For a long time, the Tlokweng Land Board (TLB) has been demarcating and allocating plots without any clear and definite indicators of how in the long term, they sought to ultimately distribute the already scarce land resources.
One of the adverse effects of their operating without a strategic plan has been a lack of congruence and synergies between the various divisions making up the TLB.
In the final analysis the TLB became inundated with complaints relating to poor or unsatisfactory service delivery.
This emerged from the Auditor General’s Report on Tlokweng Land Board No. 11 of 2008.
The report covered the period 2003/2004 up to 2006/2007.
According to the OAG, the absence of these plans also rendered it difficult for management to identify causes of any apparent or noticed inefficiencies and delays within the operations of the Land Board, thereby rendering it impracticable to effect durable corrective measures.
“In addition, it was also difficult for management to measure organizational performance or to appraise individual employees’ performance against assigned and documented annual goal,” read part of the report.
Although the OAG acknowledged that it was a positive thing that there was now a five year strategic plan in place, which spanned from 2007 to 2012, much of the concern anchored largely on the prior period as well as the absence of periodic review stipulations for even longer term 25 year development plan.
The Auditor General observed that it was in line with international best practice that any plan should have measures in place, such as pre-determined review periods, to ensure that its goals and objectives are met.
That in the Auditor General’s view would help determine whether the initial targets remain on course and relevant to the period and environment in which they operate.
Moreover, that would offer a sure performance measurement tool in appraising staff and Management of the TLB.
Notwithstanding International best practice, “it emerged during audit at TLB that there had been no stipulated review period, to ensure that the Tlokweng Development Plan which was timed over a 25 year period, was being implemented efficiently and effectively,” stated the report.
Thus, there was always the latent danger that the lack a specified review period for the development plan could lead to a situation where the Land Board may fail to meet important targets and objectives contained therein due to reliance on a planning document that has lost relevance.
Consequent upon revelation of the anomalies highlighted by the OAG, it was observed that a lot of unnecessary costs may have been incurred both in terms of time and resources.
To all of these queries, Management responded by saying that there was a strategic plan in place prior to 2007 as well as defined roles played by each department.
“Such roles included weekly meetings, quarterly reviews etc,” argued the TLB management.
The Auditor General, however, maintained that information produced by Management to prove the existence of any prior plans has been inadequate, so that even the little that came up only related to meetings held on 27 March 2007, and 26 May 2008. Besides, the scope of the audit went as far as end of March so that May was irrelevant.
As if that wasn’t enough, the Auditor General also found out that TLB had no Land Use plan.
“A land use plan would effectively assist TLB to divide the Planning area into different land uses and help avert future land use conflicts by a close proximity of incompatible land uses.”
