Short listing and discussion on the interview process of candidates to serve on the Central Drug Authority Board

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
Ms Botha noted that there were a few procedural issues that needed to be addressed before the Committee proceeded with its agenda. A letter had been sent asking about the process to be followed by the Committee.

She clarified that this was not a joint committee as required in the NCOP and NA rules. This was a sub committee which would undertake the process at hand and thereafter produce a report which would be presented to the two houses. This letter was issued by Ms Zanele Mene. The letter also asked that at the meeting today, Advocate Frankie Jenkins be present and give legal advice on any matter as and when it arises in the meeting. Advocate Jenkins would stay for the duration of the interview process and advise accordingly from time to time. She also said that a copy of the letter to be distributed to all Members(however PMG was not privy to the contents of such letter).

Mr Waters from the NCOP noted that there were only 2 members represented from the NCOP; and asked what this did for the quorum of the delegation.

Ms Botha said that the letter was silent on quorum sought help from committee secretary on this issue.

The Committee Secretary said for the purposes of this meeting, they can go ahead with 5 members from NA and NCOP combined and since there will be no, that number is ok.

Mr De Villiers said that he was the representative sent by his party but would he would be away on 17 Aug. He would attend all interviews but was concerned about the legality of the situation; in that, one of his colleagues could not sit in on his behalf.

Ms Botha said that no other member could take his place when he was away and sought clarity from Advocate Jenkins.

Adv Jenkins said that it was firstly important to note that the committee sitting at this meeting was a sub committee which had no authority to make decisions. It could merely report to the respective houses. He was not aware of any prescribed rule preventing another member from sitting in on behalf of another. Practice would prefer continuity and that the same member sat for the duration but this was merely procedural. He strongly suggested that proceedings be recorded and that the recordings be made available especially in instances where such proceedings involved decision taking and voting.

Apologies
Apologies were received from Hon Chuete who was receiving an award in the Eastern Cape on behalf of her late husband.

Ms Botha said that the Committee had received a number of applications. These would be shortlisted and thereafter the sub committee would review the questions set up. She suggested however that they deal with questions first then begin the process of short listing thereafter. This was agreed to by all present.

Questions

Ms Thulisile Ganyaza - Twalo said that she had worked with Dr Nkanyaza Thwalo in drafting questions which were based on advice received from Chairperson in terms of grouping ‘themes’ of the questions. The suggested interview questions were as follows:

For the purposes of introduction and background of the candidate: You have applied to be a CDA board member, please tell us about your experience in this field [hoping candidate complies with extensive knowledge and experience requirement stated in the advertisement including qualifications];

If appointed, what would you bring to the work of the CDA? [inputs and contributions that the candidate hopes to bring as a board member]

The CDA was established as a result of and Act of Parliament for the prevention and treatment of drug dependency; what did this Act seek to achieve? [Seek to know how much the candidate knows about the Act in particular that which relates to the CDA]. The other question which would be twofold; what were the powers and functions of the CDA? And the other question would deal with the programmes & strategies that the CDA has put in place.

Compliance & Accountability: one of the challenges faced by the CDA had been non compliance by Government Departments and Provinces to submit reports dealing with reduction of substance abuse; what measures do you think should be put in place to improve compliance? [Current CDA Chairperson has mentioned this as a huge problem as it then delays the CDA’s ability to report back to Parliament due to outstanding work from the Departments and Provinces]

Regarding accountability; what would you do to ensure the CDA accounts for its work? And what will you do to ensure data quality and integrity in advising Minister of Social Development and reporting to Parliament?

Knowledge on key issues in this field: can you identify and explain key policy issues on substance abuse? And what are the key issues affecting families and communities regarding drug or substance abuse?

South Africa was experiencing a high rate of substance abuse with new drugs entering the market, can you outline some of the challenges associated with substance abuse and how do you think the CDA can play a role in addressing these challenges.

Ms Ganyaza - Twalo added that questions were formulated in a neutral way and specific to CDA and the issue of substance abuse. They were aware of the candidates who had reapplied so did not want to give an advantage to some and disadvantage others. What would be worked on before Tuesday was a memo once questions had been decided on and perhaps draft answers.
Discussion
Mr Waters said that this should only be a guideline and that Members should not be restricted. Some issues may come up – as long as these questions were just guidelines and Members could ask other questions.

Ms Botha replied that Members could ask other questions as long as it pertained to the interview and was fair.

Mr Plaattjie asked in the event that there was a requirement for follow up with a particular candidate, was this permissible? And how many follow ups were permitted.

Ms Botha said that this would be permissible but as long as they did not ‘traumatise’ candidates and also considered timeframes. The interview process must be carried out in 3 days and there were 61 candidates.

Ms Botha also added that 30- 45 minutes must be spent with each candidate; less was ok and if there was consensus a little more time would be allowed.

Shortlisting
Ms Rasmeni said that all applicants had been circulated to CDA board thus the task of this sub committee was to select members that would be shortlisted and finally go for interviews.

Mr De Villiers suggested that it be decided how many candidates must be shortlisted before the process of shortlisting actually began. Thereafter, they may go forward into the final decision making of the shortlist.

Ms Botha agreed and emphasised that there were 62 names and only 12 needed to be recommended. Perhaps 20 may be shortlisted and the Committee must look at as a criteria; the experience e.g. not only psychiatrists so as to balance skills within board. She also suggested that they look at provincial spread with the strategy of covering all 9 provinces of the country if possible. The gender and race of the candidates were also important factors. However; she emphasised that experience was key as well as sectoral representation.

Ms Rasmeni said that prevention and treatment, knowledge in substance abuse was very important. Thereafter, she asked Members if shortlisting 20 candidates was ok.

Mr Waters suggested 36; acknowledging that this figure might be too high but he felt that 20 was too few. He then proposed that 24 candidates be the final number for shortlisting. Experience and qualifications were paramount; thereafter the Committee could ‘tweak’ the list from there. This proposal was seconded by 2 other members; namely Mr Gcume and Mr Plaatjies’.

The process began and Ms Rasmeni mentioned that the advertisement would be of good use. The discussion of individual candidates was said to be priviledged information.

The discussion on the suitability of candidates was carried out during the selection process that lead to the final list of short listed candidates.

(Please note that the list was not provided to PMG thus the names listed below are to the best of our ‘hearing’, we stand to be corrected for any names or spelling thereof):

Carol Du Toit
Mr Kruger
Dr Makubele
Mr Gama
Mr Beyer
Mr Nduku
Ms Salta
Dr Raymond Ebali
Prof Ratamane
Mr Clive Peter
Mr Abrahim Kalelo
Ms Monique Engama
Dr Rustenberg
Ms Lebogile Sepayi
Mr Kekana
Da Silva
Van Rensberg
Ms Kalim Doubt
Ms Yende
Mr Sipho Mkhize
Mr Ndlovu
Dr Manyedi
Prof Nzimande
Prof Steyn

The meeting was thereafter adjourned.