URGENT INFO REGARDING CPF AFFILIATION

1. There is no legal obligation whatsoever to affiliate.
   1. SAPS Act 68 of 1995 states (under Chapter 7, Item 18 (2)) “This Chapter shall not preclude liaison by the Service with the community by means other than through community police forums and boards”.
   2. The Bill of Rights (Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa), Chapter 18, states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of association”.
2. The Bill of Rights (Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa), Chapter 9, states that “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law”.
3. The SAPS Interim Regulations for Community Police Forums and Boards, Item 7 (d), states that the constitution of a CPF, sub-forum or board must set out “the membership requirements which may not be such that they have the effect of unfairly discriminating against any member of the community on any ground”.

The DNW compiles its’ own stats for Doringkloof-related crimes and our crime prevention actions are based on these stats, not those of the SAPS.

SAPS information is obtained from the community as the victims of crime. History has shown that a properly organized community entity will usually have more information than SAPS can hope to have. This is because community members have a vested interest in reporting crimes to their structures, rather than report them to SAPS.

Signing a form (to join the CPF) cannot entitle anybody to more information than another person who has not signed the form.

CPF meetings are public meetings which can, as a matter of legislated right, be attended by any community member, whether a CPF member or not. Such attendees can therefore obtain the same information that is provided to CPSF2 Exco members.

Statement : “If you live in the community you are automatically a member of the CPF.”

Reference : Minutes of the LS2 Affiliation Discussion Meeting of 17 August 2017.

It is requested that the CPF Chairperson should clarify in writing.

The DNW believes that it already has sufficient “leadership, management and training”.

To improve crime prevention more Doringkloof residents need to join the DNW.

Compulsory registration as CPF Patrollers, may imply :

a) Compulsory participation in local SAPS/CPF operations.

b) Compulsory participation in SAPS/CPF operations in other areas, without compensation for fuel or other expenses.

c) Adhering to SAPS instructions and requirements during patrols. Presumably SAPS will take over the DNW mass community patrols.

d) Security implications to Doringkloof when our patrollers are deployed elsewhere.

e) A disruption to our crime prevention responses if only registered patrollers are allowed at crime scenes eg.”Why must I respond ? Leave it to the CPF Patrollers”.

Note : Regarding patrols in other areas the Dept of Community Safety already deploys patrollers to taxi and bus ranks, schools and shopping malls. Patrollers have also been required to do traffic warden duty. There are no guarantees that this will not happen here.

All patrollers are regarded as “CPF Patrollers” or “DCS patrollers” and they are bound by the “Regulatory Guidelines for CPF Patrollers in terms of Clause 4.13 of the GPCPB Constitution”   Reference : CPSF2 Constitution, Annexure Q, Regulatory Guideline.

The DNW does not agree with the constraints placed on patrollers in these “Guidelines” eg. having to patrol for 16 hours per week. These “Guidelines” are a component of the CPSF2 Constitution, which implies that they must be enforced. “Selective enforcement” cannot apply.

Uncertainty surrounding affiliation is already causing DNW members stop patrolling because of perceived implications to patrollers.

Too much time and effort is already being spent on administrative and legal requirements in place of fighting crime

The CPF and/or CPSF2 could force the DNW to bring schools, businesses and religious institutions into the affiliation, thereby increasing the administrative burden.

A community is inclined to follow successful groups of people and, taking hands with the entire community will increase efficiency. But, by forcing people to affiliate with an organization with which they may have some concerns, will decrease efficiency and will drive patrollers away.

For example, if it is perceived that there is a power struggle by the CPF “to control everything” (even at the risk of discouraging membership) a probable consequence is that a number of people will simply stop being involved at all.

The CPF should create an organisation that people want to join, without being forced to join.

Any possible risk to the security of patrollers’ personal information in the files at SAPS and Dept of Community Safety is of concern. Unauthorised / illegal use of the information could have severe implications to the registered patrollers. Identity theft comes to mind.

Any private person can provide fingerprints and request a police clearance. There is in need to be a member of the CPF for this to be done.

In effect, the DNW can request a resident to provide consent for a police clearance to be obtained eg. before a community radio may be purchased.

Both documents (and their annexures) need to be amended before any form of affiliation can be considered.

Also, all members and all its structures become bound by the CPSF2 Constitution and Code of Conduct. “Structures” are currently undefined

DRA is currently in the process of restructuring our Constitution so that the DRA and the DNW will be seen as a Parent / Child relationship, but as different entities.

The key question that must be asked in regard to the restructure of the Constitution is “Are two separate bodies or one body the way to go?”

A church can affiliate with a CPF. Does this mean that the church must compile a constitution ?

A constitution of one body cannot bind members of another body. Such institution will have its own constitution. The only proviso is that the affiliating body’s constitution must not be in conflict with the main constitution.

Example: The CPF constitution will say the chairperson is the only spokesperson for the CPF. Does that mean the chairperson will become the spokesperson of the church?

The key words are “must not be in conflict with” but no information is provided on whether or not any leeway is provided.

.

If injured, patrollers may not be taken to private medical facilities – only state hospitals may be used. Injured patrollers are not allowed to choose their preferred medical facility unless they are prepared to cover all their own medical costs.

Neither the DRA nor the DNW are in a position to provide any form of insurance/assurance for patrollers.

Registered patrollers must, in their own interests, advise their insurance and assurance companies of the risks associated with their activities AND, as a consequence, these patrollers must face the financial burden of increased premiums.

The above mentioned approach actually applies to all patrollers, but the risks associated with being a CPF Patroller are likely to be far greater than those associated with a neighbourhood watch patroller who occasionally participates in order to observe and report.

Note : It has not yet been clarified if patrollers need to declare increased/potential risks to their medical aid schemes.

If CPSF2 need funds, the only source of such funds must be the affiliated members.

Since inception the DNW has been funded by the Doringkloof community and businesses.

Doringkloof residents may stop contributing funds to the DRA and DNW because the funds may be used elsewhere, thereby placing our whole community at risk because less funds will be available for specific requirements eg, repeater replacement/insurance, banking costs, protective equipment and implementation of the CCTV system.

Other training such as First Aid, Crime Scene Preservation and Anti Hi-jacking is provided by private companies to CPSF2 at reduced costs.

SAPS cannot restrict training to registered patrollers and refuse to train ordinary members of the community – this will be discriminatory.

The DNW is already in a position to provide radio training and Crime Awareness training and some residents have recently received First Aid training.

Neither the DRA nor the DNW are in a position to provide any form of legal support for patrollers, especially for those who act beyond the constraints of applicable laws. In effect, both the DRA and the DNW are indemnified from claims against them as per the Indemnity which is included in the DNW Code of Conduct.

When it’s a crime scene, SAPS can make that decision but only in consultation with the property owner, UNLESS SAPS believes that the presence of anyone (including a CPF patroller) will destroy evidence.

The same principles above apply to any person that may make an arrest. There is no need to be a registered patroller to do so.

Based on SAPS insisting that patrollers must be registered it seems that such persons become clothed with rights and powers that other people don’t have. Whether registered or not, a patroller is a private person, and there is no law that affords more rights and privileges to so-called patrollers.

Because SAPS insists that only registered patrollers may respond to a crime scene, possible loss of life may occur because an “ordinary patroller” is not allowed to enter a crime scene to provide life support during the period in which SAPS or registered patrollers are still on the way.

If affiliated, the DRA Communication Policy will need to be complied with by the co-ordinators, in addition to them using Slack, My BoloBook and Zello.

The possible resignation of some DNW co-ordinators must be considered seriously because, as unpaid volunteers, they may not be prepared to undertake the additional workloads and costs associated with cellphone upgrades and data costs.

Also, the usefulness and effectiveness of the DNW radio network could be “diluted” because other technologies are preferred.

How will the proposed JOC be resourced ?

Co-ordinators may resign because they have to serve areas other than Doringkloof, in which they have a vested interest.

Note : The DNW operates via “virtual” JOC’s in the form of co-ordinators who work from home or from wherever the radio network can be accessed. This approach avoids all travelling expenses and provides for their security because nobody (especially the criminals) knows where the co-ordinators are located.

Due to the many uncertainties, DNW radio ownership (and involvement) may be delayed, may decrease or may only apply to community matters such a power failures and dogs in the street.

Concern : The DNW may, as an affiliate and  via a CPSF2 Exco resolution, be compelled to extend the radio network to other affiliates of CPSF2  eg. LX11 where no radio facilities are available yet.

https://www.saps.gov.za/resource_centre/

publications/downloads/spo_chapter_2.pdf.

An organization cannot exist in vacio. It has people, people with constitutional rights, to be served by the SAPS.

A citizen cannot be deprived of the constitutional right to be served by SAPS. Even a murderer must be served by SAPS if a valid complaint as a victim of crime has been lodged.

Reference : Minutes of the LS2 Affiliation Discussion Meeting of 17 August 2017.

If non-registered members “are not controlled or organised via local SOP’s they can be seen as “vigilante patrollers”.

Reference : Minutes of the LS2 Affiliation Discussion Meeting of 17 August 2017.

For an institution to join this partnership, it must be affiliated to the CPF

Many documents, even the SAPS Act, refer to the need for SAPS/community partnerships.

The DNW believes that a formal partnership agreement with SAPS and CPSF2 could be more beneficial to all parties in place of affiliating.

“Each affiliate must contribute R2000 to a SAPS end-of-year function” or “A JOC will be established and each affiliate must contribute R5000 towards startup costs”.

Should such resolutions be ratified, some of the funds contributed by our residents will be “lost” to Doringkloof.

An association of people need not be registered anywhere, it only needs an agreement of cooperation of sorts.  Thus the DNW is such an association. “

Ref : Pieter van Oudtshoorn, DRA Compliance Officer.

Ref Pieter van Oudtshoorn, DRA Compliance Officer : In terms of current regulations all patrollers, co-ordinators, responders (MM) and radio owners must be registered.

To register about 500 radio owners and to constantly ensure that their details are up to date will be a major task for which the DNW does not have resources.

The whole “registration process” could be the downfall of the DNW to the benefit of the criminal elements.