Warwick Bruce Chapman

At the meeting called by yourselves, on 7 May 2010, no consensus was reached on ward boundaries.

The MDB officials then spelled out the procedure from there on. Within 7 working days the municipality was instructed to call a meeting of all those who had proposals for ward boundaries within eThekwini. [Within a further 14 working days the MDB would advertise the last proposals for comment and objection.]

This next meeting was called for 13 May 2010 at 11h00. Regrettably the ANC did not attend, and Dr Sutcliffe [municipal manager] stated that the ANC were happy with their own proposals and did not want to consider proposals from other parties. The DA, MF, IEC and municipal officials were present. Nadeco arrived as we were leaving the room.

It is a pity that the ANC were not present, as we had wanted to propose accepting a few of the ANC suggestions. We had hoped that this spirit of concilliation could be translated into better service delivery to the people. Unfortunately the meeting was aborted, so we can only present our further proposals and arguments to you [MDB] directly.

SUGGESTIONS

Wards 5, 6, 91
We looked at the figures and came up with another option for these wards, which is better geographically but still splits communities. This will then give the MDB the following options…
MDB original proposals
ANC proposal
DA [amended ANC option]
Moving VD 43400146 from ward 6 to ward 91
Moving VD 43400551 from ward 91 to ward 6
In a spirit of conciliation we would accept the ANC proposal, or the slight amendment if the ANC preferred that.

93, 94
The ANC proposal is only slightly different from the DA proposal, one VD 43580279 is moved from 94 to 93.
In the spirit of concilliation we accept the ANC proposal.

52, 53, 55, 57
This proposal looks like gerrymandering, and we feel that the MDB proposals are acceptable.

66, 68, 75
We looked intensely at including the Nizam Road community with the Bluff, but were unable to do so without compromising other wards in the area. Our intention of keeping the harbour together with the Bluff [ward 66], and the refinery with Wentworth [ward 68] is because these communities are directly impacted by both activities.
It is our contention that ward councillors for 66 and 68 need to be able to influence these heavy industrial uses for the benefit of the adjacent residential areas.

58. 59, 60, 61, 62
The ANC proposals for the area try to put Verulam’s CBD into one ward, but fall foul because they split our new “mighty fine airport” into two wards. This will make for very disjointed areas for the ward councillors to service. Also a portion of the ANC proposed ward 61 is almost surrounded by ward 62.
Our proposal is to keep the communities of Tongaat beach and Waterloo together with the airport, as they are the most affected by the King Shaka airport. One ward councillor would then have the responsibility of the airport and the residents it affects.

11, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 102
The ANC and DA agree with 2 wards in this area. [36, 37]
We have managed to reduce the length of ward 102, which will make service delivery for that ward councillor easier.
We have also managed to prevent the N2 Highway from dividing most of the wards in this area.

13, 84, 100
Our proposal makes wards 13 and 84 urban and leaves ward 100 as predominantly rural. We feel this means the ward councillors would then be able to deal with service delivery issues in a more focused way. We think this has accommodated the IFP’s proposals

8, 9, 12, 14
The ANC agree with two of our proposals here. [12, 14]. We would ask the MDB and IEC to consider splitting VD 43400450, Hillcrest Library, as it is large and difficult for voters to get to the one polling station.

16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 63, 92
We only have consensus with the ANC on our proposal for ward 23.
For the others we have followed the principle of creating wards that are easier for ward councillors to manage, in line with our goal of improving service delivery.

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 101
We have no consensus with the ANC on any of these wards.
We have endeavored to not “split” wards with the N3 Highway, and in so doing have created geographically manageable wards for the councillors.
Service delivery by municipal officials tends to be divided up along geographical lines, so our proposed boundaries more closely mirror those of council departments.

76, 87, 88, 89, 90
Our ward 76 proposal has been agreed by the ANC.
We have tried to unite the Umlazi communities and sort out odd shaped wards, again to assist ward councillors to provide a better service to the community.
Isipingo now falls into one ward.

69, 70, 74, 75
Generally, as much as we tried – we were unable to accommodate the MF proposals. The numbers just wouldn’t allow their ideas/wishes to work.

Kind regards,
Geoff D A Pullan
083 695 9190

For immediate release

The ANC today did not arrive at an important meeting intended to build consensus on the differing ward demarcation proposals of the various parties in the eThekwini municipality. The City Manager, Dr Mike Sutcliffe, informed the parties present that the ANC had stated their proposals were non-negotiable and as such they saw no need to attend the meeting. As a result, the meeting was called off.

The implications of the unwillingness to negotiate by the ruling party are serious for the ward demarcation process ahead of the 2011 Local Government Elections. As political parties we have the responsibility to ensure that collectively we decide the best ward demarcations for the City and do not leave this task entirely to the Municipal Demarcation Board.

The process started late last year with the Municipal Demarcation Board releasing a set of proposals which included the additional 3 wards in eThekwini and catered for movement of voters within the municipality. The MDB proposals by their own admission are “desktop” in nature, and thus political parties and residents were requested to provide comment and, if necessary, counter proposals.

If negotiations around these proposals facilitated by the Municipal Manager failed to result in consensus, then the MDB will attempt to facilitate such consensus itself. This is what happened last Friday in the City Hall when the MDB hosted all political and other interested parties.

ANC Proposals ‘non-negotiable’
Unfortunately no consensus was reached. The ANC presented their proposals along with a declaration that they were non-negotiable. The DA requested that no party be allowed to take such a position and that in the 7-day period granted by the MDB for consensus to be reached, the City be required to host negotiations.

All parties were invited to a meeting today, Thursday 13 May, hosted by the City Manager with a view to all parties reaching a compromise on as many of the proposals as possible.

In the spirit of consensus building the DA had already considered the proposals tabled by other parties with a view to accepting those where we felt the best interests of the people had been upheld.

During the MDB meeting on Friday 7 May the DA motivated our proposals and explained how they seek to reunite the many communities which are split across wards in eThekwini. The ANC tabled proposals which it said intended to “integrate communities” and accused the DA of trying to preserve white areas.

The DA feels it important to acknowledge that there is a difference between the legislated mandate of the MDB not to fragment communities and the stated intention of the ANC that they seek to integrate communities.

Westville and Chesterville
To use the example debated during the Friday 7 May MDB meeting, there is no longer such as thing as a “white suburb” as was argued of Westville by ANC MP Belinda Scott. Any person wishing to move into Westville simply rents or purchases there and moves in. A look at the demographics of the schools in the area and will show that Westville is already an integrated community.

When someone from Chesterville moves into Westville, they leave one community and join another, furthering integration. Integration is not achieved by lumping parts of one community with another in a ward.

It is obvious from the ANC proposals, such as their Ward 52 proposal that their input is frequently less about integration and more about introducing voters which will strengthen the hand of the ANC come election time.

The facts are simple:
1. The legislation governing ward demarcation seeks to avoid the fragmentation of communities
2. The ANC is proposing fragmentation of further communities under the guise of “integration”

Legal Provisions
The 2009 Legal Provisions for Ward Delimitation document stipulates on page 3, item 4.b:
“The need to avoid as far as possible the fragmentation of communities.”

The MDB itself clarifies the question of what a community is on its website under the section Criteria for Delimiting Wards (page 3 of the PDF):
“The need to ensure that residents who think of themselves as a community are able to vote together and are able to participate in ward committees together. It is not always possible to ensure that communities are kept together in the same ward, but, as far as possible, boundaries have been drawn in such a way that individuals can vote and participate in local government together with people they see as their neighbours, and with whom they share common interests and concerns.”

Service Delivery
The ANC is using a populist political argument here to cover up the gerrymandering they are attempting through their proposals. They are not trying to pursue some altruistic integration of communities. All they are trying to do is win as many wards as they can by fiddling the system as effectively as they can regardless of how it runs against the law.

Ultimately, as part of a drive to improve service delivery, we must empower councillors to become specialists at dealing with the needs of their particular communities. The needs of the people in a community like Westville and Chesterville, for example, are very different and require a different set of competencies and knowledge from their councillor.

The DA proposals are designed reunite communities and correct some of the anomalies in the ward demarcations as they stand and in the proposals tabled by the MDB and the ANC.

By refusing to negotiate on the proposals, the ANC is displaying contempt for the institutions of this democracy. The DA will be writing to the MDB to further motivate our proposals and emphasise the positive impact they will have on improving the delivery of services to the various communities in eThekwini.

Enquiries
Warwick Chapman
083 7797 094
ward18@ethekwini.org

This speech was delivered at the sitting of the eThekwini Council on 29 April, 2010.

“The Democratic Alliance will support the final extension of funding for this ambitious Revenue Management System project, which, if successful and stable could be an excellent strategic investment for the City.

The potential this RMS project has to both provide an efficient and customised solution to the City is significant. Further, the possibility of realising an early return on investment if we are able to sell this product to other local governments in Africa and abroad is promising.

We must embrace every opportunity we can to develop and deliver locally, thus improving local skills and saving vital foreign exchange. If successful, the RMS project will be an example of one such opportunity.

The DA must stress, however, that with a software development project of this complexity and magnitude, none of the above can be celebrated until the proverbial fat lady sings. The development itself must be successfully completed and a well resourced maintenance and support team put in place to ensure the investment is sustained.

Lastly, due to the contentious nature and history of the project, we would like to request that between now and when the project is due to be rolled out, the full council or at least the Executive Committee, be formally updated on a monthly basis on the progress of the development as it approaches the go-live date.”

The Municipal Demarcation Board met with all political parties on Friday 7 May in the City Hall. At this meeting the ANC stated that its proposals for the 2011 ward demarcation were non-negotiable. The DA requested that no party be allowed to take such a position and that in the 7-day period granted by the MDB, the City be required to host negotiations whereby consensus can be reached on as many of the counter proposals as possible.

We were invited to the meeting on today on Monday 10 May and release the following statement indicating our support for this meeting:

The DA will be in attendance at this meeting. In the spirit of consensus building we are reviewing the proposals tabled by other parties with a view to accepting those where we feel the best interests of the people have been upheld.

As political parties we have the responsibility to ensure that collectively we decide the best ward demarcations for the City and do not leave this task entirely to the Municipal Demarcation Board.

The DA feels it important to acknowledge that there is a difference between the legislated mandate of the MDB not to fragment communities and the stated intention of the ANC that their proposals seek to integrate communities.

To use the example debated during the Friday 7 May MDB meeting, there is no longer such as thing as a “white suburb” as was argued of Westville by the ANC MP Belinda Scott. Any person wishing to move into Westville simply rents or purchases there and moves in. A look at the demographics of the schools in the area and will show that Westville is already an integrated community.

When someone from Chesterville moves into Westville, they leave one community and join another, furthering integration. Integration is not achieved by lumping parts of one community with another in a ward.

It is obvious from the ANC proposals, such as their Ward 52 proposal that their input is frequently less about integration and more about introducing voters which will strengthen the hand of the ANC come election time.

The facts are simple:
1. The legislation seeks to avoid fragmentation
2. The ANC is proposing fragmentation of further communities under the guise of “integration”

Regarding the legal provisions as well as the MDB’s own guidelines:

The 2009 Legal Provisions for Ward Delimitation document stipulates on page 3, item 4.b:
“The need to avoid as far as possible the fragmentation of communities.”

The MDB itself clarifies the question of what a community is on its website under the section Criteria for Delimiting Wards (page 3 of the PDF):
“The need to ensure that residents who think of themselves as a community are able to vote together and are able to participate in ward committees together. It is not always possible to ensure that communities are kept together in the same ward, but, as far as possible, boundaries have been drawn in such a way that individuals can vote and participate in local government together with people they see as their neighbours, and with whom they share common interests and concerns.”

Further to my previous post on this subject detailing how to get this to work on Ubuntu Karmic (9.10), here are details for getting it working in Lucid (10.04).

If you followed the previous instructions, you will want to remove the file created there:
rm /etc/hal/fdi/policy/thinkpad.fdi

Create the file /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/20-thinkpad.conf as root with the following content:

Section "InputClass"
Identifier "Trackpoint Wheel Emulation"
MatchProduct "TPPS/2 IBM TrackPoint|DualPoint Stick|Synaptics Inc. Composite TouchPad / TrackPoint|ThinkPad USB Keyboard with TrackPoint"
MatchDevicePath "/dev/input/event*"
Option "EmulateWheel" "true"
Option "EmulateWheelButton" "2"
Option "Emulate3Buttons" "false"
Option "XAxisMapping" "6 7"
Option "YAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

Restart X/Ubuntu and test!