Seventh Consolidated Monitoring & Evaluation Report & financial disclosures by senior officials in public service - update on submissions: Public Service Commission briefing; The Presidency: Department of Monitoring and Evaluation establishment: briefing

Meeting report

Public Service Commission. Seventh Consolidated M&E Report 2009/2010 Evaluation Cycle.
Mr Ben Mthembu, Chairperson, Public Service Commission (PSC) said that the PSC did promotional work to ensure that the principles and values that were enshrined in Section 197 of the Constitution were being promoted.  The current meeting would serve to give the Committee a sense of the progress that was made towards the realisation of the kind of public service envisaged under Section 195 of the Constitution. The PSC hoped to draw attention to the strengths as well as the weaknesses in the public service. The PSC had made recommendations for areas which needed attention two weeks previously, and the Committee had acted on them already. Steps had been taken on the submission of two weeks ago. The PSC appreciated the prompt action of the Committee in visiting the departments that lagged behind and such collaboration would go a long way towards actually making progress. He hoped that the recommendations made in the presentation would be accepted.

Mr Indran Naidoo, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), PSC delivered a presentation on the Seventh Consolidated M&E Report 2009/2010 Evaluation Cycle. The 30 departments (two national and 28 provincial) were sampled firstly, to compare the performance of the North West departments in a consolidated report, secondly, to compare the performance of human settlement departments in a consolidated report, and thirdly, to compare a department’s performance with its own performance in a previous period.
18 of the 30 departments were being assessed for a second time because they formed part of a consolidated report on all 11 North West departments which were all previously assessed as well as a consolidated report on all 10 human settlement departments of which seven were already previously assessed.  The report highlighted their strengths and weaknesses, and gave a reflection of the recommended strategies for improvement contained in the individual reports.
The PSC’s M&E system was designed around the nine values in Section 195 of the Constitution. There were one or two performance indicators per principle (14 indicators in total).

Two departments fell in the excellent range (81%-100%), eight fell in the good range (61%-80%), 15 fell in the adequate range (41%-60%) and five in the poor range (21%-40%).

The departments rated excellent were the Western Cape Department of Housing (86%) and the Western Cape Provincial Treasury (83%). The departments rated ‘poor’ were the Department of Communications (39%), North West Social Development (37%), Eastern Cape Human Settlements (36%), North West Human Settlements (32%) and Mpumalanga Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (28%). (Slides 8-9).
The overall average performance between the first (46%) and second (53%) assessments had improved by 7%. (Slide 10).

The departments were assessed against the principles of accountability, transparency, professional ethics, development orientation, public participation, efficiency, economy and effectiveness, impartiality and fairness, human resource management and representivity. (Slide 12).

Departments scored the highest against the principles of accountability (71% - Good performance) and transparency (63% - Good performance). scored the lowest against the principles of human resource management practices (47% - Adequate performance) and representivity (39% - Poor performance) (slide 13). 10 of the 30 departments received a qualified audit opinion.

Regarding human resource management the following weakness emerged. The departments received a score of 7% against the standard of 90 days to fill staff vacancies.  It took the departments on average 338 calendar days to fill a post. Only 11% of 502 sampled posts were filled within 90 calendar days.
The PSC viewed efficiency in the filling of posts as an indicator of the efficiencies of many other processes.  In other words, if the recruitment process was not efficient, many other administrative processes were probably also inefficient. (Slide 22).

Regarding representivity, the one strength was that at least 51% of departments complied with the requirements of the Employment Equity Act. were that only 29% of departments met the three employment equity targets (Blacks and women on senior management level and people with disabilities). 77% of departments met the target of 75% Blacks at senior management level. 93% departments were unable to reach the 50% target for women at all senior management level by 31 March 2009. 83% of departments did not comply with the 2% target for people with disability by 31 March 2010. (Slide 24)

The PSC issued 621 recommendations in 30 departmental reports. 559 recommendations were issued in earlier evaluation cycles to the 18 departments which were assessed for a second time.  234 (42%) of the 559 recommendations had been implemented by the time of the second assessment. (Slide 25).

The picture which emerged was that there was a slow but steady improvement in performance. Compliance levels were going up but the quality of compliance remained an issue. The challenge facing the Public Service was not a lack of policies and frameworks, but the institutionalisation of systems and a performance culture, as well as the capacity and will of all staff members to implement the policies and systems.

Discussion
Mr A Williams (ANC) asked whether the recommendation made by the PSC, after evaluating the departments, would correct their shortfalls.

Mr Naidoo replied that all the recommendations were regarding shortfalls. The recommendations were presented to the departments for consideration. The PSC made sure that they were smart, measurable and attainable after a critique issued by this Committee. They were now clear in terms of follow-up, focused and measurable.

Mr Williams asked whether the 88% operational performance management system was in line with the performance on the ground.
Mr Naidoo replied that there was a discrepancy between the findings of the performance management system and what happened on the ground. The problem with the system was that it focused on compliance which said nothing regarding the outcomes of the service on the ground. Some departments were highly compliant in terms of the performance measurement system, but did not deliver on the ground at all. The revised system was more diagnostic. It had focused less on compliance and more on analysis and diagnosis. This was why the PSC was examining fewer departments this year. It visited departments, spoke to beneficiaries and brought the findings into the system. The Portfolio Committee for Human Settlements was quite critical when the PSC presented to it, because there was a disjuncture between what the PSC was presenting and what it observed on the ground.
Mr Williams asked whether the outcomes of the performance management systems were linked with the strategic plans and budgets of the departments.
Mr Naidoo replied that the performance management system was linked to the strategic plan. The performance agreements of the directors-general and deputy directors-general needed to reflect the key performance areas of the departments.  There was no honest frank assessment of the individual and his or her performance. Managers chose to abdicate this responsibility. They met twice a year  and signed the forms as a formality. The problem was that those officials that did not perform also received a satisfactory evaluation.

The Chairperson said that she was glad that the PSC strove to reach the values enshrined in Section 195 of the Constitution. She was happy with the direction and the progress the Committee and its partners were taking. It was good that there now was a DPME because it would carry some of the responsibility in terms of the collaboration that was always referred to. The collaborations would bring the desired progress.  The biggest issue was Section 195 of the Constitution. Representivity left much to be desired. The target for disability could not be reached according to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). The performance was bad in this regard and it was a bad reflection for the country. It had to be addressed and mechanisms had to be found to address it while the DPME was also present. The quality of compliance also had to be addressed while the AG was present as well as exactly how performance monitoring and evaluation needed to be dealt with.

Public Service Commission.  An update on the implementation of the financial disclosure framework for the financial year 2010/2011. Presentation 
Dr  Dovhani Maphiswana, DDG: Integrity and Anti-corruption, PSC, delivered the presentation on the update on the implementation of the financial disclosure framework for the financial year 2010/11. The Public Service Commission (PSC) had since the 1999/2000 financial year been responsible for the management of the Financial Disclosure Framework (FDF) for senior managers in the Public Service. The objective of the FDF was to manage the potential conflicts that might exist between a senior manager’s private interests and public responsibilities in order to ensure that actual conflicts of interest did not occur. The PSC had since the inception of the Framework placed major focus on ensuring compliance with the submission of financial disclosures which was a regulatory requirement in terms of Chapter 3 of the Public Service Regulations.
All members of the Senior Management Service had to submit their disclosure forms by 30 April to their Executive Authorities (EAs) and EAs had to submit copies of the forms to the PSC by 31 May.
Since the implementation of the FDF, the PSC had consistently reminded EAs to submit the outstanding financial disclosures of the senior managers and advised them to institute disciplinary measures against defaulting senior managers.
Reminders were also on several occasions forwarded to EAs by the Minister for Public Service and Administration at the request of the PSC.
Despite such reminders, a 100% compliance rate had not yet been achieved and there had been no evidence of senior managers being charged with misconduct for failing to comply with the FDF.
The percentage of disclosure forms received by the due date of 31 May 2011 for 2010/11 was 67%, which was the highest percentage over the last four years (slide 5). From national departments, the PSC received 2 955 out of a total of 4 776, accounting for a submission rate of 62%. Of the provinces, only the Western Cape had a 100% submission rate (Slide 6). The average percentage for the provinces was 71%. 15 departments did not submit the information by the due date of 31 May 2011. (See presentation for details).

During the financial year 2010/11 the PSC took pro-active steps to remind both EAs and Senior Managers to submit the financial disclosure forms.  These included:
⚫EAs to submit the financial disclosures of the senior managers and recommending to them to institute disciplinary measures against defaulting senior managers.
⚫the submission of the disclosure forms in the media.
⚫that a message be placed on the salary advices reminding Senior Managers to submit their disclosure forms.
⚫a message via the Short Message Service (SMS) to Heads of Department advising them to ensure that the disclosure forms of the Senior Managers in their respective departments were submitted to the PSC on time.

Despite such reminders, a 100% compliance rate for the 2010/2011 financial year was not achieved. Over the last four years the compliance rate had stabilized in the 80%s. The PSC maintained that only a 100% submission by the due date would be acceptable. By 1 September 2011 the disclosure forms of 86% Senior Managers, i.e. 84% from national departments and 89% from provincial departments had been received.

The Financial Disclosure Forms of the following National Departments were still outstanding by 1 September 2011: Communications,  Correctional Services, Economic Development, Higher Education and Training, and Rural Development and Land Reform (Slide 11).

The PSC recommended that disciplinary action should be taken against transgressing heads of departments (HoDs) and other senior managers: Failure to fully and honestly disclose the financial interests was misconduct.  Therefore, EAs had to ensure that disciplinary action was taken against transgressing officials for non-compliance with the Financial Disclosure Framework.

Scrutiny of the forms had to be conducted at departmental level. The PSC recommended that the management of conflicts of interest had to take place at departmental level.  In this regard, EAs had to assess and scrutinize disclosure forms of Senior Management Service members within their respective departments.  Depending on the outcome of such scrutiny, EAs should take appropriate actions and inform the PSC on how the identified conflicts of interest of the Senior Management Service members within their departments have been addressed.  The Ethics Officers would be instrumental in the scrutiny of financial disclosure forms of their respective departments.  HoDs and EAs had to take steps geared at ensuring that potential conflicts of interest did not become actual conflicts of interest.

The PSC concluded that the management of potential conflicts of interest formed an integral part in the Public Service’s initiatives to become integrity-driven. Through the identification and management of potential conflicts of interest honest public servants were kept honest and professional ethics was promoted within the workplace. Compliance to the Framework should therefore not be seen purely as a mandatory requirement but as an ethical obligation of each and every senior manager.

Moreover, a disclosure framework should be regarded as part of a larger effort to regulate conflicts of interest situations in the Public Service.  While it was a crucial tool for preventing and controlling abuse of office by public servants, it could not deal with the full range of conflict of interest situations that emerged at departmental level.  However, the Framework had assisted in raising awareness among public servants for the need to be transparent and accountable in the execution of their official duties.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that compliance was a minimum requirement. One could not joke about non-compliance and the Committee took it very seriously. She congratulated the Western Cape for 100% compliance in terms of its disclosure forms. The Committee wanted to proceed to check the obstacles to compliance in the other provinces. It would communicate with the EAs concerned. People do not comply.

Mr G Hill-Lewis (DA) said that it was obviously the honest hard-working senior managers who submitted their forms on time each year and the ones who knew that their financial and other interests represented conflicts of interests, did not submit. The PSC and Committee had to collectively find a way to enforce 100% compliance. It had to act against those who did not comply.

Mr Hill-Lewis wanted clarity on the fact that the presentation stated that five national departments had not submitted a single form. (The presenter said that the Department of Land Reform and rural Development had submitted after the date on which the presentation had been compiled).

Mr Hill-Lewis said that compliance hovered around 80%. The outstanding 20% had to be identified, and repeat offenders had to be identified. The list had to be published and action had to be taken against the worst offenders.

Mr Williams said that serious disciplinary action had to be taken against those who did not comply. This Committee had to let the Executive know that it was deeply dissatisfied with the current situation regarding non-compliance by senior management in state departments. The Committee expected 100% and while it recognised that there was an upward growth, it was not good enough. If action was not taken, the Committee would sit with the same problem the following year.
Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) welcomed the report by the PSC. He compared it with a briefing by the PSC on 31 August 2011 on performance agreements. It was similar, not only on financial disclosures. Head of Departments simply did not comply. This was part of their responsibilities and drastic steps were needed to get them to comply. If they could not comply with a simple minimum requirement, how would they do justice to the actual responsibilities that they were entrusted with?
Mr M Manana (ANC) said that it was important to name directors-general who did not comply. Subordinates would only comply if heads complied. The PSC spent money on campaigns to remind senior managers of the need to comply, which was necessary if corruption was going to be rooted out. This Committee had to engage the portfolio committees with oversight of the departments which did not comply. Those departments were headed by ministers hell-bent on rooting out corruption. He felt for the PSC. It was a difficult process to ensure compliance.
The Chairperson reminded the meeting, regarding the issue raised by Mr Hill-Lewis and Mr Manana that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform had submitted since the presentation had been compiled. Four departments remained which had not submitted any disclosure forms, which the Committee had to do something about.
She reiterated the need raised by Mr Hill-Lewis to analyse the patterns and trends of submissions and to identify the repeat offenders. The four departments which did not submit any forms had to be called to appear before the Committee. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation had to bring the issue to the attention of the Cabinet. In terms of performance agreements, the Committee would still discuss the quality of compliance.
The Committee's researcher had to work with others in order to get the information in order to take action.
Ms P Thengeni, Deputy Chairperson, PSC, said that she was encouraged by the manner in which the Committee received the report and agreed that action needed to be taken. Apart from chasing the 20% of departments that did not comply, all officials that did not comply had to be charged with misconduct. She asked the assistance of the Committee in this regard.
Only when a trend developed of officials being charged with misconduct as a result of non-compliance on this matter, would it lead to an improvement. The PSC had this information on all departments. Pronouncements on this issue could be made when the departments submitted their annual reports to the portfolio Committees. The PSC had all the information on all the departments. She asked that the Committee assist the PSC to create space during the annual report presentations to make pronouncements on this issue so that this matter did not only get discussed behind closed doors. The public had to know about the non-compliance of officials regarding the filing of financial disclosure forms as well as performance agreements.
The Chairperson said that the information had firstly to be found. Secondly, the wrongdoers had to be interrogated, thirdly, the issue had to be brought to the attention of Cabinet, and fourthly, there had to be action against the non-compliant senior managers. The Committee could not punish the wrongdoers, but there was a process in place whereby the wrongdoers could be held to account.
Mr Manana reiterated his suggestion that the portfolio committees with oversight of the non-compliant departments had to be approached so that the issue could be addressed collectively, as they did their oversight work.

The Chairperson said that the Auditor-General and the PSC did their oversight work. There was expenditure, but people did not submit their performance agreements. She asked why people were graded to get promotions, but then they did not do the basics. If departments did not comply, they probably would not reach their outcomes. The Committee would look at that relationship and see whether there were correlations. She thanked the PSC for its presentations.

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. Establishment of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency. Presentation
Dr Sean Phillips, Director-General, Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the Presidency, introduced his delegation. He replied to the request from the Committee and promised to bring the non-compliance of senior managers to the attention of Cabinet. During the last two months, important delegations and policies had been put in place.

The President had created the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency to
facilitate the development of plans for the cross-cutting priorities or outcomes of Government and monitor and evaluate the implementation of these plans, monitor the performance of individual national and provincial governmental departments and municipalities, monitor front-line service delivery, carry out evaluations, promote good M&E practices in Government and implement interventions to address blockages in delivery in partnership with delivery institutions.

The Department was not an independent body, but part of the executive arm of Government. It coordinated the monitoring and evaluation by the Executive of itself. It was a generic management function within the executive, like financial management. It was the custodian of M&E in the Executive, as the National Treasury was the custodian of financial management in the Executive. It set minimum norms and standards. Although it would do some monitoring and evaluation work itself, it would mostly oversee and coordinate other organs doing monitoring and evaluation. It would also build capacity within other Government organs to do effective M&E.

The Department was promulgated by the President on 1 January 2010. A director-general was appointed on 1 April 2010. Delegations and essential policies were in place to meet Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) requirements for a department. The approved establishment was currently 120 posts of which 101 were filled. The remainder were advertised and in various stages of being filled. The establishment was expected to grow to approximately 200 posts over the current Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) cycle (given current MTEF budget allocations). The First Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan had been completed and submitted to Parliament. The Department had been Included in the Presidency Annual Report for 2010/11. would publish its own Annual Report in 2012.
The Department consisted of four main branches aligned to the main budget programmes:
⚫Outcomes Monitoring and Evaluation Branch managed the outcomes.
⚫Public Sector Administration and Oversight Branch managed performance monitoring of individual national and provincial departments and municipalities and monitoring of front-line service delivery.
⚫Data Branch provided data management services for the Department and managed the programme of developing M&E capacity across Government.
⚫Administration Branch provided corporate services for the Department.

The Department's MTEF budgets were shown (table, slide 5).  It had made submissions to National Treasury for increased funding to enable the hiring of staff to engage in the monitoring of front-line service delivery in provinces and municipalities.
Front-line monitoring was one of the sub-outputs in the Outcome 12 Delivery Agreement. The Department decided to focus on front-line monitoring in order to gain an understanding of the experience the ordinary citizen when accessing state services at hospitals, schools, police stations, and municipalities, etc,  in order to improve on the service delivery. The front-line monitoring would happen in collaboration with Premiers' Offices, departments, municipalities, civil society and citizens. The programme involved two sub-programmes; one in which officials of the Department and the Offices of the Premiers visited these places of service delivery themselves and one where monitoring was done by members of civil society. Management performance monitoring was another sub-output in the outcome 12 Delivery Agreement. The DPME had worked with National Treasury, DPSA, the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA), the Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC), the Office of the Auditor-General (AG) and Offices of the Premiers to introduce a credible and objective tool and methodology for assessing the management performance of public service institutions. The programme was being implemented jointly with the provinces. The DPME would assess national departments, while the Offices of the Premiers would assess provincial departments as well as municipalities. The assessments would start in October 2011.
The management areas that would be assessed were employees, systems and processes, financial management, governance and accountability and strategic management. The assessment would draw on secondary data from the AG, the OPSC, etc, to populate partially the report card, and it would not duplicate work already done. Self-assessments by departments, verified by internal audit, would form part of it. After the completion of the assessment, the assessment team and the department or municipality involved would engage to discuss the results, after which an improvement plan would be developed by the department, which would be monitored in turn. The results would then be presented to Cabinet and provincial executive councils.
The results of the performance assessments of departments would be linked to the performance assessments of their heads. There was an anomaly in the current system where a head of department would attain a high score while his or her department performed poorly.

Promoting good M&E practice in Government
According to Cabinet decisions, DPME was the custodian of the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation System (GWMES), which consisted of an Evaluation Framework (Presidency (DPME)), a Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information (National Treasury) and the South Africa Statistics (Stats SA) Quality Framework.
DPME was working on an evaluation policy for Cabinet approval, which had been distributed for comment.
DPME had established and was coordinating sectoral data forums based on the outcomes. The aim was to improve data collection in departments to enable evidence-based reporting on progress with the implementation of the Delivery Agreements for the outcomes. DPME was working with PALAMA on curriculum development for M&E.
The Outcomes
massively increased expenditure since 1994, significant levels of poverty, joblessness and inequality persisted. There had been inadequate attention to the achievement of outcomes and impacts in the key priority areas. Key performance indicators in areas such as education and health had generally not improved in line with increases in expenditure. The 2009 Policy Framework approved by Cabinet and tabled in Parliament provided a basis for an outcomes-based approach to address these weaknesses.
The aim was to improve service delivery by introducing whole-of-Government planning linked to key outcomes, clearly linking inputs and activities to outputs and outcomes, implementing the constitutional imperative for cooperative governance by negotiating inter-departmental and inter-governmental delivery agreements for the outcomes, and increasing the strategic focus of Government.

Outcomes were deliberately limited in number to enable increased strategic focus on critical issues. Outcomes focused on key areas requiring improvement. It did not mean that other Government work not directly related to the outcomes had to be neglected - other work was captured in the strategic plans of departments and Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of municipalities.
(Please see the presentation document, slide 17, for details of the 12 outcomes.)

Delivery Agreements
These charters between all the key stakeholders who needed to work together to achieve the outcome. The Programme of Action (POA)system contained the Delivery Agreements. Coordinating departments had to capture progress against Delivery Agreements on POA. Implementation Forums (structures such as clusters and Ministers and Members of the Executive Councils (MinMECs)) monitored implementation of the Delivery Agreements and unblocked blockages to delivery.

Discussion
Mr Williams asked where front-line service delivery monitoring results fitted in to the assessment process and asked where the monitoring by citizens also fitted in. Reports might be sugar-coated and, without the input from ordinary citizens, might create a skewed picture of the truth.
Dr Phillips replied that Slide 11 referred to management performance monitoring or the generic areas of management which produced an assessment of the performance of the department in terms of its management practices. When heads of department (HoDs) would be assessed, the results of these management assessments would be part of the inputs into the process.  The assessments were broken up into different parts to make them manageable.
Ms M Mohale (ANC) asked about the relationship between the DPME and the DPSA. The DPSA had the Bathu Pele impact assessment which dealt with the relationship between the public service and citizens. Where did the plans of the DPME fit in with the existing plan?
Dr Phillips replied that due to its situation within the Presidency and given its central coordinating roles, its functions would inevitably be replicated within other departments. DPME avoided replication by collaborating with other Departments.  DPSA already instituted service delivery improvement plans, which formed the basis of what the DPME was doing. DPME monitored whether those plans were in place and were being adhered to. The DPME found in its front-line monitoring experience that the fact that the Presidency and the Offices of the Premiers were involved in monitoring service delivery was appreciated by both the officials as well as members of the public.  The DPME did not have the capacity to do comprehensive monitoring. It did sample monitoring and did not have the capacity to do representative sample monitoring either. Government needed to do as much front-line monitoring as possible, and the monitoring done by the DPME in the Presidency and the Premiers' Offices would complement the monitoring done by the DPSA. All these organs had to work together and share information in order to improve service delivery. Even with the monitoring that was happening, it still would not be enough and there would still be room for more.
Ms Mohale said that every Government department was supposed to have an improvement plan. How was implementation ensured?
Dr Phillips replied that the DPME could use its position in the Presidency to put issues on the agenda of Cabinet and on the agendas of the provincial executive councils.  When the results of the front-line monitoring were presented to Cabinet, follow-ups towards addressing the issues were ensured.
Ms Mohale said that Dr Phillips had mentioned that his Department now managed the Presidential Hotline. There was a national anti-corruption hotline; there was an anti-corruption hotline within the DPSA. What was the relationship between the DPME and these services? Some people called the anti-corruption hotline to report service delivery issues, not corruption issues.
The Chairperson said that there were a number of hotlines. All the Premiers' Offices had anti-corruption units. What did it mean? Did the DPME look into the details of all these hotlines?
Dr Phillips was aware that, before the Presidential Hotline was transferred to the DPME, the DPME had worked with the Presidency on an internal review with the aim of improving the performance of the Presidential Hotline.  Now that DPME managed the Presidential Hotline, it intended to lead a process to review all the hotlines in Government with a view to rationalise them. It would make proposals for rationalisation and cost-saving.

There were some calls coming to the Presidential Hotline related to corruption. There were processes in place to channel calls. The process that was currently in place was to refer all those processes to the DPSA anti-corruption unit, which did the initial investigations. It decided whether disciplinary action had to be taken or whether the case had to be referred to the police or other investigating agencies. All the calls that came through the Presidential Hotline were referred to the relevant departments.

Mr Williams asked whether front-line service delivery monitoring could not be done by community development workers based at ward level, who could do simple surveys on an ongoing basis.
Dr Phillips replied that some Offices of the Premiers had already started to use the supervisors of community development workers to lead the front-line service delivery monitoring visits.
The Chairperson appreciated the presentation. The Committee would constantly refer to Section 195 of the Constitution when it did its oversight, to see if the departments were moving in the direction of the ideal portrayed there. She invited the representatives from the AG’s office to comment, but they declined.
Committee minutes: adoption
Th Committee adopted its minutes of 17, 23, 24 and 31 August 2011. 
The meeting was adjourned.