Brand South Africa activities; SABC Board and Media Development and Diversity Agency Board shortlistings

Meeting report

Brand South Africa: briefing on activities
Ms Chichi Maponya, Board Chairperson, Brand South Africa, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to make a presentation on the activities of Brand South Africa (BSA). She noted that BSA had a fairly large Board, so not all Members were able to attend.

Ms Maponya recapped earlier concerns which had been raised by the Committee over the size of the Board, how South Africa was being marketed as an investment destination, and whether Brand SA was striking a balance between domestic and international efforts in the promotion of South Africa. This presentation was an attempt to address the issues raised from previous engagements and to clarify the role of Brand SA in terms of what it did and how it was done.

Brand SA was established in August 2002 and was primarily responsible for building South Africa’s Nation Brand reputation in order to improve the country’s global competitiveness. It attempted to create a positive and compelling brand image for South Africa domestically and in the international investment community. It was important that the brand should first be promoted domestically before presenting it internationally, in order to get the full support of South Africans behind the brand.

The brand was defined, according to Simon Anholt’s definition of nation branding, as the total sum of people’s perceptions of a country using six core areas which were:
- investment and immigration in terms of investment potential
- how attractive South Africa was to outsiders
- exports and the level of satisfaction with the country’s products and services
- skills and openness of the people
- culture and heritage
- governance and tourism.

Ms Maponya also stated that there was a difference between a brand and branding. The “branding” referred to the actual visual such as logo, identity and so forth. The “brand” was actually about how one felt being a South African, and what defined South Africans. Once this had been articulated it was packaged and communicated. This then allowed South Africa to tell its story the way it should be told as well as positioning the country at the desired level. In addition, it allowed for ddebunking the myth around Brand Africa and the effect on the continent as a brand. Furthermore it provided for changing perceptions and visuals that people had of Africa and South Africa. The brand equity covered the fundamentals that values were placed on and the significance attached to them. All the key areas were put together into a total sum which enabled South Africa to compete globally with other emerging economies, who also packaged their countries as a destination for investment. All the attributes needed to be put together in order to state that South Africa was a better place for investment. Again, this came back to the importance of mobilisation of domestic support behind the nation’s brand.  Having packaged the six key areas, investors could then be informed that the package ensured that trade and investment was favourable, that the products that were exported were favourable and that the products around tourism were also favourable.

The nation brand was depicted on a hexagon which was continuously tested to ensure that Brand SA was still on track as the work to be done was defined.  The hexagon depicted the key areas of:
- investment potential and attractiveness to outsiders,
- potential attractiveness and economical contribution
- competency, fair governance
- human rights
- international contribution
- commercial and cultural products and sporting prowess
- skills and openness
- level of satisfaction with the country’s products and services.

Ms Maponya stated that Brand SA’s vision was to be an authority on national identity and reputation building for the benefit of South Africa and the continent. It was hoped this would be achieved by building confidence in the future of the nation by telling an inspiring South African story. The way South Africa positioned itself was very critical, for this would set the country apart from other countries such as Venezuela, Turkey and other emerging economies. South Africa must remain globally competitive. Failure to tell the story would also pose the risk that it could be misinterpreted. The purpose of Brand SA was to ensure a sustainable future for the children of South Africa. The strategic positioning was to inspire and unify civil society, business, government and the media to build the reputation of South Africa, and contribute to its global competitiveness. All sectors were key stakeholders and active participants who must be continuously engaged in building the nation brand and the reputation of the country.

Brand SA’S mandate was mainly to contribute to the National Development Plan’s objectives of achieving economic growth, employment, positioning South Africa in the region and the world, nation building and social cohesion. Brand SA derived its programmes from the mandate by undertaking coordinated initiatives to build South Africa’s nation brand reputation to contribute to South Africa’s global competitiveness, whilst domestic programmes worked on inspiring and instilling active citizenry amongst South Africans.

Ms Maponya said that ideally there were four identified outcomes. The first was brand and message alignment to ensure that all stakeholders were speaking with one voice. Without alignment, the value of the brand would be depleted as different confusing and conflicting messages would be sent out to international potential investors and domestic supporters. The second outcome was pride and patriotism and active citizenry amongst South Africans. Brand SA engaged in a number of programmes such as “fly the flag and play your part”. The third outcome was positive positioning of SA as a competitive destination amongst targeted international and domestic audiences. The fourth was a sustainable organisation, which was important to ensure that Brand SA’s activities were sustainable.

There were six strategies that Brand SA was following. These were summarised as brand strategy development and management, reputation management, strengthened and deepened stakeholder and partner relationships, which was again emphasised as vital and encompassed those in civil society, organised business and the public sector. Strategies were insight and research which was continuously engaged in and managed and organisational development was key to ensuring that there were teams that were capable of handling the tasks as Brand SA operated in a very dynamic environment. Another critical strategy was prudent financial control and management. The strategies that Brand SA had engaged in had contributed to the broader impact of increased international competitiveness, improved international and domestic reputation as well as increased social cohesion.

Ms Maponya stated that Brand SA had five key responsibilities. The first was to develop and articulate the value proposition and positioning that would drive the long-term reputation of Brand South Africa so that the strategy became more long term and sustainable, but it must also be mindful of the fact that Brand SA was operating in a technical and dynamic environment. The second responsibility was to build awareness and the image of the brand in other countries. Brand SA worked with the private and public sector. For instance if the priority market was trade and investment, then Brand SA would work together with the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) to find brand strategies that would best position South Africa in the markets in question. In addition Brand SA would also ensure greater awareness of the offerings available in the country that made it attractive to investors as a destination for investment. The third responsibility was to build pride and patriotism amongst South Africans with the aim of uniting the nation, by encouraging all South Africans to live the nation brand, and by doing so define “South African-ness”. Having evolved from a rainbow nation, South Africa was now alive with possibilities and the by-line was that South Africa could and did inspired new ways. However, there was still a need to find what made South Africans unique and a programme had been embarked on around social cohesion and concepts of living the brand to ensure that all South Africans could identify with three or five key elements that made them proud to be South Africans. This was part of the responsibility on the domestic front. 

The fourth responsibility was to increase South Africa’s global competitiveness by developing symbiotic partnerships with all stakeholders to leverage the nation brand. For instances, tourism and dti offices would promote South Africa, respectively, for tourism and for investment. Corporate South Africa could open doors to promote exportation of South African products and services. Brand SA would work with all these stakeholders to ensure that the messaging about South Africa was the same, despite the stakeholders having different objectives. Lastly, Brand SA had a responsibility to develop and implement proactive and coordinated marketing, communication and reputation management strategies for South Africa. Coordination was important to avoid splintered and confusing messages being communicated to investors. However, through various platforms in the public and private sector it was found that the more Brand SA articulated its role of coordination the better the traction and success in delivering the message in targeted markets.

Brand South Africa had various stakeholders and targeted audiences. These were defined together with the stakeholders, in support of Brand SA’s mandate, and the objectives set out in the National Development Plan (NDP) such as increased foreign direct investment and jobs. The international community, the government, South Africans themselves and external influences were all target markets, as well as the media being a targeted audience, since how and where it communicated messages could effect perceptions about the country.  There were attempts to simplify coordination, for instance working in a unified way with the international agencies, foreign missions, trade missions, businesses at large, the diaspora, government and government departments, external trade missions and in some instances state visits as well as the media and general public. Within the government the stakeholders would be local, provincial and national government, State Owned Enterprises and entities. A municipality might have visited a city in Brazil, although a province might have visited in the previous week and a national department the week later. Brand SA’s role was to coordinate all these visits to ensure that there was consistency in the messaging, with no loss when engaging with the external world. Other influences were the academia, NGOs, small and big businesses, Faith Based organisations, professional bodies, civil society and trade unions. On the continent, Brand SA would be engaging with the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), African Union (AU), The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). The media would be engaging with businesses, both internationally and locally, on news and trade news. Civil society would be looking at youth programmes and youth organisations. The importance of “global South Africans” - the many South Africans living and working outside the country - was stressed as they had on the ground information on the perceptions and issues, and how to better position South Africa in the markets. Civil society also engaged with individuals working and living abroad.

Brand SA had embraced an integrated approach, which sought to achieve competitive national identity, at the core of which was nation brand image management consisting of the flag and unifying country branding. The flag was approved as the brand for marketing the country internationally. Now, all agencies and companies would use the flag, unlike in the past, where different logos or images were used to market and promote South Africa, which resulted in confusing messages. Trade and investment, export promotion, tourism promotion, governance policy, public diplomacy, communications, culture and heritage were also part of the integrated approach.

Ms Maponya highlighted that Brand SA reported to the Office of the Presidency, and worked closely with Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), other organised groups, businesses such as business unity South Africa (BUSA) and Civil Society. It was a continued and collaborative support that was continuously leveraged on and which Brand SA tried to grow.

Brand SA was a schedule 3A public entity, registered as a trust and was governed by a trust deed and subject to the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988, as well as the protocol on governance in the public sector. The accounting authority or board was in line with Section 49 of the Public Finance Management Act. The board of trustees was appointed by the President of South Africa for a term of three years, which was renewable. Currently there were 27 board members, mainly due to the nature of Brand SA’s work, and there was a motivation to try and have wide representation in terms of both leaders and influences of brand ambassadors. There was 22% female representation on the board. The Chief Executive Officer was supported by an Executive Committee (EXCO) comprised of executive management which was responsible for the operational and day to day management of the organisation.

The board held quarterly meetings and had three board committees: the audit and risk committee, marketing committee which was the largest, human resource and remuneration committee.

Ms Maponya said that the budget for the organisation was relatively small, compared to the work that was done by Brand SA and much more could be done with adequate finances.  In 2010, Brand SA received its highest funding due to the work that had to be done for the World Cup, but the positive message created then for the country was still having an effect.

She tabled the five year budget, for all the programmes, noting that 60 % was allocated to international programmes, and 40 % to domestic programmes (see attached presentation for details).

She added that the Board was not compensated and should be highly commended for continuously giving their time, input and strategy on how best to position the country as a destination for investment.

Discussion
The Chairperson agreed that the board members had to be commended for giving their time without compensation. He said that the Committee had expressed regret that during its term of office it had mostly dealt with strategic plans and annual reports, and had not interacted much with Brand SA despite its importance for the life of South Africans.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) said that the presentation had talked about social cohesion and noted that this was a concept discussed also in arts and culture, but did not seem to have become well-established as a concept. She asked Brand SA to state what tactics were being used to deal with social cohesion. She also asked how South Africa was branded in business. She had seen a TV programme about African models which had been filmed in a squatter camp, and expressed her concern about the negative effects on the brand, particularly since so many other places could have been used for filming. She also asked how far Brand SA popularised itself in the communities. Many people did not understand the difference between Brand SA and the Department of Tourism, and she asked what was being done to ensure that people would understand the differences. For instance, at the FNB Stadium, many people associated a sign language interpreter as being part of Brand SA.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked who the Board members were. She noted that the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation had not been briefed by Brand South Africa, and asked how it worked with embassies or foreign missions, whether through cooperation or actually having its own offices. She noted the mention of civil society but said that the logo for the brand was not visible. She asked whether, when schools were chosen to represent the South Africa on an international trip or competition, the school would contact Brand SA and offer some form of assistance. She wanted to know exactly what its role was, and whether an individual citizen travelling overseas could use Brand SA or ask for assistance. She wondered what percentage of people with disabilities was represented on Brand South Africa’s board, pointing out that people with disabilities were represented on many other international forums. She wondered also why, in those forums, Brand SA was not present.

Ms M Shinn (DA) said that the figures in the budget should be more accurate, as they seemed to be under-stated. In previous presentations, Brand SA had provided results from surveys amongst various stakeholders in countries where Brand SA operated, but this did not apply for this presentation. She asked how South Africa was perceived, in the targeted markets, as an investment destination, and what its rating was. She also asked for an indication of how the perception had been shaped over the last few years, and how, for instance, it might differ between 2010 and now. If there were differences in perceptions, she would like to hear of the cause, and whether this was reported to the Presidency to take any corrective action, or build on any good ideas.

Mr A Steyn (DA) said his questions were linked to those already asked. He was also concerned with lack of visibility of the brand, a point also stressed when Brand SA appeared before the Committee. If he had not been a Member of this Committee, he doubted that he would have known of the existence of Brand South Africa. The last time it appeared before the Committee there was information that only 1 677 people registered a “like” on a mobile application. This was an indication that not many people in the country were aware of Brand SA. He was not impressed with the presentation, and said that the news items had no real content or information associated with them, so the presentation seemed largely statistical. This was not good news in branding the country, or making Brand SA more visible and known to ordinary people.

Mr Steyn wanted clarity on what was meant by leveraging the footprints of other departments such as the dti. He would have thought there should be two way communication whereby Brand SA got and passed on information. At the end of the day Brand SA’s job was largely about perceptions, and he thought that it would be the first to pick up on it, particularly on negative perceptions, and how it dealt with these, and tried to correct the negativity. A mere shrug-off could make Brand SA’s job much harder. He acknowledged that Brand SA did have a relatively small budget, but asked what more it could be doing if it was given more financial resources.

Ms Maponya responded that most of the questions raised by members related to operational issues. In response to the question as to how Brand SA popularised itself, and why it was not a household name, she said that previously, in its former guise as the International Marketing Council, it had focused on promoting the country internationally. In 2009 the mandate changed, and that was when it, as Brand South Africa, started to look at programmes that would promote and market the country internally to every citizen of the country. Brand SA was formulated along the lines of being a thought leader, a resource base and a coordinator, so initially there was not any necessity for self-branding, as the point was not so much building a brand for itself as how it could change perceptions. With the change of mandate, however, there was a need to look at branding Brand SA itself, so that any communication, message or advertisement should carry the tag “Brought to you by Brand SA” or “in collaboration with Brand South Africa”. Brand SA continued to be a repository base from which information was extracted and used widely, but it was yet to be leveraged and claim ownership for the information. The issue of ownership had been discussed, and it was agreed that there was a need to look at how things were being done at the moment, and how they could be presented differently. Changes would be seen over time, and Brand SA would begin to brand South Africa to emphasise the differences between itself and tourism. She explained that Proudly South African would promote goods and services, that dti would promote investment into the country, and that Brand SA was the overarching nation brand.

Ms Maponya asked the board members present to introduce themselves, in response to Ms Newhoudt-Druchen’s question

Mr Miller (A) Matola, Chief Executive Officer, Brand South Africa, said that social cohesion was a mandate that spread across many public sector entities and that was also an area of focus for Brand SA. In order to achieve social cohesion there were several programmes on the ground, one of which was a programme that encouraged active citizenship amongst South Africans, with a view to creating space for greater cohesion and unity. Brand SA mostly dealt with faith-based organisations and had a number of activities with a multi denominational association. There was also a youth programme called “Shape the Future” as it was believed that youths were important as the future leaders, but also because they could contribute to greater unity and social cohesion. Brand SA worked with the Department of Education in reaching out to schools to ensure that young people understood the transition that countries went through, and the need for social cohesion. It was believed that the programme would make a difference in the long term.

Brand SA also worked to achieve alignment with a number of other role players such as the dti. Brand SA always worked in partnership with other organisations and was, for instance, currently in partnership with the National Video Foundation and the dti, in a project involving a group of film producers from the United States (US), who were trying to ensure alignment of the messages and how South Africa could be positioned as a better film location, as opposed to the traditional images of films shot in South Africa.

Mr Matola also expanded upon the question how Brand SA differed from other organisations, and said that, in relation to the GCIS, Brand SA was largely responsible for the brand of the nation or reputation of the nation, whilst GCIS would be responsible for the government brand. However, Brand SA worked with everybody. Brand SA would not have been directly involved with the interpreters.

Mr Matola noted that Brand SA did present to the Cluster from time to time when there were major projects or there were major announcements to be made. Brand SA worked very closely with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), for instance in the USA, where the office of the country manager was located within the Embassy, for reasons of cost effectiveness.

Brand South Africa clearly could not do everything, but it could in some sectors only plant the seeds and let them germinate. For example, for students who went out of the country, Brand SA provided support, in terms of messaging and information about South Africa, which others could disseminate. Sometimes there was collaboration, and for instance when the Department of Tourism had students going overseas, Brand SA would meet with them and provide them with enough information about South Africa to enable them to promote the country. Navy students who were sent to Nordic countries were provided with information about South Africa. Message sharing was done on a regular basis and business executives were also provided with information when travelling overseas.

Mr Matola said that Brand SA had not presented the results of any survey today, because it wanted more engagement with the Committee, but he did note that a recent survey had been done recently on cities, which was conducted in October, whose results still needed to be presented to this Committee. Over and above testing the general reputation of a country, there would be an international survey done every two years that tested the reputation of cities. Brand SA had entered three cities of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, for a comparison with others internationally. There had been improvements in the reputation of the cities, which implied a shift in the perceptions of the city. For instance, a few years ago, Johannesburg was rated close to Mexico City, but in the most recent rating, it was far ahead of cities in countries such as Argentina. On average the three cities moved up two places each. South Africa had been compared to fifty developed countries, and had maintained its position at number 36, rather than dropping, although many European countries had experienced a drop.

In relation to the global competitiveness survey, South Africa had dropped by one place and had been at about 53^rd or 54^th place for the past three to four years. Areas that presented a challenge were already being addressed, in the area of health or education. However, the studies showed that investors or fund managers were more interested in infrastructure development, and Brand SA had to provide objective facts, which was also one way in which Brand SA managed the country’s reputation.

Mr Matola said that Mr Steyn’s comment about the mobile application was noted. However, other online platforms showed tremendous growth and Brand SA’s website alone was ranked the best public sector website; perhaps because its platform “Media Club” allowed media to download information from that portal, including factual content submitted by experts who were writing about different aspects of the country. There was quite a lot of growth on Facebook and other social platforms, as well as the unique users on the online platforms. The mobile application would be looked into, as the idea was to make it more interactive, and to provide business people with information about South Africa.

Speaking to questions on leveraging, Mr Matola said that one programme involved a feedback loop to various stakeholders. Brand SA would share feedback on surveys, research or other third party research, with departments such as Department of Home Affairs, Education or dti, and in many cases Brand SA would be invited to provide particular support. This should be done more often. For the moment, only priority departments had been identified, but would be shared with others over time.

Ms Maponya said that Brand SA wished it could do for visibility, and have more robust programmes that would engage more extensively on the domestic market. However, when the mandate changed, the budget did not, and so Brand SA had to re-align and fit some of its domestic programmes and continental programmes within a budget set out for a different mandate.

Ms Shinn suggested that as an idea of improving the “Media Club” perhaps Brand SA should consider having a link to “Africa Check”, which was a credible site run by journalists who did fast checks on stories that were published which corrected misconceptions or urban myths.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen said that her question on representation of people with disabilities on the board had not been answered. She also asked how the testing of cities was done.

Ms Maponya said that there was one person with disabilities on the board; Mr Clayson Monyela, who was representing DIRCO.

Mr Matola said that the survey on cities was for the city brand, and it was an online survey which polled users and was documented to reach people who were travellers or had travelled to various parts of the world. Essentially the survey looked at the quality of life in the city, facilities, infrastructure, vibrancy and the culture and various amenities for all 50 cities that were part of the survey.

Mr Matola thanked Ms Shinn for the suggestion of linking to Africa Check, as Brand SA needed to expand its media club and verification was an important aspect.

Mr Steyn stated that Brand SA’s mobile application had three items. There was a photographic tribute to Madiba, which was said to cover his life, but the last photograph of Madiba was from 2006 and there was absolutely nothing about his passing. Something of such international importance should be up to date, and if the mobile application became popular, then surely most people would be visiting that feature. As a tribute to the late President, it should be completed. The 1667 ‘likes’ had related to the Facebook page.

The Chairperson asked which countries were leading in terms of nation branding, and whether Brand SA could reflect on what it was that they were doing better, aside from the budget concerns. He stated that probably these countries were doing better because of the timing of the start of their nation branding. He asked about impact of news reporting on the nation brand and social cohesion. The latter point was covered in the NDP. News headlines from overseas on South Africa tended to portray it as a country at war with itself.

Ms Maponya responded that whenever Brand SA engaged with the international community, it always pointed out on the gains and positives of South Africa, and always made a point that South Africa was its own worst enemy and this was part that needed internal mobilisation. Of course the media was engaged with, on various platforms, as to how they reported the news and their impact on the psyche of a larger society.

Mr Matola said that the online platform on Madiba was a photographic tribute done at the time of the passing of the late President, and was not meant to be an up to date chronology of his life, as selected moment were chosen. Other comments on improvement of the applications would be considered.

There were indeed a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom, US, Germany and Switzerland which were doing better than South Africa, but it was always important to note that only a few countries in Africa were participating, such as Nigeria and Kenya. One of the challenges was that South Africa first had to deal with re-branding, and people also had to be constantly educated, on continental perceptions, that the Continent was not just about war and conflict. Many countries who had moved beyond where South Africa was had ensured that their branding efforts were used to inform the grand strategy of the country. Brand SA was thus working along the lines of the NDP, and working closely with the National Planning Commission. Branding was seen as more than just a marketing activity, but it was hailed as a positive direction and came out of a feedback loop. He noted that Jordan, as an example, had not moved as much on the global community index of the 12 pillars of competitiveness, but had focused on individual elements such as education, so that it showed strides in that direction. This could have been a deliberate strategy.

Mr Matola stated that the main link between branding and national strategies and policies was communication. Countries like Germany might not have structures such as Brand SA but it had institutions that perpetuated the brand. In addition, symbols played a big role in promoting the nation brand in such countries. The media was a critical stakeholder in shaping perceptions in the country. He agreed with authors who had argued that media tended to take a shorter term view of issues and it was actually necessary to dig deeper to get a long-term view. In the other countries the media still reported but had a responsible balancing act. This could be, for instance, reporting stories of national interest rather than just focusing on the “bad news”. In all media elsewhere, countries worked very closely with their governments and reported stories that promoted the image of their countries.

Ms Maponya thanked the committee for the opportunity to make the presentation and welcomed the inputs, suggestions and comments made and that they would be taken into consideration.

The Chairperson thanked Brand South Africa, and hoped that South Africa would mature to the point where everyone would be working together to achieve the best for the country, so that Brand South Africa would be recognised even in the rural areas.

Shortlisting for the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Board.
The Chairperson informed Members that the SABC board had one vacancy, and the Committee had received 11 nominations.

Ms Morutoa said that not all Members had managed to work through all the CVs and requested that the Committee should rather deal with principles than candidates today. This would cover how many nominees would be shortlisted, and consideration of demographics.

Ms Shinn said that she felt the request was unfortunate, because there were only 11 CVs. All Members had busy party commitments, and it was unfortunate that Committee Members did not adequately prepare for meetings. She suggested that the Committee should proceed with the shortlisting, as there was not much time left, and the Committee had many pertinent issues with the SABC board itself. The day would be a total waste of time if the shortlisting was not done.

Ms Morutoa said that she did not think that anything could be put to Members’ failings, as all had been very busy with work. The request was genuine.  In addition, if the Committee were to start shortlisting now, Members would not be able to attend the afternoon session of Parliament.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee should first decide on the number of people to be invited for interviews.

Ms Shinn proposed a maximum of three people be invited for the interviews.

Ms Morutoa proposed that five people should be invited.

Mr Steyn said that perhaps the committee could hear a motivation from each proposer, given that there was one vacancy and 11 applications. He personally did not think that five were needed but would like to hear a motivation.

Ms Morutoa said that it was unfair of Mr Steyn, as a Member, to ask other Members for motivation.

Ms Shinn said that in the past, when the Committee had to find one replacement, three people were usually interviewed and she suggested that the Committee should stick to that precedent.

Mr Steyn responded that he would support three people, although he had asked for a motivation for the five.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) supported interviewing five people, saying that the SABC was a tricky board, and its scope had to be broadened. He thought interviewing three people only would make the scope too narrow.

Ms Shinn said that if ANC members had actually read the CVs they would see that very few of the candidates qualified and maintained that only three should be invited for interviews.

Ms Morutoa agreed with Mr Kekana’s points, and said that in order to do a thorough job, a wider scope of candidates should be interviewed.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen also agreed with Mr Kekana in that the scope had to be broadened, considering all the problems that the Committee experienced with the SABC.

The Chairperson noted that neither party was willing to compromise.

Ms Shinn said that she was looking at the time factor, and suggested, to resolve the issue, that the previous precedent of interviewing three people for the one post be followed.

Ms Morutoa made an inaudible remark.

Mr Kekana suggested that, to deal with the concerns that too much time would be spent on the interviews, perhaps the interview time should be reduced to between 30 and 45 minutes, for each candidate. Members had some experience in conducting interviews and could come straight to the point.

The Chairperson stated that the number of vacancies would also determine the time spent conducting the interviews. The Committee needed only to test those candidates whom they believed were capable. He asked members to reconsider the numbers proposed, and said that the Committee would also have to shortlist. He called for a vote on the interviews, which noted that two members were in favour of having three candidates, and five were in favour of shortlisting five candidates.  He noted that no Members had abstained from voting. He therefore noted that, by majority decision, five candidates would be shortlisted to fill the vacancy.

He then suggested that those parties who were ready to submit names could do so, but he would actually prefer that the names be dealt with at the next meeting.

Shortlisting for the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) Board
The Chairperson informed members that there was one vacancy on the MDA board and so far about 18 nominations had been received, but the Committee was still working on finalising the summary of the CVs. He suggested that the Committee follow the same process to decide on the shortlisting for interview.

Ms Shinn said that she had thought that the previous vote should also apply to the MDDA otherwise there was no point in going through the entire process again.

The Chairperson noted that the names would only be available on the following day.

If the shortlisting for SABC board could be finalised the next day, then probably interviews could be conducted on Tuesday 4 March 2014.

Other business: ICASA amendments

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether the Committee had received copies of the amendments proposed on the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) Amendment Bill.

The Chairperson said that the documents were being sorted out and would be distributed. He also said that he had asked that the original document that went to the NCOP should be included. He said that the venues would be communicated.

Letter from Ms Shinn
Ms Shinn said that she was wondering whether the issue that was raised in her letter to the Chairperson could be concluded. She reminded Members that the letter was asking the Committee to call the SABC board to speak to its reaction to the personnel and skills audit report. She was of the view that the Committee had a responsibility, and legal obligation, to hold the SABC board accountable. The issue had been discussed the previous week and she had understood that there would be some discussions about it between the parties, and opposition parties had assumed that by now the ANC would be ready with a decision.

Ms Morutoa asked whether Ms Shinn’s statement was a request.

Ms Shinn said that the issue had been discussed at the last meeting and each member had a copy of her letter. The matter was not concluded, and she had hoped, following the Chairperson’s recommendation at the last meeting, that the issue would have been discussed by the ANC.

Ms Morutoa said that she did not remember the ANC saying that it would be responding to the letter during the meeting. She suggested that the matter be discussed at the next meeting.

The Chairperson asked Ms Shinn if the matter could be dealt with in the next meeting, and said that the Committee did not have the previous minutes.

The meeting was adjourned.