / 62 / 56 / 11 / 7 / 50 % / 44 %
17 / SPORTS GROUNDS / 149 / 15 / 62 / 55 / 13 / 4 / 51 % / 45 %
18 / SPORT FACILITIES / 151 / 18 / 63 / 55 / 12 / 3 / 54 % / 44 %
19 / SOCIAL & LIBRARY SERVICES / 153 / 19 / 63 / 53 / 14 / 4 / 53 % / 43 %
20 / PARKS & OPEN SPACES / 149 / 17 / 61 / 54 / 16 / 1 / 52 % / 46 %
234received & represents100 % of the community annexure “B”
QUESTION
ADMINISTRATIVE
PILLAR / NUMBER / RELATED UNIT / DEPARTMENT / TOTAL PARTICIPANTS / HIGH RISK
+ 1 & 2 ÷ Participants
x 100% = Risk / MEDIUM RISK
+ 3 & 4 ÷ Participants
x 100% = Risk / L O W / CALCULATED
RISK / COMMENTS ON HIGH RISK
AVERAGE OF EACH GROUP
Example
1. Add High Risk ÷ x = Average
2. Add Med Risk ÷ x = Average
1
STAR / 2
STAR / 3
STAR / 4
STAR / 5
STAR / THREATS
% / WEAK POINTS
%
/ / / /
UNACCEP-TABLE / POOR / ACCEP-TABLE / GOOD / EXCEL-LENT
COMMUNICATION
What star rating would you give for the way in which your communication with the local municipality is handled. / 1 / SWITCHBOARD / 209 / 23 / 71 / 61 / 21 / 33 / 44 % / 39 % / 43.0% of the participants agree that
Communication from the municipal offices can improve against the previous 42.48%
2 / OTHER VERBAL / 207 / 20 / 72 / 67 / 26 / 22 / 44 % / 44 %
3 / WRITTEN / 202 / 16 / 67 / 68 / 35 / 16 / 41 % / 50 %
CUSTOMER CARE AND
BATHO PELE PRINCIPLES
What star rating would you give for the way in which your complaints and feedback thereof are handled. / 1 / Municipal Manager / 204 / 22 / 69 / 79 / 28 / 6 / 44 % / 52 % / 41.0% of the partici-pantsagree that Complaints received by the community can improve against the previous 45.12%
2 / Financial Services / 208 / 23 / 67 / 85 / 29 / 4 / 43 % / 54 %
3 / Development & Plan. / 205 / 20 / 66 / 84 / 31 / 4 / 41 % / 56 %
4 / Engineering Services / 206 / 16 / 68 / 84 / 34 / 4 / 40 % / 57 %
5 / Community Services / 203 / 15 / 65 / 82 / 38 / 3 / 39 % / 59 %
6 / Corporate Services / 203 / 13 / 67 / 86 / 35 / 2 / 39 % / 59 %
BASIC SERVICES
What star rating would you give for the standard of, and access to basic services. / 1 / WATER / 205 / 10 / 62 / 75 / 45 / 13 / 58 % / 58 % / 40.4% of the partici-pantsagree that basic service can improve against the previous 38.52%
2 / ELECTRICITY / 208 / 11 / 84 / 69 / 33 / 11 / 45 % / 49 %
3 / SEWER / 205 / 10 / 56 / 75 / 46 / 18 / 32 % / 59 %
4 / REFUSE REMOVAL / 204 / 11 / 59 / 71 / 43 / 20 / 34 % / 55 %
5 / STORMWATER / 207 / 12 / 57 / 75 / 44 / 19 / 33 % / 57 %
INFRASTRUCTURE
What star rating would you give for the standard of the infrastructure in your area. / 1 / Roads / 209 / 15 / 62 / 71 / 44 / 17 / 36 % / 55 % / 40.3% of the partici-pants agree that the infrastructure in towns can improve against the previous 42.13%
2 / Streetlights / 210 / 17 / 83 / 71 / 33 / 6 / 47 % / 49 %
3 / Road Signs / 204 / 12 / 67 / 75 / 42 / 8 / 38 % / 57 %
CLEAN TOWN
How would you rate the cleanliness of your town. / 1 / SIDE WALKS / 205 / 12 / 65 / 79 / 42 / 7 / 37 % / 59 % / 39.5% of the partici-pants agree that the neatness of the towns can improve against the previous 43.95%
2 / PARK AREAS / 205 / 15 / 67 / 78 / 37 / 8 / 40 % / 56 %
3 / OPEN SPACES / 207 / 18 / 73 / 72 / 36 / 8 / 43 % / 52 %
4 / TOWN ENTRANCES / 206 / 15 / 64 / 79 / 38 / 10 / 38 % / 56 %
EXTERNAL APPRAISAL REPORT - 2ND PERFORMANCE CYCLE FOR THE 2011/2012 FINANCIAL YEAR