Shaun van Eck

Shaun van Eck

DA councillors were on the Board of Directors of the private company called Knysna Tourism. They made their ex-CEO sign a non-disclosure agreement (secrecy agreement) and then paid him R270,000 of taxpayers’ money to leave.

According to the rules of the organisation, they should all have been held responsible for the maladministration and corruption (none were).

According to the rules of Government, all Public funds (which were used to run Knysna Tourism) must be accounted for (they were not).

Did Helen Zille and Alan Winde allow what seems to have been a bribe (using more Public funds) so that they could protect DA councillors?

Why, thereafter, did DA Mayor Athol Trollip’s office in Nelson Mandela Bay appoint Shaun van Eck to the Tourism Board there?

*

The independent disciplinary evaluation by Deseré Barnard into disgraced Knysna Tourism CEO Shaun van Eck included that:

“…the charges which Shaun van Eck has been found guilty of are serious in nature. Shaun was appointed in a very responsible position as CEO of Knysna Tourism. It is important to bear in mind, that 70% of Knysna Tourism’s budget is provided for by the Municipality and constitutes public money. The balance of the funding is provided by members contributions. Importantly the money which supports this organization is not Shaun’s own money…

I have already dealt with the fact that the majority of funding for KT constitutes public funding. There is simply no basis for Shaun to assume that he would have the authority to extend credit on behalf of this organization [to private companies]…

For a period of 13 months, because the organization could not complete a simple task such as arranging for proper signatures with the bank, Shaun ran the petty cash through his own account, on one occasion up to an amount R30,000…

The non-payment of creditors reflected badly on KT, and also on its major funder, the Knysna Municipality.

From the evidence, it appeared almost as if Shaun ran Knysna Tourism as his own business…

It is difficult to understand how Shaun could make a decision to send an employee on an expensive trip to Jamaica even if Shaun believed that the experience gained by the employee would be to the benefit of Knysna Tourism. Having regard to the amount of money involved, one would have expected Shaun to first clear this decision with his employer, the Board. This Shaun did not do. It is indicative of the fact that Shaun knew that this trip was out of order, in that when questioned about this trip by the Board at the Golf Club, Shaun mislead the Board members by indicating that this trip was a sponsored trip when it was not so. This action of Shaun is grossly dishonest…”

1m Van Eck Disciplinary Inquiry -Deseré Barnard