By OVAYO MILISA NOVUKELA
Democratic Alliance Councillor Geoff Embling and Makana Municipality Speaker Mthuthuzeli Matyumza have squared off about Council procedure.
Embling recently reported in his Ward 4 WhatsApp group that he had “no confidence in the Makana Speaker’s office, as it tends not to respond to queries. The Speaker does not include the motions we submit in the council agenda”.
In response, Makana Speaker Mthuthezeli Matyumza said if Embling did not have confidence in his office, he should “give valid reasons”.
Embling complained that a motion of no confidence in the Municipal Manager was not included in last month’s Council meeting agenda. “The council could not vote on whether to suspend the Municipal Manager. He is legally obliged [to put the motion on the agenda].”
Matyumza said the motion of no confidence to the Municipal Manager was “very premature and opportunistic”.
“The contents of this motion are a resolution of the council which said that the accounting officer (in this case the Municipal Manager) must explain how we got three consecutive disclaimers from the Auditor General in extensive detail,” Matyumza said.
“Unlike the Mayor and Speaker, which are politically-based positions, the Municipal Manager is employed and has rights under the Employment Act, like any other employee in a municipality,” Matyumza said.
If a political party or individual wanted to suspend the municipal manager, they should follow the correct legal procedure, Matyumza said. “Embling has failed to understand how the processes and procedures of council work. I don’t know how many times we have schooled him on processes around the council.”
“We arranged a meeting with the opposition and explained that the content of this no-confidence motion would not be discussed as it undermines the council’s resolutions, and I, as the Speaker, won’t allow the council to be undermined. So, he can come to my office and meet, or we can meet in the newspaper because Embling knows nothing about Government,” Matyumza said.
But, Embling asked, “When did [the Speaker]arrange a meeting? He said he would contact [fellow DA councillor Cary Clark]to talk about it and never did.”
“How can it be premature to ask for [Mene’s] suspension when the audit committee, SCOPA and others all agree that he is not fit to hold the office of Municipal Manager. Disclaimers prove that, and nothing he said shows otherwise.
“The Eskom bill is back in arrears because the Municipality has not kept the current account up to date, and MM has not even said anything,” Embling added. “Why does the Speaker keep on protecting the MM – he should be just as concerned as we are?”
“Submitting motions and questions to Council is the bedrock of the democratic process. Councillors are elected by the people, and the motions and questions they submit reflect the public’s request for answers. A portion of the public has been requesting that the current MM be suspended, and the motion reflects this.
“Picking and choosing which motions to submit to the council is autocratic and unconstitutional. It might become necessary to submit a complaint to the MEC of COGTA, requesting an investigation.”
Embling said the DA had also submitted motions objecting to the appointment of an inexperienced councillor as chair of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) – “an important oversight committee”.
“The Speaker’s Office has failed to put our other motions on the agenda, such as the motion to social services to create a dedicated by-law enforcement unit and motions to corporate services. If important matters such as these are not placed on the council agenda, then change cannot be implemented by council,” Embling wrote.
In response, Matyumza said by-law enforcement was a court issue. “When this issue was raised, it was directed to the portfolio committee on social services. To say that we failed means that [Embling] is saying that the Speaker’s office is useless, and we won’t take that lightly,” Matyumza said.
Matyumza said the “tendency of motions in a council meeting” would not be allowed.
