The Chairperson said that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation conducted a lot of work; both Government and Parliament should think of how the reports were enhanced, and perhaps should consider visiting service delivery points, and establish if there had been an impact on the lives of poor people. The quarterly report would indicate how the Department had performed in terms of the annual performance plan targets.
The Committee heard that Programme 3 – Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Coordination and Support – was merged into other programmes. The programme focused on monitoring and evaluating departments’ service delivery to the public. Individual departments were assessed on the quality of management practices. The monitoring and evaluation branch managed the work on the programme of action whose main work included the website. Progress had been reported on the programme, and in the view of the Department it was effective and efficient way for this programme to be managed under the outcomes branch where the data generated would go to the programme of action. The geographic information systems function had since been moved to Programme 1 - Information and Communications Technology. The chief directorate for Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and Capacity Building was moved to Programme 4 – Institutional Performance Monitoring.
The Department’s work was very much the same as last year, except for two fairly significant changes. The Department extended the assessment of the quality of management practices to departments, provinces and municipalities, but also had started a municipal assessment programme. A tool had been developed to assess management practices at municipalities and the quality of basic service delivery. This was still at the pilot stage, and the target for the year was to pilot the tool with ten municipalities. The other new initiative for the year was the citizens based monitoring programme as part of the frontline services monitoring. The concept document for the programme was ready to go to Cabinet. This kind of monitoring was being piloted with several departments including Social Development, Police, and Health. Regarding the filling of posts, the Department had 202 funded posts at the end of June and 90% of those were filled. The number of funded posts increased during the year. The budget was managed in such a way that the Department planned to fill posts at different times in the year; some funded posts would be filled later in the year, while some would be filled in the beginning. The personal budget did not allow for posts to be filled all at once during the beginning of a financial year. Filling posts was a moving target; sometimes people left the Department for the private sector or some other departments. And sometimes people got promoted. The Department endeavoured to keep vacancy rate below 10%, as per the prescript of the public service rules.
Members sought clarity on why Programme Three was to be abolished, and said they could not understand the motivation. The motivation of streamlining management was just too difficult to understand. The Committee regarded the branch as one of the main branches; but had now been reduced into being sub-chief directorates of other branches. The programme was at the heart of what the Department needed to be, as it was the custodian of core functions of monitoring and evaluation; and policy development, and deserved to be a branch, and prioritised. Would merging the branch’s functions not compromise the impact of the Department across other departments?
Members also sought clarity on the establishment of norms and standards for concurrent functions. What did this mean in the absence of enabling legislation, because other spheres of government had own priorities? This had been a frustrating area for the Department of Basic Education. The Department of Health also had similar concerns.
The Chairperson welcomed the Hon. Obed Bapela, Deputy Minister in the Presidency: Department of Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME). The meeting would receive a briefing on Quarter 1 expenditure 2013/14 by the Department. The Committee doubled up as a portfolio committee for the Department, as well as for the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). The NYDA had already presented its quarterly report.
The reports had become boring, and Members ought to think of ways to ensure the reports carried weight. The Department conducted a lot of work; both Government and Parliament should think of how the reports were enhanced, and perhaps should consider visiting service delivery points, and establish if there had been an impact on the lives of poor people. The Department owed the Committee a report on the management performance assessment tool. The quarterly report would indicate how DPME had performed in terms of the annual performance plan (APP) targets.
The Deputy Minister commented that the report was straightforward. It might be boring but it was a matter of compliance. DPME sought to put the country on the map and address the issues of transparency that project Government to the eyes of the public. He pleaded with Members not to view the report as boring, and said it was a measure that could be used one day as a model of good governance. The report was way better than last year, and the Department was satisfied that it was on a recovery. He described the report as profound.
The Chairperson withdrew his comment and the use of the word “boring”. On reflection, the word was inappropriate and unfortunate because the country hugely dependent on the Department. The country was privileged to be able to implement the concept of performance, monitoring and evaluation.
DPME 1st Quarter 2013/14 performance: briefing
Mr Sean Phillips, DPME Director General (DG), apologised on behalf of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Mr Pieter Pretorius who was on leave, following an armed robbery at his home. The Department divided its work in the presentation into four main areas: monitoring and evaluation of the national key priorities; developing monitoring and evaluation capacity and systems across departments; monitoring individual departments and municipalities; and frontline service delivery.
Monitoring and evaluation of the national key priorities
Here the focus was on the 12 outcomes. DPME monitored the implementation of the current delivery agreements. The Department was also developing the medium-term strategic framework to provide the basis for the outcomes in the next five years.
Developing monitoring and evaluation capacity and systems across departments
The Department worked with government departments to implement the plans on evaluations, but also working with departments to improve data quality and management. There were a number of training and capacity building for government departments, but had also produced quite a wide range of policies and guidelines for monitoring and evaluations. These were on the website and had been included in capacity building programmes.
Monitoring individual departments and municipalities
Focus was on departments’ service delivery to the public. Individual departments were assessed on the quality of management practices. This was the management performance assessment. The Department was finalising the report for submission to Cabinet. Once that process was complete the report would be forwarded to the Committee.
Frontline service delivery
This was geared towards monitoring Government from the point of view of citizens. Several initiatives had been introduced on this area, including the Presidential Hotline. DPME provided support for the President’s Siyahlola Presidential Monitoring Programme. The programme encompassed visits to communities; the Department also conducted unannounced visits to service delivery sites. Recently, a citizens-based monitoring programme had been started.
Mr Phillips said DPME’s work was very much the same as last year, except for two fairly significant changes. The Department extended the assessment of the quality of management practices to departments, provinces and municipalities; but also had started a municipal assessment programme (MAP). A tool had been developed to assess management practices at municipalities and the quality of basic service delivery. This was still at the pilot stage, and the target for the year was to pilot the tool with ten municipalities.
The other new initiative for the year was the citizens based monitoring programme as part of the frontline services monitoring. The concept document for the programme was ready to go to Cabinet. This kind of monitoring was being piloted with several departments including those of Social Development (DSD), Police, and Health (DoH).
The key budget change that happened in this financial year pertained to streamlining the structure of the Department. The number of programmes that were there had been reduced from four to three. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) branch had now been dissolved. The functions that the branch had been performing had been absorbed into other branches within the Department. This was the main reason the Department had a number of planned virements. These were not due to changes in plans, but movement between different programmes because of the structure. But because the restructuring only happened after the budget, DPME still had to run with the budget for Programme 3. Although the money had been allocated for Programme 3, the money would have to be vired to where the work was happening. (See slide 5)
The M&E branch managed the work on the programme of action whose main work included the website. Progress had been reported on the programme, and, in the view of the Department, it was an effective and efficient way for this programme to be managed under the outcomes branch where the data generated would go to the programme of action. There was also a geographic information systems (GIS) function in the data systems branch, but that had since been moved to Programme 1 - Information and Communications Technology (ICT). The other function that had been moved was the chief directorate for policy development and capacity building across government. This had been moved to the programme for monitoring individual departments.
It had been indicated to the Committee, during reporting for the fourth quarter, that the Department would request rollovers from National Treasury for two programmes that started late last year. The two were the projects undertaken in developing the norms and standards for concurrent functions – done on behalf of the Forum of South African Directors-General (FOSAD). The intention would be to see if the norms and standards could not be better used for concurrent functions. The second project concerned the process of developing the 20-year review. The money that had been budgeted last year was requested for rollover to this year. A notification from National Treasury was received to indicate that the request for rollovers was not approved. Some of the virements during this financial year were done so as to make money available to complete the projects.
The Department had been able to raise money from foreign agencies. The Department managed its work in such a way that even though the rollover requests were refused the work would still be done. Donor funding would be used for that purpose. First quarter spending had increased when compared to last year because evaluation assessments were in their second year running. The trend was expected to continue, and DPME did not expect the spike in expenditure towards the end of the year as was the case last year. Expenditure was not where it was supposed to be when compared to projected figures for the quarter, but it would progress much smoother this year.
On capital assets, plans were in place and the Department managed and monitored the work of the information technology section. The branch had the necessary plans in place for procurement processes. DPME was confident that the 63% left of the budget would be committed and spent before the end of the financial year. The outstanding ICT orders related to the disaster recovery centre and equipment for the second DPME building that Department of Public Works (DPW) had also been approached to find. The accommodation in the Union Buildings was not enough for staff. The process was not moving as fast as it was hoped, and could result in a possible saving from the budget rental allocation.
Regarding the filling of posts, DPME had 202 funded posts at the end of June and 90% of those were filled. The number of funded posts increased during the year. The budget was managed in such a way that the Department planned to fill posts at different times in the year; some funded posts would be filled later in the year, while some would be filled in the beginning. The personal budget did not allow for posts to be filled all at once during the beginning of a financial year. Filling posts was a moving target; sometimes people left DPME for the private sector or some other departments. And sometimes people got promoted. DPME endeavoured to keep vacancy rate below 10%, as per the prescript of the public service rules. There were a couple of cases where offers were made to successful candidates but decline, in which case the Department had to re-advertise. Following the March spike last year and the slight under expenditure at the end of the financial year, the Department had to introduce monthly expenditure monitoring meetings. This had improved spending and the forecasting. Expenditure in the first three months of this year had significantly improved compared to last year. If savings were made in any of the areas, contingency plans would be made to vire the money within the rules of the Public Finance Management Act (No. 1 of 1999) (PFMA) and spend it in priority areas.
Some of the targets not achieved included reviewing the policy and procedure to align with the electronic reporting system. The reason this was not done in the first quarter was because the electronic reporting system was in the testing phase, but the target would be achieved during the second quarter. The Department also had a target of developing a three-year strategic annual plan, meant to be submitted to the audit committee for approval. It was developed by the end of June, but only presented to the audit committee in July. The workplace skills implementation plan was partially achieved but the human resources (HR) would ensure that the plan was fully achieved. DPME also had a target for a concept of provincial evaluation plan approved in at least three provinces; by the end of June only two provinces – KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape - had approved, but it was hoped that the Free State would approve soon.
There was a target of three evaluation reports being approved by the evaluation steering committee in which DPME was a member. Two evaluation reports were approved, but there were delays in some evaluations. DPME conducted these in partnerships with departments. The national evaluation plan was being implemented and there were about 23 evaluations underway. A detailed account of which departments had been evaluated could be availed to the Committee. And perhaps a meeting with the Committee on evaluations might be ideal.
There were 18 targets for the sector oversight programme, 15 of which were achieved; one partially achieved and two were not achieved. The two targets related to DPME providing secretarial support to the DG in the Presidency for the assessment of the DGs, and a Cabinet decision was taken to endorse that. Implementation of that policy depended on the issuing of a new policy by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). The policy was not issued and as a result DPME was unable to implement. The current system of the secretariat to the DG being provided by the Public Service Commission (PSC) would continue this year. Community-based monitoring knowledge sharing workshop scheduled for 30 June; the Department decided to delay that because the pilot departments – Police, DSD, and DoH – were not ready, and it would happen on 30 September. But also there was a service delivery complaints trend report produced by the end of June. This related to the trends report from the Presidential Hotline. There had been a snag in securing specialist research experts in that regard. DPME was confident it would still do this work during this financial year.
Performance would improve and by the end of the year and the Department would record 80% achieved on targets. Good progress with the Presidential Hotline had been made. Responsiveness was now over 90%; there had been improvements among provinces as well.
DPME had been tasked by the President to work with the National Planning Commission (NPC) on implementation plans for the National Development Plan (NDP). The Department had thus been working with departments to develop medium-term strategic frameworks from 2014-2019. A pilot of that was presented in the July Cabinet lekgotla. The Department tried to ensure departmental plans reflected the targets in the NDP. DPME had been working hard on the government wide monitoring and evaluation system in terms of developing a policy around this. The work progressed well. The comment by the Chairperson that the Committee should accompany the Department to some of its oversight visits was noted.
Dr S Van Dyk (DA) said he understood the Department was still new and that there would be changes as the years moved by. He hoped that proper and comprehensive research into Programme 3 that was going to be dissolved and integrated into other programmes. It looked rather strange that the programme was abolished soon after it had been established. Was there a link between this abolishment of the programme and the rollover funding that was not approved by the National Treasury, he asked? He sought clarity on what such a decision would mean for logistics like personnel and administration costs. Was there capacity for such a move, and would it have any effect on the current employment structure of the Department?
Ms A Mfulo (ANC) sought clarity on whether the branches to which functions of Programme 3 were being moved within the structure had capacity to deal with them. Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) of the respective branches appear overloaded with work. She sought clarity on why the report was silent on performance targets, which according to the annual performance plan (APP), 80%would be achieved by the end of the year.
Mr G Snell (ANC) commented that currently with government focussing on outcomes that were not being achieved by departments. Measuring these outcomes would always be difficult given the current framework available to departments that was prescribed by National Treasury. Complicating this matter would be the lack of a standardised Government-wide IT system targeted at monitoring outcomes, and measuring them against determined APP targets. That would also have a significant impact on the implementation of the effective sector Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) system. Currently the Department worked on a framework that was prescribed by National Treasury. He accepted the statement that the Department worked on an M&E information technology (IT) guidelines system, but to what extent could DPME prescribe those against what National Treasury provided. How could these challenges be addressed, he asked?
Mr J Gelderblom (ANC) sought clarity on the causes for delays in not achieving the targets. He also wanted to know reasons for the turnover at the Department.
Mr M Swart (DA) wanted to know if it was a sustainable thing to rely on donor funds for programmes. For how long would the department receive donor funding? He also wanted to know if reliance on donor funding would affect the department and its finances in any way into the future.
The Chairperson said there was an improvement on the targets compared to last year. What were the implications of abolishing Programme 3, he asked? He wanted to know if this meant the Department was drawing a new strategic plan.
The Chairperson said although he accepted that there was progress, but it was still important to have detailed information. He wanted to know how far was the Department with performance and monitoring of service delivery particularly that the APP claimed that this work had started.
The Chairperson sought clarity on the establishment of norms and standards for concurrent functions. What did this mean in the absence of enabling legislation, because other spheres of government had own priorities? This had been a frustrating area for the Department of Basic Education (DBE); DoH also had similar concerns.
The Chairperson requested a list of the 23 evaluations being made; what were these evaluations? The current capacity at the Department looked thin. He said he understood DPME was not working alone but should at least have in-house capacity and not rely on what provinces were doing. The Committee had been worried about the expenditure spike/slump around the last and first quarter of the financial year. Should there not be a seamless transition between quarter expenditures? How could the same level of expenditure be maintained throughout the year, he asked? He commented that it was not clear how assessments of HODs were done in the absence of enabling legislation or the assessment tool.
DG’s overall response
Mr Phillips replied details about the achieved targets were not included in the presentation and probably this should be done in future presentations. The abolition of Programme 3, was clearly a matter of trying to make the management in the Department more efficient and streamlined. Non of the activities that were being done were being stopped; all that was being done was to shift functions from the branch into others. The move was in the interests of efficiency. Only one position within the structure had been affected by the move and that was the DDG: M&E Systems, held by Ms Rene Engels, but her employment in the public service had not been affected. Simultaneously, DPME received a request from National Treasury, to second her to work on the expenditure reviews project. All the work in that branch was still being done, only in other parts of the Department. The decision was taken simply to make the Department efficient managerially and more streamlined. The change had not resulted in any change of the budget; it had not been reduced. The money for the programme still came to the Department, but was diverted to other branches.
The Chairperson interjected and said it was not clear if the branch had been done away with.
Mr Phillips clarified again that only the chief directorate had been moved to other branches, and that the functions had not been done away with, rather shifted to other branches. All the functions were still happening in the Department, but reporting to different DDGs.
Dr Van Dyk said the explanation was difficult to understand. A claim was that the move sought to streamline management and yet money was split all over the other programmes. This was incomprehensible.
The Chairperson elaborated that the Committee regarded the branch as one of the main branches; but it had now been reduced into being sub chief directorates of other branches.
Ms Mfulo said she had thought the programme was at the heart of what the Department needed to be, as it was the custodian of core functions of monitoring and evaluation; and policy development. She thought the programme deserved to be a branch, and needed to be prioritised. This was a branch meant for coordination, support and developing policy for Government as a whole. This was a new initiative and it should capacitate the monitoring and evaluation development, and provide performance data support to departments. She asked if the programme was submerged within other programmes, would that not compromise the impact of the Department generally. This was a good programme to ensure monitoring and evaluation happened in Government. She said she doubted if the functions would be given a priority in other branches within DPME.
The Deputy Minister commented that the DG should be allowed to explain the functions of the branch in detail. He said the use of the word “abolish” was misplaced in the document.
Ms Mfulo said her concern was that the programmes that the functions had been diverted had their own functions and heavy workload. Shifting the functions was putting in an extra burden on other programmes.
Mr Phillips concurred that the word abolish was misleading, because it implied the functions were being done away with, and this was not the case. This was the restructuring of the Department and the activities were continuing. There were three main activities carried on under programme 3: PoA data support (had since been moved to programme 2); the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (had since been moved to programme 1, as it mainly concerned IT related work); and M&E policy and capacity (would move to programme 4).
He explained that PoA data support was part of the Department that captured progress against the outcomes on the PoA system on the website. This part was moved to the outcomes programme; DPME believed it was better located there. This was a branch that was responsible for generating data on progress against the outcomes in the Department. It was better to have a unit that was capturing data under the same DDG.
The second function was running the GIS, which concerned spatial data per provinces and municipalities. The unit provided services to the other parts of the Department including management performance assessments and frontline service delivery. GIS was basically IT work, and it was thought it would be better to have that function moved to IT, under the chief information officer. This would improve the management of information of the Department.
The third part of the work was the chief directorate for M&E capacity building. Once the PoA data support and the GIS branches were moved, it was not sufficient to have one chief directorate for policy and capacity building to justify an entire branch. It was decided that the chief directorate be incorporated into another branch, and that was programme 4. DPME did not believe this created overload on other DDGs. The Department was more efficient and streamline; it still performed the same functions. The M&E was given the same prominence in the Department as it had been before.
Mr Swart complimented the Department and said it would appear officials were thinking and were not only content with the old ways of doing things, but were on the look out for creativity.
Mr Phillips replied that, in trying to improve expenditure, the CFO gave detailed reports on expenditure and commitments at the monthly management committee meetings. The reports were collectively interrogated and managers of under spending areas needed to provide reasons. If it looked as though under expenditure was not adequately addressed, it was agreed collectively that the money be moved to programmes where it would be spent. This worked effectively; managers worked hard to improve expenditure, because there was a risk the money would be moved to where it could be spent.
Capacity was there at the Department; DDGs for the Programmes 1, 2 and 4 were not overloaded with work. There was as right ratio of chief directors to DDGs. He clarified that reliance on donor funding resulted because there was an immediate problem, of not getting rollover funding for two projects that started late. Because the two projects had an end date donor funding would not have an impact on the budget. There was multi-year donor funding; some of it lasting for three years. Details of that could be provided if necessary. He cited a three year donor funding deal with Canada. He said that in future the Department needed to be careful about taking on projects that had not been budgeted for and that were not on the APP. DPME should ensure that it stayed within the budget and that it did not take too many unforeseen projects as it did with the 20 year review and the norms and standards projects.
He explained that the Department was not developing norms and standards yet. There was a discussion in FOSAD about the interventions undertaken by national Government in Limpopo and the Eastern Cape. There were detailed discussions about the lessons from those interventions. The discussions also looked at the matter of national departments being held responsible even when delivery happened in the provinces. One of the issues raised was that there were constitutional provisions for norms and standards.
It might be that the drafters of the Constitution had in mind that national departments could ensure there was delivery at provincial level. Or it could be that the drafter had in mind that norms and standards could be the mechanism through which minimum standards and quality could be ensured at provincial level. A question was asked as to whether Government used adequately the constitutional provision for norms and standards in order to ensure that.
FOSAD had asked DPME and concurrent departments to work with those questions and provide answers. And to come back to FOSAD and Cabinet with an analysis to a degree to which the departments were effectively using norms and standards for concurrent functions. Departments were collecting details across ten concurrent functions, looking at what norms and standards were in place, but also if they were legal or informal. This project was in place; the information had been collected and the departments were now busy analysing it. A report would be prepared with recommendations on how the use of norms and standards for concurrent functions could be improved.
DGs were assessed by a ministerial committee but the secretarial function was provided by the PSC. After discussions at FOSAD, a proposal was made that in future the panels that assessed DGs should be chaired by the DG at the Presidency. And that the panels should then make recommendations to ministers, who would in turn make decisions with regards to the performance of their DGs. It was also proposed the secretarial function to support the DG be provided by DPME. Cabinet approved that but on condition that DPSA – as a legal custodian of the function of performance assessments – issued a new policy. The current system was based on a DPSA policy; legally the current system could be changed if DPSA created a new policy. DPSA had not issued a new policy, so DPME could not implement the Cabinet decision.
The Chairperson asked if the DPSA agreed to the new guidelines, and if so, were there timeframes.
The Deputy Minister replied it was based on a decision of Cabinet; there was no issue. Then DPME proceeded with putting the matter on the APPs but unfortunately this had not happened. There were discussions between the two departments to try and identify the issues and the progress made. The matter would go to the Cabinet soon. When the Cabinet took the decision there were no time frames. Regarding norms and standards, the study would bring evidence-based information and then challenges would be shared. If the study was not undertaken, the temptation would be to resist, and give a portrayal that another sphere of government was encroaching.
Ms Kaajal Soorju, DPME Director: Human Resources, commented all officials concluded their performance agreements by the due date hence it was not included on the presentation. The reason for the turn over rate that the Department had identified was better remuneration. Five of the individuals that left the Department left because of promotion within the public service. When an analysis was done on this aspect, better remuneration often came up. The category of staff leaving was more at the lower level and because of promotion opportunities people were job-hopping. The Department had looked across departments and it was found that DPME levels were in line with the rest of the public services. Recently the Department had introduced benchmarking for the production and supervisory levels. It was hoped that this would address the challenge.
Mr Phillips said the question about National Treasury putting performance frameworks in place for other departments, as well as what could be done to improve that situation was difficult. This situation was not unique to South Africa, and DPME had been reading on how other countries addressed the issue. He said he was not aware of any country that had a solution. All countries seemed to struggle with this. Coordination should take place at the lowest level possible. But also Government should develop a culture of coordination in the public service.
He said he did not think that IT systems were the biggest challenge or the main solution. The lack of a culture of coordination was a bigger obstacle than the culture of IT. Even if there was a strong culture of IT, if there was no coordination or people working together that would not help. DPME thought the introduction of the outcomes and delivery agreements had got departments to work together more. There was evidence that the focus on outcomes had resulted in improved coordination among departments. Ministers worked together more and reported collectively to Cabinet on cross cutting issues. There were still remaining challenges; there were a lot of areas where coordination could improve.
Mr Phillips said he was not sure of the progress on municipal performance assessments, but DPME was talking to about ten municipalities with regards to piloting the implementation of the tool, but details could be forwarded to the Committee on the names of municipalities and progress. The process was complicated at municipalities because at departments it was done with DGs, but with municipalities the councils had to be involved. This was proving lengthy and complex.
Mr Snell commented that he understood that the coordination culture was important to improve any organisational progress. The current IT systems could be improved and DPME should share the view. Who drove that process within government? National Treasury set the framework of how APPs and reporting should be done; did that framework assisted the Department in anyway, and could that be improved. It was not helpful to have different systems, developed by different people, to measure DPME; the Department could not measure effectively.
The existing system was very difficult to measure. He commented that he failed to understand rationale of developing norms and standards on concurrent functions if there would still be stand-alone departments. How would this change the budgeting and how would it impact on cooperative governance? Did government have to try and force its way through the quagmire of things that were negotiated, or did it need to review the design and try to make it flow better?
The Deputy Minister commented these were complex issues, and officials could only learn from them. The norms and standards were not a DPME matter. He cited the matter of DoH, which encountered resistance from provinces when it wanted to appoint hospital CEOs. At the time there were no norms and standards around the issue. When negotiations failed, the Minister then went back to amend legislation.
He said that the IT needed to be looked at as it improved daily. Technology was advancing. Government ought to develop technology in order to exploit the advantages it brought
The Chairperson said it would be useful if the reports were also availed to the Committee. It frustrated Members that the national departments were tasked with developing policy and yet somebody else was tasked with implementation. The issues discussed were interesting, and the Committee had an interest in the work of the Department. Although the explanation on Programme 3 was welcomed, still Members needed to understand more about the functions transferred and the implications of such an action. The Committee would visit some of the pilot service delivery sites that the Department claimed to have visited.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting