DA to explain the Brummer process
News with intent!
Your advertising is only as good as the people who see it – repeatedly! You want to do business with OO readers – people with money and control of corporate budgets. Click here
Oudtshoorn. 18 September 2012.
12h35. Another DA councillor, Beverley Cortje-Alcock, learned this morning that she is no longer a DA member.
When OO spoke to Cortje-Alcock a few minutes ago she was professional, yet emotional and prepared only to say “Ek is tans nie ‘n lid van die DA nie“.
Cortje-Alcock was MMC for Social Development and Early Childhood Development.
Her last official act was to officially open the Cape Town’s Table View Assessment Centre on Thursday last.
Yet another senior Western Cape government functionary told OO this morning, even before Cortje-Alcock’s membership termination became widely known: “This is no way to treat people.”
I repeat, my longsuffering readers: If the DA can do what it did to Johann Brummer; Jemayne Andrews; Beauty Charlie; and Beverley Cortje-Alcock, imagine what the DA can do to you.
At least the people of Oudtshoorn need not speculate about the DA’s badgering – the people of Oudtshoorn has a record of suffering at DA abuse – click here.
09h25. OO has many questions about the termination of Johann Brummer’s DA membership.
This Friday last, OO asked the DA’s provincial media manager, the formidable Liza Albrecht, to respond to the following:
1. Gaan die DA vandag ‘n verklaring uitreik oor die Jemayne Andrews (DA Kaapstad wyk 22) v DA-saak?
2. Verskaf asseblief die name van die 37 DA raadslede wat op 31 Julie vanjaar kandidaatfooie verskuldig was;
3. Verklaar asseblief waarom dié 37 se lidmaatskap nie álmal “outomaties” beëindig is om 00h00:01 op 1 Augustus nie;
4. Verklaar asseblief waarom raadslid Theresa Thompson (Kaapstad wyk 50) toegelaat is om haar kandidaatfooi ná 31 Julie te betaal het, sónder dat haar lidmaatskap “outomaties” beëindig is. Thompson het vanoggend aan my erken dat sy laat betaal het.
Yesterday , Albrecht first informed me that party functionaries are slow in providing the information needed to respond to my enquiries, and later that she had had a discussion with Thora Viljoen of the DA’s federal legal commission which made it clear that “the matter of automatic cessation of membership in consequence of default of payment is not simple”.
I appreciate Albrecht’s undertaking to get to the bottom of this “automatic process” by Thursday and inform me accordingly.
I can confirm that “around 37” DA councillors were in default at midnight on July 31 and that only 3 had their membership “automatically” terminated.
Councillor Beauty Charlie (Knysna) told Die Burger that she accepted the DA’s ruling; Jemayne Andrews (Cape Town) won temporary relief in the High Court last week aand will argue against her termination on October3; Johann Brummer (Bitou) was not granted relief by the High Court and is no longer a member of the DA.
What of the other 34!?
It’s “automated” – there’s nothing to be done… How can it be “complex”?
The DA’s federal chair, James Selfe, explained the matter to the High Court last week. I quote from Selfe’s answering affidavit:
At paragraph 7: “No disciplinary ‘decision’ was taken by the DA or its structures. The cessation of his membership came about as an automatic consequence of the party’s factual determination that he was in default of his constitutional payment obligations. Once this determination was made, the automatic consequence followed that he lost his membership of the DA.”
At paragraph 26: “The DA took no decision. As alluded to above, Mr. Brummer lost his membership of the party as an automatic consequence of his failure to fulfill his obligations (under the DA’s constitution) to pay certain amounts.”
At paragraph 27: “The fact that Mr. Brummer’s membership came to an automatic end, arises from the DA’s constitution, which proves (at clause 188.8.131.52) that:
‘A member ceases to be a member of the Party when he or she … is in default with the payment of any compulsory public representative contribution for a period of 2(two) months after having been notified in writing that he or she is in arrears and fails to make satisfactory arrangements for payment of the arrears. For this purpose ‘in writing’ means a letter of demand setting out the amount owing and the date by which it must be paid.’”
At paragraph 28: “The only issue which arises is a purely factual question whether he had paid the amounts he was obliged to pay or not.”
Yet, at paragraph 29, Selfe makes this astonishing statement: “The upshot is that Mr. Brummer’s membership automatically came to an end two months after the notice was hand delivered to him on 7 May 2012 (i.e. 7 July 2012). The DA has always given him (and other similarly placed recalcitrant councilors) the benefit of further time, taking the effective date as being 31 July 2012.”
“No decision” taken in this matter, Mr Selfe!? It was all automatic!?
There was a clear decision, at least on May 7, not to terminate Brummer’s membership. And no such decision on July 31. This “process” is certainly not “automated”.
Earlier, at paragraph 6, Selfe declares: “Of a total of some 1 600 elected DA councilors, Mr. Brummer was one of a handful (some 37) who failed to pay their candidate fees.”
So, James, what happened to the other 34?
Surely this is not a “complex” question and one deserving a straight (and quick – “automated”) answer!?