Charter chatter updates

Written by Neil Fraser Friday, 29 January 2010 10:13

The beginning of a new year is a good opportunity to report on the progress of the Inner City Charter.

You may recall that the Inner City Charter process is a highly laudable effort led by the Executive Mayor - following an Inner City Summit that was held on 5 May 2007 - to identify inner city issues requiring attention and setting targets for their completion.

The first part of the Inner City Charter speaks about the future of the Johannesburg Inner City. It asks all stakeholders to envisage the future Inner City as a place 

•         … That will be developed in a balanced way in order to accommodate all people and interests; 

•         … Which remains as the vibrant business heart of Johannesburg as a whole, but which balances future commercial, retail and light manufacturing development with a large increase in residential density; 

•         … Which works, as many other cities do elsewhere in the world, as a key residential node where a diverse range of people from different income groups and backgrounds can have their residential needs met.  

•         … Of first entry into Johannesburg, but also a place where people want to stay because it offers a high quality urban environment with available social and educational facilities, generous quality public open space, and ample entertainment opportunities; 

•         … Which serves as both the key transportation transit point for the entire Gauteng Global City Region, but also as a destination point where people want to walk in the streets;

•         … Where the prevailing urban management, safety and security concerns are a thing of the past. Fast changing city centres that accommodate a wide range of functions and interests in a dynamic mix do not have to be places where waste is not collected, by-laws are not enforced, buildings are in decay and public spaces deteriorating, and where many people cannot walk in the streets free of the fear of crime. 

Regardless of the functions and people it accommodates in future the Johannesburg Inner City will be well-managed, safe and clean. It will not be a dormitory for the poor, nor an exclusive enclave of loft-apartments, galleries and coffee shops” 

Good solid, pragmatic objectives.

The Charter then listed some 192 deliverables.

 2007: Of those 43 deliverable due for completion by the end of December 2007, the City advised that 30 were achieved and verifiable i.e. 70%

 2008: An independent assessment of the Inner City Charter commitments was carried out and reported that for the period July 2007 to the 30^th June 2008 a 46% aggregate was achieved but that the figure might have been low in that a number of departments had not submitted the relevant information for auditing. A further period was allowed for this to happen and the final audit report reflected that 56% of charter commitments had been achieved.

 2009: A further independent assessment for the period July 2008 – to June 2009 was carried out and reported an achievement rate of 66%.

 
So, a steady improvement over three of the five year Charter period. The Report of the external auditors states “It is evident that the City of Johannesburg has not only notably delivered on the charter commitments since inception of the Inner City Partnerships, but most significantly all six sectors have increased the degree, extent and rate of delivery year on year. The assessment for the period 2008-2009 has established a substantive advancement in the scale and scope of delivery; however as the initiatives, programmes, interventions and partnerships mature so to has the assessment exposed challenges and blockages which must be addressed if the delivery phase is to be sustained and accelerated.”   

I think a way to create greater co-operation between some departments (sorely lacking in quite a number of instances) would be to adjust each council employee’s annual “score-card” rating (which is their fundamental bonusing arrangement) by the annual achievement rate of the Charter scoring. So 2009 “score card” assessments should be adjusted so that each individual’s maximum score is only 66% of what was assessed as feasible at the date of setting the scorecard and before individual performance is scored. Unfair on those who have achieved? Sure, but it may make the better performers pressurize their colleagues to meet the Charter commitments!   

One of the ‘red lights’ raised by the external auditors report are:

A proposal to review commitments “….some commitments would best be allocated to different sectors as lead agents ….a number of commitments appear to duplicate previous delivery – emphasis on commitments must be updated to reflect current challenges….delivery is not aligned to commitment expectation, purpose or objective.”  In my opinion, whatever is done, the major critical assessment should always be made against the original Charter whatever flaws it might contain. In the private sector one usually has an original budget against which one is primarily judged; one then might introduce revised budgets that take into account changing circumstances, but the original budget should provide the core evaluation of the joint effort of the organisation to meet their agreed target. In the city’s case, unlike the public sector in this particular case, new challenges are not being added to the list of Charter commitments so the Council must be judged against the original Charter whatever the mistakes, misallocations previously included – that is for the Council to sort out individually within themselves.

Another ‘red light’ is in regard to relationships – “ The Charter was conceived in partnerships, should be delivered in partnerships and must be evaluated in partnership.” The proposed solution is to establish a “formalised Stakeholder Relationship Building Management and Maintenance Programme.” Knowing some of the people involved, I somehow think that this would be a waste at this stage but should be a precursor to the next Charter, if there is to be one.  

‘Highlights’ included the fact that delivery across all six sectors increased significantly even though 2010, the Confed Cup, Gautrain and BRT “has had considerable impact on the City’s ability to deliver on certain commitments and further compounded by budget cuts”. All four of the ‘projects’ referred to were known at the time of drawing up the Charter but, no doubt, their effects were not well thought through or realistically taken into account. Budget cuts are of course symptomatic of how local government is funded and, as always, needs some stabilization in approach. But the comments are somewhat like those regarding overruns that have been experienced on 2010 stadia – “oh, we didn’t anticipate strikes, increases in labour and material costs!” Why not? Surely the job of a financial adviser to the client is to take those issues into account even if they go initially into a contingency reserve! We rather kid ourselves that the unforeseen won’t happen in our desire to produce initial figures that are acceptable rather than realistic in order to “get the show on the road”.     

Some of the stakeholder comments that are recorded by the external auditors include: 

“The Mayor takes this process very seriously, however we need to work on his officials, especially in the working groups they just pay lip service to the process and that undermines the trust that is built up in the relationship between the partnership leadership.” 

“Personally I think this Charter has made an unbelievable difference and only when we look back will we realize that we are making history.” 

“We have our mission critical issues that need to be addressed - the three areas are valuations, rates and taxes and Pikitup - we keep getting promises and then stumbling on the resolution.  

“We are offering proper partnerships and the City is reciprocating I believe – but they just need to get the basics right.” 

“We have a good working relationship with some departments and individuals in the departments but I think Executives feed the Mayor with information he wants to hear…..”  

“The Charter’s success is imperative to development of the inner city, it is imperative for us in the private sector ….” 

The Mayor was very brave in creating the Charter Council but Council should consult with us before making major decisions. Don’t get me wrong, I an not saying ask our permission, but we want to get this thing right and we can do better together. Look, the JDA works with us and we get things done. Economic Development does not trust us and we don’t get so much done.”

Just some real worries:

 
Economic Development

Surprising increase from 35% to 58% given that”

• Linear Street markets appear way behind programme.
• Slow progress of broadband
• Targeted support to Economic Sectors? Fashion District?
• BBP 

Arts Culture and Heritage

Good progress from 55% to 65%
 

Urban Management Safety and Security

This cluster reflects the best progress at 82%, previously 72%. However I still question the practical application of urban management. In my Citichat of November or December I referred to a pole (no-parking or no-stopping notice I think) that was flattened by a car on the corner of the City Hall/Legislature – last week when I was in the city, I noticed that it is still there, crushed and flattened on the pavement. Urban Management should be such that the pole should have been replaced within 24 hours! A walk through the inner city reflected numerous ‘new design’ refuse bins also crushed and flattened – why are they left in position? I also noticed that some of the great mosaic work on the pavements around Jewel City are deteriorating badly, pieces of mosaic have gone missing, etc. Not good enough!

Community Development

Good solid progress, 62% up to 72%  – I think I may have missed a report on progress of the Community Fund?

Residential Development  

Appears to be falling behind with a score of only 56%, previously 48%. Major concern is the lack of information on the programme previously known as “The Better Buildings Programme” now known as “The Inner City Property Scheme.” The report states that this is now in the hands of Economic Development “but limited reporting has been made available based on the sensitive and confidential nature of the information.” Not good enough!

Up from 54% to 66% in latest review.

Generally, my own view is that the Inner City Charter is one of the most enlightened and critical strategies introduced in the revitalization process following the visioning process in 1996. I agree with the comment above that the Mayor (and Council) have done a very brave thing to set out their commitments publicly and then to have external auditing of the progress. I also believe the Charter has been greatly beneficial to the Inner City and bears repeating at the appropriate time. The process from start to finish can be greatly improved but then it is a “first off” for possibly any city in the world in terms of scope and focus.  

Rissik Street Post Office

The Rissik Street Post Office debacle staggers onwards – the Johannesburg Property Company claimed that the site was tightly secured. Yet, a couple of weeks back I received this e-mail from an interested party: “ I was at the post office at about 6:30 last night and noticed pavement hawkers and homeless people entering the seemingly secured site via a gate on the Rissik Street side of the building. The gate looks like part of the palisade fencing and has bolts on it, but it is not locked! One vagrant had a little trolley with bits of post office debris that he was carting out of the building. I am not sure how JPC can feel that the site is secured to a satisfactory standard? Also, since Helen Botes indicated on 702 that the building had ‘’state of the art’’ security and intruder detection systems installed, how is it possible that they are not aware of these people in the building?”

I believe the matter has been attended to (again). I’ve always found that politicians and officials love the ‘spin words’ – “state of the art” ; “zero tolerance” ; “seamless strategies” etc etc ad nauseum, but that understanding of the true meanings of the words and implementation fall far short.

The issue of charging the local authority and other relevant parties for negligence is proceeding albeit slowly but I’ll keep you up to date on progress. 

I’m in the very early stages of setting up a blog – the framework is in place but it still has a lot to be added – please use it for any conversation you would like to have about inner city issues – it is on http://www.citichat.co.za/  

Ciao, neil