Paul Janisch

Three kids need a little help – I can swing this from a BEE perspective

This email was sent to me today.  There are three kids who appear to be white based on the picture that need support.  I’ll make a contribution and I’m hoping that regular readers of this blog will dig into their pockets to help as well.  A funny thing happens to a person when they become a parent, the welfare of children becomes a greater priority.  My children want for nothing and my heart breaks when I come across destitute children.  I’ve figured out that I have a responsibility to help where I can and I donate large amounts of my time to assist a wide variety of charities and causes.  I talk about this below but I will help any corporate that donates to this cause with justifying their SED contribution for BEE points at no charge.

 I suppose the question here is, how do we get BEE points for this.  The SED code says

3.2 Socio- Economic Development Contributions:

3,2.1 Socio-Economic Development Contributions consist of monetary or non-monetary contributions actually initiated and implemented in favour of beneficiaries by a Measured Entity with the specific objective of facilitating sustainable access to the economy for those beneficiaries.

3.2 2 The full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions made to beneficiaries is recognisable if at least 75% of the value directly benefits black people.

3.2.3 If less than 75% of the full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable.

 What 3.2.2 says that if you donate R100 then R75 must directly benefit black people.  You can dig out 25% of your SED budget and use it on people that aren’t black and still receive the full recognition for the points.  Again I’m basing the assumption that they are white on the picture.  But the fact remains that there are a lot of needy children of all races that we can help. 

 I’m not going to contribute in the name of BEE, but I’m hoping that there is a corporate out there that will make a contribution in exchange for BEE points..  For my part I’ll donate my time to that corporate in justifying the points for SED (and throw in a free presentation on the new revised BEE codes).

 Good day ,

 The reason for my mail, these are three kids in our care that has unfortunately lost their sponsorship due to the steel strikes that are currently still underway. We urgently need to find these kids the needed sponsorship due to the fact that their basic necessities have run out! I need to know if there is any possible way that you guys are able to assist. The amount per child is R2100 and that covers one child for three months. Please can you consider, even helping with one of the three. Thanking you in advance and hoping for your favourable response. In the same time I would like to thank the companies that has been standing with Compass after all that has happened. May your business and personal lives be richly blessed with prosperity and peace!

 

 For further info please visit our website (www.compass.org.za) or Contact me on the details provided below :

 All contributions followed with proof of payment will be much appreciated,

Kindest Regards 

 Anthea Da Costa

Project and Marketing Director

 011 087 7050

071 973 1529

 anthea@compass.org.za

www.compass.org.za

Related articles

The sad demise of the needy and vulnerable (code content with a hint of genocide)

Oops - have we ruffled the DTI's feathers a little.

Trade and Industry on revised Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Codes

The new BEE codes and their impact on socio-economic development contributions.

Davies' new BEE codes could destroy the nonprofit sector Nov 14, 2012 | Paul Janisch

Sipho Zikode backtracks and shows his hand – and SED is still a travesty

Sipho has been in the press recently. Our Seep is the spokesman for the DTI who was quoted by IOL

DTI spokesman Sipho Zikode explained today on 567MW Cape Talk that that proposal was for a pro-rata sliding scale - with 100 per cent funding for organisations with 100 per cent black beneficiaries, and less thereafter.

Let's help Seep here. When you are looking through the proposed codes you'll see this line

[ ] Words in bold type in square brackets indicate deletions from existing enactments

Now off we go to paragraph 3.2.2 (I have emboldened the bold part

3.2.2 The full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions made to beneficiaries is recognisable if at least [75%] 100% of the value directly benefits black people.

Thus far Seep is correct. However his contention on the airwaves that it is pro-rated is refuted by paragraph 3.2.3

[If less than 75% of the full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable].

I don't agree with Dylan Edwards, who wrote in The Greater Good that

it seems that this an oversight, rather than an attempt to divert funding away from charities, or to manipulate charities into turning away white beneficiaries.

This is clearly someone who has no fucking idea about what he's talking about. And he's the deputy DG as well.

Trust me; there is no fundamental understanding of the economy and as such even less of an understanding of the codes and other transformation charters within the DTI.

Seep was also talking about late payments etc. at some function this week. And I quote

Though the charter was gazetted in 2009, black-owned businesses and professionals in the sector continued to face many problems, he said. These included lack of access to finance and big private sector and government contracts.

Other challenges included fronting, and late payments from big companies and the government. Late payment had caused the demise of many small companies.

And not forgetting the Manyi approved (and perfected) race card

Further, professional industry bodies were mainly run by whites.

The late payment argument is an interesting one. Here we have the mouthpiece for the DTI lamenting about late payment when his boss, the venerable Rob Davies doesn't pay much credence to prompt payment. Id est (taken from the new ED benefit factor matrix)

Percentage being 15 days less the number of days from invoice to payment. Maximum points that can be scored is 15% of 15 points under Enterprise and Supplier Development

Oh the irony.

Whilst I am debating prompt payment. Thinus alerted me to this thing on prompt payment which Rob published on the 2^nd of November about prompt payment, you've only got 30 days to comment on this. I suppose that Rob had to publish this now even though he's published a document that will contribute to the genocide of millions of destitute South Africans and cause the ultimate demise of the only hope for any form of equitable representation in our economy.

In general there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with the document other than limiting prompt payment to EME's. Why is this? And no, I'm not going to ask who the fuck Rob thinks he is even though I know the answer is Stalin.

The sad demise of the needy and vulnerable (code content with a hint of genocide)

By now we've probably all read through the codes. If you're like me then you might concentrate on some codes whilst cursorily reading the others. I'm not much of a fan of ownership so I've not really read through that code, although I do find it extremely humorous that three pages have been devoted to black VCs and private equity companies and nothing new is devoted to the broad-based element, which is what Rob was driving in the beginning of this process. I got stuck with the ridiculousness of the skills development and ED codes and didn't read the SED code properly. It was therefore with much shock that someone pointed out to me that the socio-economic development code is limited to "facilitating income generating activities". This is a change from the current definition that states that a contribution must be with the aim of "facilitating sustainable access to the economy".

Five years ago we would not have worried about this narrow requirement because it's easy to argue that donating to a crèche is providing an opportunity for those children to gain sustainable access to the economy. Verification agencies allocated points under SED and were not too concerned about 75% beneficiary rule either. These days any verification agency undergoing their annual SANAS accreditation process knows that SANAS will give them non-conformances if a SED contribution does not fulfil the 75% beneficiary rule and as a result a disgusting practice has arisen where unscrupulous verification agencies are charging NPOs to conduct a beneficiary audit. (I will say that some don't charge for this service but we do know that EVS does). This brings up two points of concern.

1. SANAS (I don't know about IRBA) has become the de-facto race enforcer. Anecdotal evidence tells us that unskilled SANAS agents (whatever they call them) will make pronouncements on business and empowerment issues that are not supported by the codes, Udge's Bible (the verification manual) or any of the other official supporting documentation. In fact it seems that these people behave in a decidedly arbitrary fashion in the allocation of non-conformances. It's this lack of uniformity that strikes fear in verification agencies who do their best to follow the established norms only to be greeted with a subjective and unsubstantiated non-conformance pronouncement.
2. Genocide

Genocide you say. I'll explain.

Genocide defn ( gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]; noun - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group)

Anyone in the NPO, NGO, charitable etc. sector will tell you that government funding for the most vulnerable has all but dried up and that that is available is erratic and prone to corruption and theft. The Lottery is no better – it too appears to be sitting on mountains of cash that it won't distribute because of some ideological reason or other. When I questioned a very senior ANC person as to why the Department of Social Development was not forthcoming with money to NPOs his response was "are these white NPOs!". Trust me, this is one of the more level-headed ANC people.

The main source of funding comes from either overseas donors or socio-economic development contributions, with the former donating less or setting up local branches that will compete with the local ones for funds. We are now talking about NPOs that assist the MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE in our society. These range from orphans to child-headed homes to AIDS sufferers, rape victims and the plain destitute (and this is just a small number of them). Almost every single one of these charities live from hand to mouth and are happy to provide a meal for their dependents on a day-to-day basis.  Because funding is so erratic they cannot guarantee that they'll be able to support their dependents on a weekly basis let alone channel money into "income generating activities."

Now we return to the SANAS accreditor (to flog this horse a little more). This person will issue non-conformances to verification agencies that award SED points to a company that contributed to anything other than "income generating activities". Logic dictates that any SANAS-accredited agency will not award the points for this because they might be closed down (just like EMEX was). It's long been known that BEE points were a wonderful by-product of a charitable donation. Most of these charities will not be able to attract donations under SED because corporates won't risk the BEE points. And times are tough, a 1% of NPAT contribution is pretty much all a corporate can afford these days. Similarly the 100% black beneficiaries requirement excludes large numbers of white people or anybody who does not fulfil the definition of black. Some charities look after white people who form less than 25% of their beneficiaries and conform to the current definition. Even if they do facilitate "income generating" activities" under the proposed codes they will not be able to provide any BEE points because the 100% black beneficiaries requirement is all or nothing. Do these types of causes then dump their white beneficiaries, to ensure their on-going funding?

Herein lies the potential genocide - to do this let's return to the definition. It could argued that AIDS orphans, rape victims etc. are a national group. White people are certainly a race group. The proposed SED code, if gazetted in its current form, would then be "deliberate and systemic". By ignoring this large group of destitute and vulnerable people (and it is HUGE – in excess of 50% of our population) and proposing such heartless and racist legislation, Rob Davies is advocating a form of genocide. In Rob's defence (and this is the first time that I have ever defended anything Rob has done or said as minister) I have my gravest doubts that this is his intention – it's just an unfortunate potential consequence of being advised by the wrong people.

And let's not forget that the five points that SED offers under the new scorecard won't make a dent in the remaining 35 points you need to get onto the scorecard – and even if you thought you got those points there is the negative marking which will take you in negative points territory. Hardly an incentive to contribute anything under SED really.

This is perhaps the most drastic consequence of a document that lacks logic, business-sense, constitutionality and basic empathy. The proposed codes must be prevented at all costs. Please submit your comments to the DTI and don't be nice either. I know that I will ask for Rob, the BEE Council and the BEE division of the DTI to resign immediately.

Comments can be sent to [email protected] or [email protected]

Can the NPO and charity sector afford another type of ridiculous and unnecessary expense

This post is a response to a BEE website that sent a note to a charity that they could be listed on their website subject to them being (and I quote)

in possession of a Beneficiary Analysis Certificate from an accredited BEE verification agency.  Should you not be in possession of a Beneficiary Analysis Certificate, we have secured special terms with EVS (a member of Empowerdex), a leading accredited BEE verification agency, where this can be obtained at a 10% discount from the their ordinary price of  R960 (excl VAT).

However my beef is not so much with the website (hence I'm not mentioning their name) but it's against those companies that are profiteering from the poor.

This is wrong and is a gross abuse of a sector that has been rejected by the government, the lottery (speak to Sandra Millar about that) and they are now having to eke out an existence from donations from the already overstretched corporate sector. On top of this there is no legal basis for this requirement which makes this type of activity even more disgusting. In EVS' defence they aren't the only ones doing this but their name goes out on the directory's email.

The proprietor of the website sent me this justification

Our Directory is however designed to be a tool for users that search to find NPOs will be guaranteed that their BEE points will be earned if donations are made, without having to rely on the NPO to compile the requisite documentation. This also has the added advantage that the clients already have the appropriate supporting documentation when being audited, which they find to be a huge benefit. You will appreciate that we don't want a situation where the user of the site makes a donation to a NPO listed on our Directory, and then subsequently does not earn their BEE points, or alternatively face huge hassles in obtaining the requisite proof from the NPO (which as a consultant you will know is a very real problem in practice). The only way that we can effectively guarantee this is through a Beneficiary Recognition Certificate from an Accredited Verification Agency, which is why we have created the requirement.

His argument is valid – NPOs need to make sure that they've got their act together. Many are getting it together and those that don't won't survive. But this is shoving another expense in the works and is only going to make the Empowerdex's et al of the BEE world wealthier without adding any intrinsic value.

We have to stop this NOW. I'll tell you why, because the verification agencies are going to start insisting on these certificates and once that happens it will never end. There's no point in lodging a complaint with the DTI or SANAS or any of those bodies because history has shown they will do nothing about it. The only way we can stop this is to create a media stink about it. And to this end I will send this post to every newspaper and radio station and TV station in South Africa (and the world for that matter). It will not bode well for those verification agencies that charge charities for this superfluous document.

I tell you what EVS and Empowerdex and anyone else you should do it as a pro bono service (that means you charge nothing for it).

In an attempt to stop this behaviour I have uploaded a template that covers all the information that a verification agency will need to allocate the points. It easily satisfies the requirements contained in the udge-approved verification manual. (Just make sure you don't lie in the document - no one will believe that there are any black beneficiaries if your charity is named the Barend Strydom Home for Retired Freedom Fighters.)

Appendix 8 of the Verification Manual (Gazette number 31255)

4.6 – The verification agency shall obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence that 75% of the value of the socio-economic development contributions accrue to black people. If this is not the case, then the verification agency shall confirm the value of the contributions is multiplied by the percentage of the contributions that benefit black people, in accordance with ……… code 700.

Sufficiency of evidence is described as referring

to the measure of the quantity and quantity of evidence (sic?). The quantity of evidence required is affected by the risk of misstatement (the greater the risk of misstatement the more evidence is likely to be required) and also by the quality of such evidence (the higher the quality, the less evidence may be required).

What about those entities that think they might need a BEE scorecard but don't

This is a repost of one of my informative Caird Code Rules as per a reader's request.  I've added in another little feature that I've never done before - if you place your mouse on the underlined text it will show the sections in the codes that I'm referring to.

Charities and other section 21 companies that are looking for SED money

Paragraph 5 of Code 000, statement 004 states very clearly that their BEE status is not a consideration in determining whether they will be beneficiaries of SED contributions

There are some NGOs/section 21s who provide certain types of services to corporates to raise money for their core activity. Under these circumstances they become a supplier to that corporate and might be required to produce a specialised enterprises BEE scorecard (statement 004).

Entities or companies providing enterprise development services

Now this is a very common occurrence. There are many private companies providing these services, Endeavor and Raizcorp are two that I know rather well. This practice is contemplated by code 600, paragraph 3.2.5.12.  It does not appear that these companies actually need to produce a BEE scorecard to provide ED services. One of the exclusions under Code 500 (Preferential Procurement) is empowerment related procurement – more specifically (paragraph 6.5.2)

investments, loans or donations qualifying for recognition under any statement under Code series 600 or 700

This strongly suggests that that expenditure is excluded and hence a BEE scorecard is not needed.

Attracting SED donations and how not to do it

The relationship between SED beneficiaries and donors is normally a little one-sided.  The beneficiary is very dependent on the donor for continued support and might find that support can dwindle at a whim.  It is therefore very important that the beneficiary starts taking a different tack and appealing to the donor at a business level.  This might mean offering additional benefits like marketing mileage. 

The SED element in the BEE scorecard must have had a positive impact on corporate donations.  And the more ingenious causes have been using this to their advantage for a while (Philimpilo and Out-of-the-Box are two examples that I know well).  In exchange for the contributions these causes go out of their way to ensure that a verification agency will quickly recognise them as points-attracting contributions.

All but one

I had the privilege of asking a certain home to write a letter stating that my client's donation would be spent on their black residents.  This confirmation was requested by the verification agency.  But the old duck that I spoke to refused.  Oh no she said - I can't do this, the money benefits all our residents and I'd be lying, she said.

She confirmed to me that the white residents pay at least 50% of their monthly rental and the black residents are fully sponsored.  The letter itself would not have been a lie (as she suggested) and it would have provided my client with another 3 points.

What an idiot.  A clueless dimwit.  And likely to be a poorer dimwit next year because her narrow-mindedness has in all probability cost her another contribution from my client.

If you are a cause looking for SED/CSI money then please follow these steps.  I can't guarantee your success but you stand a much better chance than this lame duck.

1. Explain where the money is going to go to.  The codes want to see 75% of the benefits going to black people
2. Provide the donor with a letter of gratitude thanking them for the contribution and informing them what the money is for
3. Offer the corporate marketing opportunities.  Think in terms of the Outsurance TV advertisements.  If they turn down your offer then invite them to get involved - I know of a big financial company that uses their CSI project as a team building exercise.
4. Look for new ways to get them involved - change your offering so that it can be viewed as enterprise development and tap into those funds

FNB rethinks 'racial' bursaries - hmmmm

Solidarity took FNB to task about their allocation of education bursaries for employees' children. The November issue of Treetalk (FNB's newsletter) offer financial support to children of African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese employees earning less than R100,000 a year.   This is a very well reported story indeed. 

I'm not in the way of getting involved in politics and I am no fan of trade unions so I'm not going to discuss the merits of Solidarity's complaint.  The thing that I picked up on was the comment on meeting with FNB CEO Michael Jordaan and Solidarity's  Dirk Hermann

The union said yesterday that during talks between Dirk Hermann, deputy general secretary of Solidarity, and FNB CEO Michael Jordaan, it had been agreed that the bank would include whites in allocating bursaries if the law allowed for such a step.

Apparently FNB had been advised by lawyers

According to legal advice obtained by FNB at the time regarding the transaction, those who benefit from black empowerment must exclusively be black.

LEGAL ADVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You paid for legal advice of this quality?  I think you were ripped off Michael.  The correct advice goes along these lines. 

Paragraph 3.2 of code 700 (DTI) clarifies what socio-economic development contributions are.   It is 3.2.2 that is most important here:

 The full value of SED contributions made to beneficiaries is recognisable if at least 75% of the value directly benefits black people.

Even the FSC implicitly concurs with this paragraph

13.2    CSI means projects aimed primarily at black groups, communities and individuals that have a strong developmental approach and contribute towards transformation.

You don't have to consult your dubious lawyers Michael - you can happily go ahead and include white people in this scheme and still earn your BEE points.  Any B-grade BEE consultant or verification agency could have told you this.

I know there are those (like my odd cousin and friend Joe) who feel that this is perfectly fair, after all whites did it to black people during Apartheid.  I don't agree, we as South Africans have a responsibility to invest in the future of all South Africans.  This country is still suffering under that policy with low education and literacy levels.  And this will always be a burdon on the country and tax payer.

Michael - you charge me R0.50 (fifty cents) for every email I send to people when I pay them from my FNB bank account.  I don't mind if you continue ripping me off with these excessive charges if you have an equitable CSI policy. 

 

Caird Code Rule #1 – Is BEE applicable to you

A while ago I was doing a presentation to the American Chamber of Commerce on Equity Equivalents. One of the delegates was an apparel manufacturer who asked my why his company should consider the programme I was proposing. I was a little surprised that such a company would even consider equity equivalents as an option. Why would they need to, they sell takkies, T shirts and caps. Every single one of their products are sold to a consumer who is very unlikely to use BEE status in their decision to buy their product. Edgars etc might ask them for their BEE status but I have my gravest doubts that they will not stock those products in their stores because that company does not comply with their BEE wishes. And it is also unlikely that Edgars will incentivise their sales staff to push a local product over the imported one. Can you imagine the conversation

Consumer: I'd like to try on these Adidas shoes.

Sales assistant: Please sir would you consider these Dlaminis. They are locally manufactured and Edgars will get more BEE points if we sell these.

Consumer: No I will not you horrid sales assistant you. I'm off to Sportsman's Warehouse.

This fictitious interaction exposes the deepest flaw in the implementation of BEE viz if the average joe is the end user then BEE is not going to be very important. This means that BEE can really only be applicable when the consumer is some sort of a corporate or government entity.

The general rule here is that if your business caters for consumers then it is unlikely that BEE will ever affect you. This would include restaurants (that don't serve alcohol), shoe shops, clothes shops, plumbers, electricians, pool companies, record shops, news agents, retail jewellers. As with any rule there are exceptions.

1. Any restaurant, hotel, pub or anything that serves alcohol requires a liquor licence. And those licenses are handed out by the DTI. And the DTI asks a bunch of BEE questions in allocating these licenses. I have written countless BEE plans for liquors wholesalers and retailers that have to be submitted with each renewal.
2. Shops looking to rent in malls that are owned by parastatals like Transnet or Eskom. I have heard that your BEE status is important to these types. ACSA is another example – the annual tender for renewals for shops in the airports require BEE credentials. I don't know who drafted those BEE questionnaires but they are so badly written they are an embarrassment (mind you so is ACSA). I haven't come across private property owners asking for BEE credentials.
3. Manufacturing jewellers have to comply with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002, (MPRDA). The requirements for this are exactly the same as those for a mining licence. I won't comment on this right now but suffice to say – this abomination requires its own future post.
4. Anything that can be used under section 10 of the BEE Act. I haven't really seen this being used, although I have worked on PPPs where the legal advisors have anticipated it in the PPP agreement. The DTI has taken a cautious path when it comes to section 10 because I believe that they recognise that over-regulation will stifle the development of the South African economy (as if we aren't over-regulated already). Technically speaking they could shove section 10 in the way of almost everything to achieve the BEE Act's transformation goals.

What about those entities that think they might need a BEE scorecard but don't

Charities and other section 21 companies that are looking for SED money

Paragraph 5 of Code 000, statement 004 states very clearly that their BEE status is not a consideration in determining whether they will be beneficiaries of SED contributions

The status of Socio-Economic Development Contributions made to any of the types of entities in paragraphs 1 and 2 under Code series 700 is not dependent on such entity's scorecard result, but rather the nature of the contribution itself and the identity of that contribution's beneficiaries.

There are some NGOs/section 21s who provide certain types of services to corporates to raise money for their core activity. Under these circumstances they become a supplier to that corporate and might be required to produce a specialised enterprises BEE scorecard (statement 004).

Entities or companies providing enterprise development services

Now this is a very common occurrence. There are many private companies providing these services, Endeavor, Raizcorp and ED Alliances are three that I know rather well. This practice is contemplated by code 600, paragraph 3.2.5.12

payments made by the Measured Entity to third parties to perform enterprise development on the Measured Entity's behalf

However it does not appear that these companies actually need to produce a BEE scorecard to provide ED services. One of the exclusions under Code 500 (Preferential Procurement) is empowerment related procurement – more specifically (paragraph 6.5.2)

investments, loans or donations qualifying for recognition under any statement under Code series 600 or 700

This means that the expenditure is excluded and hence a BEE scorecard is not needed.

Court rules out consideration of 'other benefits'

I found this on one of my Google Alerts.  It's a little too involved for a Tweet so I'll have to blog it.  Legalbrief states that it is a commentary by Cullinan & Associates Inc.  I can't find it on their website so if this does get to them - please could someone email it to me.

It involves the Provincial Minister for Environmental Planning and Economic Development in the Western Cape and Arabella (just outside Hermanus). 

The court found that

1. The Minister had acted beyond the scope of her powers in that she imposed a condition in which required Arabella to give effect to a BBBEE Agreement to provide social and subsidy housing in an area that was not on the site of the phase 2 development. The court emphasised that when making a decision under the ECA (Environment Conservation Act) and NEMA (National Environmental Management Act) the benefits and disadvantages of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the authorised activities must be considered, not 'extraneous benefits divorced from the impacts of the authorised activities.'
2. Second, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Minister since an 'action group' in favour of the appeal approached the Premier of the Western Cape, who then advised them on how to go about concluding the BBBEE agreement with Arabella. This information was then conveyed to the Minister.
3. The judgment serves as a reminder to administrators and developers that the exercise of political pressure may compromise the decision making process.

There are a few interesting connotations here.  Probably the most significant one would occur in PPPs where ED and SED requirements must work within a local economic development context and not extraneous to it.

The jungle agenda

 

This is my first post using the new blog feature in MS Word. Let's see how it goes.

The title refers to your friend and mine, jungle, who I am convinced has one agenda and that is to prove the South African business is fundamentally racist. It would seem that he is not alone – here is an email I received from Nina Venjakob of Out of the box. I am not really shocked but I am disgusted. Having said that I know Nina well and there is no way she would allow this to get in her way. So if you have some money please consider a donation.

Once upon a time....

A city councillor paid a visit to the Out of the Box Skills Development Centre.  He was very impressed with the work that we do and with the results that we achieve.  He explained that his ward was the poorest one in our city, but he would love to have his people skilled and to give them a future.  I sent him the budgets and heard nothing back for a while.  Then I had an email asking when the courses start.  I explained that we were ready to start teaching new courses.  The second we had ten people in a course and the fees paid, we could rush out and buy the materials and tools needed to start teaching. A few days later I sent a reminder stating that of course the teachers also needed to be notified ahead of time whether they would be teaching or not.

Imagine my surprise when, out of the blue 30 eager and excited people arrived at the centre to attend screen printing, woodwork and sewing courses.  We decided that we could, in the mean time, teach with what we had and everybody settled in.  I went off to contact the councillor to enquire about the fees.  I left message after message and sent email after email, to no avail.  Finally, on Thursday he answered the phone.  His comment was:  "I did not respond  because there is no money." 

I asked for a meeting. 

In the meeting I suggested that we contact his Corporate and Government contacts, that I would accompany him to meetings and would do a presentation to try and raise the money.  I just could not see taking the hope away from the people now that they had a glimpse of a future and were so excited.  The next second he accused me of being racist because all my teachers are not black. I, much to my embarrassment, lost it!  It had been a tough week and a tough Friday.  I asked him to leave and resolved to find the money, somehow and to not let the people down.

Please could you help me contact anybody who may be compassionate and supportive?

We now have a tax number and a PBO number - all donations can be claimed back from SARS.

It also adds points to their BEE Scorecard.

Every rand will help to make a difference.

 

Most sincerely

Nina Venjakob (MD)

Out of the Box Education Account

Standard Bank

Melville

Branch Code 006 105

Account number  20-794-006-1

 

           

                                                                                                     

 

 

 

 

S

ponsored by:

Rotary International. 

(The Rotary Clubs of Parktown Excalibur and Toronto East)

Section 21 Company - Reg. No.  2000 – 00 – 27 – 71 – 08

PBO Reference Number – 930027269

Income Tax Reference Number – 9654/048/14/0

 www.outofthebox.org.za                
Greymont Office  (27) (011) 673 6592- Fax: 086 510 2579

Germiston Skills Centre - (011) 872 0967 tel/fax (011) 872 0968
Nina - 083 583 5383 

Amy – 074 117 4678

JOB CREATION THROUGH SKILLS TRAINING:  The Centre is developing at a rapid rate.  We are there when we have classes running so give a shout and come and visit!  The show room is open so you will be able to purchase all your gifts and art from Out of the Box!  We are at The Pavilion, corner Refinery and Power Roads, Germiston. This Centre will create a future for thousands of South Africans and become a wonderful tourist attraction and gift and decor centre in Gauteng.  We can make all your dreams - corporate gifts, trophies, awards. We create wonderful art exhibitions in your corporate space, creating jobs for artists at the same time.  If we don't have it, we will make it for YOU!
We work with so many different charities so please, never throw anything out. Please donate your tools, furniture, cement, paint, patterns, sewing and knitting machines, fabrics, beads, etc. to a worthy cause! We do not throw anything away!