Municipal Office Bearers And Municipal Officials Social Policy Essay Example

Municipal Office Bearers And Municipal Officials Social Policy Essay Introduction Harmonizing to the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 a municipality is thought to make a batch of things which include: development and bring forthing conditions for the local community to partake in the interaction of the municipality ; lending to the capacity building of neighbouring communities to authorise them to lend in its traffics ( Department of Constitutional Development, 1998 ) ; showing its resources and fundss annually towards the formation of suited participatory fortunes and building such capacity. The intent of this act is to set up minimal criterions of ethical behavior for municipal officers and employees to assist guarantee that the concern of authorities is free from improper influence that may ensue from chances for private addition. At the same clip, it is recognized that public service can non necessitate a complete divesting of all proprietary involvement, nor enforce excessively onerous revelation demands, if local authoritiess are to pull and keep competent decision makers ( Momoniat, 2001 ) . Although the confidence of ethical behavior will go on to rest chiefly on the personal unity of the officers and employees themselves, on the committedness of elected and appointed functionaries, and on the watchfulness of their communities, the constitution of the criterions and guidelines set Forth in this act is an extra measure toward supplying the highest quality of public disposal for local authoritiess and increased assurance in public functionaries ( Gildenhuys, 2002 ) . By necessitating public one-year revelation of involvements that may act upon or be perceived to act upon the actions of public functionaries, this act is intended to ease consideration of possible jobs before they arise, to minimise indefensible intuition, and to heighten the answerability of authorities to the people. It is the purpose of this act that every governmental entity in the province non capable to the province moralss committee, the legislative moralss commission, or the commissariats of subdivision 4 of subdivision 211 of the bench jurisprudence shall be capable to the province committee on local authorities moralss, established by this act ( DBSA, 2000 ) . It is besides the purpose of this act non to replace but instead to supplement other, consistent commissariats of jurisprudence modulating moralss in local authorities, such as subdivision 107 of the civil service jurisprudence, and to consequence no alteration in the ordinance of compatibility of public office ( Atkinson, 2002 ; Bird, 2003 ) . We will write a custom essay sample on Municipal Office Bearers And Municipal Officials Social Policy specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Municipal Office Bearers And Municipal Officials Social Policy specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Municipal Office Bearers And Municipal Officials Social Policy specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers and Employees. General prohibition. A municipal officer or employee shall non utilize his or her official place or office, or take or neglect to take any action, in a mode which he or she knows or has ground to cognize may ensue in a personal fiscal benefit for any of the undermentioned individuals: the municipal officer or employee ; his or her outside employer or concern ( Rural Development Unit, 2004 ) ; a member of his or her family ; a client or client ; a comparative ; or a individual from whom the officer or employee has received election run parts of more than $ 1,000 in the sum during the past 12 months ( DBSA, 1998 ) . Recusal. A municipal officer or employee shall quickly decline himself or herself from moving on a affair before the municipality when moving on the affair, or neglecting to move on the affair, may financially profit any of the individuals listed in subdivision 1 of this subdivision ( Swilling, 1988 ) . Gifts. A municipal officer or employee shall non beg anything of value from any individual who has received or sought a fiscal benefit from the municipality, nor accept anything of value from any individual who the municipal officer or employee knows or has ground to cognize has received or sought a fiscal benefit from the municipality within the old 24 months ( Whelan, 2002 ) . Representation. A municipal officer or employee shall non stand for any other individual in any affair that individual has before the municipality nor represent any other individual in any affair against the involvements of the municipality. Appearances. A municipal officer or employee shall non look before any bureau of the municipality, except on his or her ain behalf or on behalf of the municipality ( Rural Development Unit, 2004 ) . Confidential information. Municipal officers or employees and former municipal officers and employees shall non unwrap any confidential information or utilize it to further anyone s personal involvements. Political solicitation. A municipal officer or employee shall non knowingly petition or wittingly authorise anyone else to bespeak any subsidiary of the officer or employee to take part in an election run or contribute to a political commission. Revolving door. A municipal officer or employee shall non look or pattern before the municipality, except on his or her ain behalf, or receive compensation for working on any affair before the municipality, for a period of one twelvemonth after the expiration of his or her municipal service or employment ; nevertheless, the saloon shall be lasting as to peculiar affairs on which the municipal officer or employee personally worked while in municipal service ( Gildenhuys, 2002 ) . Avoidance of struggles. Municipal officers or employees shall non knowingly get, solicit, negotiate for, or accept any involvement, employment, or other thing of value which would set them in misdemeanor of this codification of moralss ( Whelan, 2002 ) . Incentive of others. A municipal officer or employee shall non bring on or help another officer or employee of the municipality to go against any of the commissariats of this codification of moralss. Transactional revelation. Whenever a municipal officer or employee is required to decline himself or herself under this codification of moralss, he or she ( Department of Constitutional Development, 1997 ) shall quickly inform his or her superior, if any, shall quickly register with the municipal clerk a signed statement unwraping the nature and extent of the forbidden action or, if a member of a board, shall province that information upon the public record of the board, and shall instantly forbear from take parting further in the affair ( Bird, 2003 ) . A Clear and Comprehensive Code of Ethical motives The first pillar of an effectual authorities moralss jurisprudence is a codification of moralss. Simple, reasonable, straightforward and short, the codification of moralss must be apprehensible by every functionary and employee without a attorney ( Atkinson, 2002 ) . Most functionaries besides prefer bright line that is, clear cut regulations, whenever possible. The codification should put a uniform, minimal criterion applicable to every officer and employee of the authorities, from the street sweeper to the president, although certain high-ranking functionaries may hold even stricter criterions. The codification of moralss should be a comprehensive list of bash s and donts that will steer and protect authorities functionaries. Indeed, it may be said that an ethics jurisprudence is the best friend of authorities employees because it tells them what the regulations are, helps them remain out of problem and protects them against friends or supervisors or private employers who merely want a small favour ( Bahl, 2002 ) . When seeking to convert a legislative organic structure to ordain an moralss jurisprudence, this point should be stressed. Bribery Torahs and ant kickback Torahs by their very nature call into inquiry the unity of public functionaries. But moralss Torahs may be presented as supportive of public functionaries ( Whelan, 2002 ) . To maintain the codification of moralss clear to the mean ballad employee, it should non incorporate any definitions or exclusions, which should, alternatively, appear in separate subdivisions ( Rural Development Unit, 2004 ) . Indeed, definitions should be kept to a lower limit and should neer spread out the responsibilities of the public functionary as set Forth in the codification of moralss itself. The end is this: A authorities employee who reads and follows merely the codification of moralss and ignores the remainder of the moralss jurisprudence will non go against that jurisprudence ( DBSA, 1998 ) . For illustration, the undermentioned gifts proviso from New York State s moralss jurisprudence for municipal functionaries illustrates a bad moralss proviso because it is complicated and obscure: No authorities officer or employee shall. . . straight or indirectly, solicit any gift, or accept or have any gift holding a value of 75 dollars or more, whether in the signifier of money, service, loan, travel, amusement ( Swilling, 1988 ) , cordial reception, thing or promise, or in any other signifier, under fortunes in which it could moderately be inferred that the gift was intended to act upon him, or could moderately be expected to act upon him, in the public presentation of his official responsibilities or was intended as a wages for any official action on his portion. . . . ( Gildenhuys, 2002 ) . One tribunal has struck this proviso down as unconstitutionally obscure. Compare the undermentioned gift proviso: No authorities officer or employee shall beg or accept for less than just market value anything of value from anyone making concern with the authorities ( DBSA, 2000 ) . The exclusions subdivision could so allow certain sorts of gifts, such as gifts from household members, gifts of minimum value, gifts accepted on behalf of the authorities and given to the authorities, and awards and plaques worth less than a specified sum. Therefore, the authorities employee who reads and follows merely the general proviso but non the exclusions might predate accepting a allowable gift but would neer accept an impermissible gift. This is how a codification of moralss should work ( Momoniat, 2001 ) . Ethical motives codifications contain many different sorts of commissariats, but the most common, and most of import, commissariats are the undermentioned: General prohibition: on utilizing one s authorities place for private addition for oneself, one s household, one s private employer or concern, a recent private employer, a major private client or client, or a individual with whom one has a fiscal relationship ( Bahl A ; Solomon, 2000 ) . For illustration, a authorities undertaking agent may non urge that a authorities contract be awarded to her brother s company ( Pycroft, 1998 ) . This proviso is the most basic moralss limitation and is intended to forestall authorities functionaries from utilizing authorities resources for private intents. The proviso therefore helps prevent waste, inefficiency, favouritism and corruptness and helps reassure citizens that their revenue enhancement dollars ( and their functionaries ) are working merely for the public good, non for private involvements ( Bird, 2003 ) . Prohibited places or ownership involvements: in companies making concern with the authorities. For illustration, a scientist with the Department of Parks may non work for a company ( or have a company ) that does concern with that section. This proviso helps forestall divided truenesss since functionaries may otherwise experience compelled to assist a company or concern they work for or hold an involvement in. It protects functionaries against force per unit area from a private employer. Gifts: from individuals making concern with the authorities. For illustration, a Health Department functionary may non accept a gift from a non-profit-making bureau that contracts with the Health Department to run a authorities infirmary, even if the functionary has nil to make with the infirmary. This proviso is one of the most of import moralss limitations ( Bahl, 2002 ) . It protects against divided truenesss and against the public perceptual experience that an functionary who accepts such a gift is corrupt. Confidential authorities information: revealed or used for private intents while in authorities service or after go forthing authorities service ( Bahl, 2002 ) . For illustration, a Transportation Department employee who learns about a program to construct a route may non state a friend about that program so that the friend could purchase up land on which the route will be built. This proviso protects authorities secrets, trade secrets of houses that do concern with the authorities and the privateness of single citizens ( DBSA, 1998 ) . Appearances and representation: appearance before a authorities bureau for a private individual or stand foring a private individual in a authorities affair. For illustration, a attorney with the Licensing Division of the Department of Environmental Protection may non stand for a private client before the section s Enforcement Division. This proviso besides protects against divided truenesss and against abuse of one s public office ( or confidential authorities information ) for a private intent ( Bahl A ; Solomon, 2000 ) . Private compensation: receiving wage from anyone other than the authorities for making one s authorities occupation. For illustration, a authorities applied scientist who puts in long hours to finish the programs for a span may non have a salary addendum from the private contractor hired by the authorities to construct the span ( Atkinson, 2002 ) . This proviso has the same basic intent as the gifts limitation. It besides helps guarantee that the authorities knows and controls the compensation of its officers and employees ( Whelan, 2002 ) . Incentive of others: doing another authorities functionary to go against the codification of moralss. For illustration, a legislator may non state his secretary that she should accept an expensive gift from a lobbyist. This proviso helps forestall the unfairness that consequences when a public functionary who violates the moralss jurisprudence is punished while the public functionary who encouraged the misdemeanor goes unpunished ( Atkinson, 2002 ) . Superior-subordinate relationship: holding a fiscal relationship with a superior or subsidiary. For illustration, a constabulary captain may non get down a concern with one of his lieutenants or borrow money from him. This proviso non merely protects subsidiaries against fiscal force per unit area by higher-ups ( who can decline to loan money to one s foreman? ) but besides helps forestall fiscal webs that undermine the concatenation of bid or consequence in a subsidiary being forced to take an inappropriate action because of the menace of fiscal revenge by his or her superior ( Rural Development Unit, 2004 ) . Political solicitation: inquiring subsidiaries ( or private individuals one trades with in one s authorities occupation ) to do political parts or prosecute in political activity. For illustration, the caput of the Department of Finance may non direct out a memoranda to all of the employees in her section, stating them they are expected to work on the governor s reelection run. Coercing public functionaries to prosecute in political activity or do political parts undermines the independency and unity of the public service and creates the perceptual experience that authorities exists to function merely those in power ( Atkinson, 2002 ) . Two-hats : keeping a political party place and a authorities place at the same clip. For illustration, the caput of the Budget Office may non at the same time function as the chair of the local political party. This proviso addresses the same jobs as the limitations on political solicitation ( Momoniat, 2001 ) . Revolving door ( post authorities employment ) : ( 1 ) Negotiating for a occupation with a private individual or house that one is involved with in one s authorities occupation. For illustration, the director of a contract that the Department of Transportation has with a span cleaning company may non direct her sketch to the company. This proviso helps forestall divided trueness and the hazard that the authorities employee may non smartly execute his or her authorities occupation in order to obtain a new occupation with a private employer ( DBSA, 2000 ) . ( 2 ) Looking before the authorities on behalf of a new employer within a set clip ( e.g. , one twelvemonth ) after go forthing the authorities. For illustration, an applied scientist with the Department of Public Works may non run into with ( or telephone or write ) anyone in the section on behalf of his new employer for one twelvemonth after he has left authorities service ( Gildenhuys, 2002 ) . This proviso, along with the genera l prohibition and the gifts limitation, is one of the most of import commissariats of an moralss codification. It protects the authorities against former employees or their new employer receiving favored intervention, to the hurt of the populace. It besides protects against one company being preferred over another company simply because the first company hires former authorities employees and protects against the public perceptual experience of such favouritism. ( 3 ) After go forthing authorities, working for a private individual on a affair one worked on for the authorities ( lasting saloon ) ( DBSA, 2000 ) . For illustration, an urban contriver with the Department of Planning who helps measure a major proposed development may non go forth the authorities and travel to work for the developer, working on that same development. This proviso provides the same protection as the other postemployment limitations and besides helps forestall the abuse of confidential authorities informati on ( Bahl A ; Solomon, 2000 ) . Avoiding struggles of involvement: accepting an involvement, occupation or gift that would do the authorities functionary to be in misdemeanor of the codification of moralss ( Department of Constitutional Development, 1997 ) . For illustration, a authorities employee may non accept from her male parent a significant gift of stock in a company that does concern with the employee s authorities bureau. This proviso backs up the other prohibitions of the moralss codification and efforts to head off a struggle of involvement before it surfaces ( Gildenhuys, 2002 ) . Improper behavior by and large: engaging in behavior ( or holding an involvement ) that conflicts or appears to conflict with one s authorities responsibilities. For illustration, a high-ranking functionary in the Department of Education may non direct out a missive, on Education Department letterhead, to textbook companies inquiring them to donate to the political run of a friend ( Pycroft, 1998 ) . This catch-all proviso, when providentially interpreted by the moralss committee, gives the committee the authorization to stipulate behavior that is ethically improper, in add-on to the behavior covered by the other commissariats of the codification of moralss ( Bahl, 2002 ) . Normally such a proviso sets a criterion that is excessively obscure to allow the infliction of punishments, unless the criterion is defined by the moralss committee or unless the authorities functionary does something that the moralss committee has antecedently told him or her would go against this proviso ( Bi rd, 2003 ) . Restrictions on private individuals and houses: ( 1 ) Causing a authorities functionary to go against the codification of moralss. For illustration, a private company may non offer a significant gift to a authorities functionary ( even if the gift is non a payoff but simply a wages for good work ) if by accepting the gift the functionary would go against the moralss codification ( Swilling, 1988 ) . This proviso helps protect authorities employees against force per unit area by private individuals and companies and forces the populace to take some duty for the unity of public functionaries ( Momoniat, 2001 ) . ( 2 ) Looking before a authorities bureau that has an employee who besides works for the private individual or house. For illustration, if a senior contriver in the Planning Department is a spouse in a private architecture house, that house may non look before the Planning Department ( DBSA, 1998 ) . This proviso prevents both the fact and the visual aspect of favouritism bei ng shown to the outside concerns and employers of authorities functionaries ( Atkinson, 2002 ) . If, in a peculiar instance, the application of one of these commissariats does non do sense and in fact harms the authorities or the populace, so the moralss committee should hold the authorization to relinquish the prohibition in that case, if such a release would be in the best involvements of the authorities and the populace ( Pycroft, 1998 ) . Decision It is evident that the chief ethical demands of municipal office-bearers and municipal functionaries in conformity with the codification of behavior as contained in the local authorities: Municipal Systems Act Of 2000 ( act 32 of 2000 ) ; have so far non been established and considered as they should be considered in South Africa. The PSC takes a really constricted point of view on the work of the Public Service, the DPSA is merely discerning with human resource issues, even though e-government issues fall under the authorization of the Minister, and SITA does non do usual and methodical appraisals of advancement with modesty change issues.