How was the Fence procured and financed?

First I responded by clarifying 19 questions about the fence. Then I sent these questions to my mail list. That list includes Mrs Serdyn.

That evening I met the ward committee members. They all had copies of the mail with the questions. We spoke about my concerns. Mrs Serdyn noted the 19 questions. These questions cover eight areas.

1. Reason for the fence.
2. Decision-making process.
3. Municipal procurement process.
4. Council budget for fence cost.
5. Environmental impact.
6. Security and costs.
7. Stop-and-frisk. (This refers to apprehending ‘suspicious’ individuals).
8. Other developments.

Mrs Serdyn said she would direct these to the relevant municipal departments. She said she would need 14 days, until 03 July, to get me access to information.

Access to information from MAYCO

On 20 June, I thought I had access to information. Then the MAYCO councillors’ PA responded with answers by e-mail. (MAYCO refers to the Executive Mayoral Committee.

Mrs Serdyn serves on MAYCO as Portfolio Councillor: Planning and Economic Development). That I got answers within 24 hours impressed me. But my positive feelings soon turned to disappointment. This happened when I read the ‘answers’. It was because they did not answer 10 of the questions. Seven answers are vague. Thus they qualify as non-answers.

I communicated this to Mrs Serdyn on 27th June. On 3rd July and 9th July. I again asked her for proper answers.

But I got a deafening silence. And I had no access to information. Today it is 02 August, one month after the deadline for the information. And I still have no substantive answers. And therefore, no access to information.

The table below demonstrates the paucity of the ‘answers’. Those that were given are totally inadequate, bar two. Therefore they do not help us to decide whether to support the Fence initiative.

Access to information about IDP budget

In the meantime I looked at the IDP-aligned budgets (2017 and 2018). These showed that there was no allocation of funds for Fencing in 2017/18. For evidence of this see the IDP-aligned budget (see line item “fencing and fences” on page 24). Likewise, the 2018/19 budget allocates no funds for Fencing. For evidence of this see the IDP-aligned budget (see line item “fencing and fences” on pages 24 and 26) . Therefore, if there was no money budgeted, where did it come from? One answer might be that it was “rolled over” from the balance of the R19 597 000 allocated for 2016/17. For evidence of this balance see the IDP Budget for years 2016/17 (see line item “fencing and fences” on page 24). But this is speculation. I found no indication of a rollover in the 2018/19 budget.

In any event, the March 2018 schedule shows award of a three year fencing tender, “B/SM 17/18 3 YEAR TENDER FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF RIGID SECURITY FENCING IN 26-Jan-18 Amabamba Fencing (Pty) Ltd amounting R 2 220 264.00”. Where is the IDP-aligned budget figure, against which this amount should reflect?

Obstacles to information

Accessing information is not easy. The above information sits inside documents. These are titled “Medium Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework ….”. In turn these are on specific pages of the Municipality’s website. It easily took me two hours making sense of the “fencing and fences” item. I have consulted to municipalities about IDPs and budgets. But your average citizen is likely unfamiliar with municipal budgetary and planning jargon.

Stellenbosch municipal documentation is inaccessible. Access to information is not transparent. Critical information is hidden. You have to burrow under irrelevant data to get to the core information. This is the role and function of Stellenbosch Transparency.

What’s next?

This is the first of five posts. I will put these out every five days over the next four weeks. This will happen through a simple mail alert. I will do this in order to keep information manageable. There’s more than meets the eye, about this here Fence issue. To understand it requires meticulous unpacking of the data.

The next post will describe my meeting with the ward committee. To develop our understanding I will describe what I learnt there. I will reflect on the different assumptions in this meeting.

At this stage I can say that crime and security is a big factor driving the erection of the Fence. Accordingly, the third post will try and describe the extent of crime, both in Onderpapegaaiberg and more broadly.

The “fortress mentality” drives the dominant security strategy in our suburb. The fourth post will reflect on a different mental approach to crime and security.

Finally, I will publish a post that looks more broadly at the policing strategy mooted for the town as a whole. And explain why I find this morally disturbing and practically misplaced.

Paul Hendler, Onderpapegaaiberg, 02 August 2018.