Presidential Public Service Remuneration Commission & Community Development Workers: Ministry briefings; Thusong Centres readiness: State Information Technology Agency briefing

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed both the Minister and Deputy Minister of Public Service and Administration, but noted that the Minister was not well and would have to leave early.

Briefing on the Presidential Public Service Remuneration Commission
Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, Minister of Public Service and Administration, noted the presence at the meeting of Mr Freeman Nomvalo, the new Chief Executive Officer of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), and said that SITA was greatly enhanced by his appointment.

She criticised a member of the DA for having proffered compliments to the Minister but then criticising her directly afterwards, which she felt had been dishonest. She noted that honesty should be at the root of the public service. She said that this was regrettably indicative of the fact that the DA would have preferred to have its own Bill, and had introduced a private member’s bill dealing with business interests of employees. She noted that the Public Administration and Management Bill (PAM Bill) had already been extensively been discussed and engaged with by the DA. This was an extensive Bill of over 130 pages, and Premier Helen Zille had requested an extension of four weeks to fully engage with it, which had been granted, to 31 July.

Ms Sisulu stated that the Committee had extensive and fruitful negotiations with labour on the Public Service Remuneration Commission. Labour felt that certain professional sections within the public sector were not receiving the appropriate remuneration. The Committee undertook to persuade the President to discuss the establishment of a Remuneration Commission, which he had agreed to, and announced in the State of the Nation Address. Another reason for establishing this was to do with the concerns about, and the need to put education at the centre of everything in the country. This Remuneration Commission would ensure that public employees would be paid fair wages according to their profession. The teaching profession had complained that they were paid 0.5% less than other labour unions and consideration of teachers’ positions would now be prioritised, in recognition of their essential services to the state, and their particular grievances.

She outlined the key aspects of the Remuneration Commission. Parties would be at liberty to make representations before the Commission. The Commission was appointed to investigate remuneration and conditions of service in the public service and public entities. It would investigate organisational development, job grading and job pricing, recruitment, appointment and promotion, human resource planning and performance management systems, policies and practices. As already outlined, the remuneration of educators would receive priority. The Commission was to be headed by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. Assisting Commissioners would include a representative from the education sector, a representative appointed by labour, a representative appointed by the Minister of Finance and a representative appointed by the Minister of Health. In addition a support team would be provided to the Commission.

The Minister explained that the establishment of the Commission had been delayed because the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) had decided that it did not want to be involved in this way, on the day that the Commission was announced and due to start. Initially, it had demanded the Minister’s resignation, but this demand was later withdrawn, and eventually the whole protest was withdrawn. However, this had delayed the setting up of the Commission by two months. She would meet with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) later in the week in order to finalise agreements. The Minister of Finance insisted on appointing someone who was skilled at negotiations, due to the importance of the wage Bill and for this reason Advocate Shaik was appointed to the Commission as a chief negotiator. Several other skilled supporting members were also appointed.

The Minister concluded that the President had signed the proclamation and minute, and referred Members to her handout for additional information.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Minister, but said that the presentation had been distributed very late, and emphasised the importance of this Committee receiving documentation in good time.

The Minister apologised for the late receipt of the documents, and stated that this point would be taken into account when doing the performance assessment of the officials responsible.

Mr D Du Toit (DA) pointed out that there would be quite a few people involved in the Commission, and asked exactly how many there would be, and what the budget would be. He also asked for clarification on the proclamation date and subsequent timeframe of the Commission. He stated that one potential weakness of the Commission would be that what it could produce was entirely dependent on the quality of what was fed into it, and even if the commissioners were excellent, some poorly-performing departments may weaken it in the process of feeding in information.

The Minister replied that, as stated on the presentation handout, the Chairperson would determine the methodology of the Commission. This would in turn determine the feeder system.

Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) welcomed the brief and the work being done by the Department. He asked that the Commission present itself to the Committee before starting its work, seeing that the Committee would oversee the Commission. He agreed that teachers should be the first priority of the Commission.

Mr Du Toit stated that TASK, a previous Commission, had not completed its job, after nine or ten years, and was worried that a similar situation might occur with this Commission. However, he then noted that the timeframe would be eight months, but pointed out that this seemed like an unrealistically short period of time, based on the experience of TASK. He also noted that there were to some degree perverse incentives. The members of the Commission would earn a substantial amount while they sat on the Commission, but would receive no benefit once the Commission’s task was complete.

The Minister replied that the timeframe is indeed very optimistic. However she felt that it was justified in view of the fact that there was only a window of three years in which everything needed to be finished. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA or the Department) did not want to fall short on its own agreements with the Unions. A short timeframe was also desirable in order that the Commission’s work be finalised before the elections, because this could result in the discontinuing of the Commission. She stated that there had never been a scientific grading of the value jobs in South Africa’s public sector. Value for money was important, and teachers would be prioritised. The aim of the Commission was to grade professions, based on aspects such as the experience needed to be a part of a certain profession, and by comparing one profession with others that were similar, to determine what each should be paid. She added that if SADTU insisted on their own demands being met, the DPSA would simply start to negotiate with the nurses first, before the teachers.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and noted her appreciation for the fact that the Department had taken the initiative in briefing the Committee.

Briefing on Community Development Workers
Ms Ayanda Dlodlo, Deputy Minister of Public Service and Administration, presented the current Status Report for Community Development Workers. She stated that she would only deal with the most pertinent issues during this presentation.

She said that there was no need to discuss the mandate of the programme in depth, as this was already general knowledge. Community Development Workers (CDWs) were created as a new category of public servants. Their purpose was to work with government departments and other stakeholders, to link government and communities, and to strengthen integration and co-ordination between services provided by government and access to these services by communities. The Community Development Worker programmes focused on poverty alleviation, local economic development, decreasing inequality, deepening democracy (specifically through increasing transparency, accountability and open government), planning development and youth support. More money would be needed in order to fill vacancies, both for staffing and operations positions.

The Deputy Minister explained that the programme was coordinated by DPSA, in consultation with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs(COGTA). At the provincial level, provinces were granted a variety of responsibilities but the nature and extent of these responsibilities varied from province to province. The DPSA remained at the centre of the programme. The Minister had requested that the programme must engage with traditional authorities, and so for practical purposes, at provincial level, the  COGTA would be largely involved in coordinating the programme. At a municipal level, the CDW programmes were located in the Office of the Municipal Manager, although in some provinces it is located at the Office of the Speaker. Everyone seemed to be happy with the legal framework, although there was still a lot of work to be done on it.

Consultative workshops had been held in all nine provinces in 2012, and this would be repeated in 2013. There was a lot of unspent money in the National Lottery Trust, and for this reason representatives from the National Lottery Trust were bought along to explain how to apply for funding through this Trust. All but three provinces - North-West, Free State and Limpopo - had been visited to discuss CDWs. However, she noted that the Western Cape seemed reluctant to get involved in the programme, which meant that the poorest people living in the Western Cape would not be able to benefit from the money offered by the National Lottery Trust in the same way as the other provinces. All wards would be profiled, save for those of the Western Cape, which was not part of the programme.

Ms Dlodlo informed Members that Cuba had had a successful community development programme, from which lessons could be learned. During the last financial year, ten CDWs received training in India through the India Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC). Part of the aim of the CDW programme was to get people to speak directly to government, rather than only to NGOs, especially in light of the conditions often attached to money available through NGOs. South Africa was second in the world with regards to budget transparency because its budget was taken to the people. It was hoped that the CDW programme should raise its profile to first in the world for budget transparency.

She briefly outlined some of the challenges faced by the programme. These included lack of alignment and insufficient budgets, absence of legal frameworks, management challenges in some provinces, and blurred reporting lines in some provinces because of the location of the programme within the municipal space. Further challenges included lack of wellness and security measures for CDWs at operational level, vast wards with insufficient numbers of CDWs, monitoring activities of CDWs at the ward level, and relationship problems with other stakeholders at community level.

The Deputy Minister recommended that regulations for CDWs be finalised in order to narrow the gap created by the lack of legal framework, that roles of CDW workers be clarified, that CDWs play a bigger role in complaint management, and that the capacity initiatives for CDWs should be strengthened. Furthermore, she noted that reporting templates were being refined and the Department wanted these to eventually be electronically operated.

Discussion
Mr A Williams (ANC) stated that coordination was a very big problem with CDWs. He asked who they reported to, who paid for them and where they got their equipment. He also wanted to know if the DPSA was planning on any legislation to solve the challenges around coordination. Mr Williams noted that the CDWs in his constituency in Mpumalanga had had serious problems in trying to determine to whom they should be reporting, and asked whether there was a timeframe within which the problem of CDW coordination would be resolved.
 
Mr Williams asked what would be done about the Western Cape not participating in this programme, and what would happen to the R48 million budgeted for its participation.

Mr D Ximbi (ANC) agreed that the problem was one of coordination.

Ms J Maluleke (ANC) expressed her appreciation to the DPSA. She said that a further problem with the CDWs were that they were becoming politicised. At times, CDWs would go out on strike simultaneously with the municipal workers, although they were not a part of the municipalities. Clearly, there was a problem with their understanding of where they belonged and who they reported to. She noted her approval of the traditional authorities being involved in the process.

Mr Du Toit stated that matters were complicated at a municipal level due to the relative independence from political affiliation, since at this level people were elected directly by their constituency, or tried to be elected in this manner. This was the level at which CDWs worked. This resulted in a conflict between those running for office and the CDWs. He stated that in his experience no reports were handed in by the CDWs and there was no supervision of CDWs.

Mr Du Toit also asked for clarification on why the Western Cape decided not to join the CDW programme and stated that they ought to have given reasons for not joining.

Mr Du Toit said that perhaps consideration needed to be given to whether the CDWs should be elected, since they seemed to be performing the jobs of councillors or ward committees. He also asked who paid the salaries of CDWs, and to whom they were supposed to report. He also enquired as to the results of the statements proclaimed to be the highlights of the programme. Finally, he stressed the danger of the programme becoming politically inflamed, and asked how such a conflict situation would be handled.

The Deputy Minister answered that CDWs had been told very clearly that they were not to become politically involved and this was clearly understood by them. CDWs were told that they could not stand for election since this would constitute an abuse of office, authority and power. However if there were attempts to embroil them politically, then they would have to report back to the DPSA.

Mr S Marais (DA) also requested more information on the reasons for the Western Cape’s criticism of the CDW programme, since his constituency had successfully worked with the CDWs.

Mr Marais asked what measures or mechanisms were used to calculate budget allocations, since the slides showed that Limpopo had been allocated nearly R1 billion but had not yet been visited. He emphasised the need for the programme to get value for money.

Mr C Msimang (IFP) noted that CDWs had been seen as spies for Premiers. He argued that the tension could be relived if CDWs fell under the third sphere of government, so as to reduce the scope for jealousy between them and the councillors.

Mr Msimang agreed with Mr Marais on the issue of budget allocation and stated that a possible method of allocation could be to allocate a certain amount of money per ward, since each ward had one CDW. However this was not the case in the present budget allocation.

Mr Msimang asked whether the Western Cape was filling the void that had been created by its non-engagement with the CDW programme through its councillors and whether perhaps it chose not to have CDWs because its councillors did not believe they were necessary to allow them to complete their jobs. He too wanted to know what would happen to the budget which was originally set aside for the Western Cape.

Mr Nyekemba asked what the difference was between ward committees and CDWs, since this could help explain the role of CDWs. He stated that CDWs were public servants, or full time employees, while ward committees were elected for a term and were thus not full time employees, and indeed not employees at all. The two roles were thus not comparable. He stated that it should not matter which party CDWs belonged to, since they were employed by the Public Service.

Mr Nyekemba asked who was responsible for the travel expenses incurred by CDWs in order to attend their meetings. He enquired whether CDWs specialised and asked whether it was desirable that they should specialise, given their responsibilities. He noted that CDWs in his constituency from different wards met in order to assist each other.

The Deputy Minister replied that CDWs could not compete with Councillors, who were elected representatives, since CDWs were indeed civil servants. She emphasised the difference in spelling, saying that essentially CDWs were “counsellors for the state, whilst the elected representatives were “Councillors”. In the past, CDWs were allocated stipends, not salaries, which resulted in competition. However this had been changed and CDWs were now clearly civil servants. CDWs ought to serve whichever party was in power within the ward, without any prejudice.

She added that a representative was sent from each province to attend the yearly meetings and all provinces who could afford to, paid for their representative to be sent to the meeting, except for the Western Cape. There was representation at the level of the Provincial Cabinet, but not from the Western Cape. In addition, business, academia, civil society and the media were also involved in the programme. She stated again that because the National Lottery Board did not go to the Western Cape, funding was not made available to the people within the province who were not literate enough to access information from the internet on how to apply to the Board for funding.

She also noted a mistake in the budget figures and stated that Limpopo had in fact been allocated R91 million.

The Deputy Minister emphasised that the goal was to link up with local authorities in order to ensure that local communities were properly serviced. She noted the importance of CDWs since they had a directive from the President. She emphasised the importance of trust for the CDW programme to work.

Mr Marais stated that he had received entirely different feedback to that which was presented by the Deputy Minister.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Marais stating that he should present his argument at a later stage, since it was drawn from information which came outside of this meeting. She noted that there would be a follow-up presentation and thanked the Deputy Minister.

Thusong Centres’ state of readiness: State Information Technology Agency (SITA) briefing
Mr Freeman Nomvalo, Chief Executive Officer, State Information Technology Agency, stated that he had only held this position for 19 days, and quipped that he would therefore let his colleagues answer the most difficult questions.

Mr Nomvalo stated that the aim of SITA was to make government accessible to the citizens. Ownership of each part of the programme was essential for the success of the Thusong Service Centres. Each goal to be achieved by the programme had a particular institution responsible for it. Workers needed to be trained in order to be able to respond to the needs of the community, by providing the needed electronic services. Participating departments must have a presence in the Thusong Service Centres.

Mr Freeman stated that the original scope of the Thusong project was to provide connectivity for Thusong sites in nine provinces. Although 246 sites were initially targeted, some sites did not have appropriate buildings, and thus the number was decreased to 140 sites. A further 17 sites were then also eliminated due to other issues with the buildings, reducing the total number of sites to 123. 27 of these sites were in Gauteng and were placed on hold. Thus a total of 96 sites were allocated to SITA to work on. Of those, 91 had been completed. However, there was a lack of feedback once SITA finished installing the initial system within the sites.

Mr Freeman indicated that the Department of Public Service and Administration had been invoiced a total of R35.47 million and had paid R34.93 million for the installation of WAN and LAN infrastructure at Thusong Centres. The main challenges faced by the Thusong Service Centre Connectivity Project included the lack of access to buildings, which prevented many of the buildings from being connected, as well as delays caused by Telkom, on whom the programme was reliant for connectivity. Other challenges included outstanding operational costs, no instruction for the continuation of connectivity services, low level of communication from Thusong Centres regarding technical problems, and the reporting structure. Key recommendations included a reduction of connectivity costs and tariffs for government, revised governance programme and ownership and ensuring building readiness.

Discussion
Mr Williams asked for the locations of the 96 successful sites. He also asked whether SITA would be working with the Department in selecting future sites, given the problem with the buildings.

Mr Du Toit stated that there were about 300 municipalities, but that some were either very dense, or very disparate, and there were many more government offices than municipalities, since some municipalities had several points requiring access. To him, therefore, the numbers of Thusong centres did not make sense, and he would have thought that a few hundred was not sufficient, but that several thousand would be needed.  

Mr Nyekemba asked who gave instructions to put Gauteng on hold, and why this was done. He also asked who was responsible for getting the buildings in working condition so that these centres could be set up within the buildings.

Mr Nomvalo replied that the details of site locations could be made available, and that the sites were situated across most provinces. He added that SITA would be involved with the identifying of future sites. He stated that the purpose of the centres was to make services accessible where they were not yet available, not to place services where they are already available, and therefore the numbers of centres would be less than the number of government offices.

A member of SITA explained that SITA did not work with the Gauteng government, but that it received instructions from the Department.

Mr Paul Grimsell, Senior Manager: Converged Communications, SITA, explained that the Thusong Centres were attempting to make government more accessible to the poor. The idea was to give internet capacity, through these centres, to people who would not otherwise have had it, so that they may have access to key government information. The Thusong Centres were a first step towards a more collaborative government. They had developed from Multiple Purpose Community Centres (MPCCs).

Another SITA official stated that SITA was finalising the allocation of ownership of the various aspects of the project. Critical departments would be identified, so that SITA would be able to make these more accessible to the public. Staff were not being duplicated unnecessarily, but the different departments would use their staff to help SITA. Large numbers of people had made use of these services, and found them to be beneficial.

Mr Du Toit stated that he appreciated and understood the distinction between urban and rural areas. He added that 24 hour security was likely needed for the Thusong Centres, and thus suggested that they be linked to police stations where such security was already present.

A SITA official replied that whenever a new idea was brought up, it would be thoroughly discussed as a business case. The location of the Thusong Centres must be listed clearly in order to facilitate the programme, and SITA would assist with security. A cost recovery model had been introduced in order to recover money from the departments that made use of the Thusong Centres, in order to ensure the sustainability of the programme.

The Chairperson asked how accountability would be ensured.

The SITA official member replied that SITA was approaching Cabinet about location and ownership, in order to ensure accountability.

The Chairperson stated that the Department must make sure that this programme became a standing agenda item, to put the necessary pressure on SITA to expedite this very important programme.

The meeting was adjourned.