Management Performance Assesment Tool & Integrity Management in Public Service: Department of Public Service & Administration briefing

Meeting report

Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) on results of 2013 moderated assessments on management practices in national and provincial departments

Dr Sean Phillips, Director General, Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency, gave an introduction to the presentation on 2013 moderated assessment tool.

Mr Ismail Akhalwaya, Programme Manager for the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT), DPME, presented the 2013 moderated assessment results on the quality of management practices in all 155 national and provincial departments. This was the third round of assessments they had done since they started with assessments in 2011, and the programme was greatly institutionalised within the government. A similar tool was being developed for local government, and was in its pilot phase. Further progress of the local government tool was going to be presented at the conference later in the year.

The presentation looked at the nature of DPME, and the mandate concentrated on four focus areas. The first focus area was the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of national priorities, which looked at the plans for 14 priority outcomes which were translated into the medium term strategic framework (MTSF), and how government planned to implement the National Development Plan (NDP), progress monitored against the plans, as well as evaluations on how programmes, policies, and plans were going to be improved. A number of evaluations on how things could be done better had already been commissioned.

The second focus area which the presentation concentrated on was the M&E of management performance and practices in individual departments, and municipal quality assessments -- Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) and the Local Government Management Improvement Model (LGMIM) -- and moderated self-assessment and continuous improvement.

Thirdly, the M&E of front-line service delivery looked at monitoring the experience of citizens when obtaining services at all nine provincial offices, which included a citizen-based monitoring programme, and the presidential hotline, for response analysis and follow-up with the departments in assessing whether members of the public were satisfied with the responses.

The last focus area was the government-wide M&E system, which included guidelines for M&E across government, data quality from various sources, capacity development, programme planning guidelines, management of the national evaluation system, as well as being the custodian for strategic and annual performance planning.

The reasons why management practices were assessed by DPME included the need for a capable and developmental state to achieve the NDP objectives. Weak administration was a frequent theme which led to poor service delivery, such as ARV medication shortages in some provinces and the non-payment of suppliers within 30 days. The MPAT measured whether things were done appropriately.  Departments had to be assessed against the outcomes of their strategic and annual performance plans to determine whether they were doing the right things. Importantly, MPAT looked at how the departments translated the inputs and outputs into outcomes, and how the departments met their outcomes defined within the strategic framework.

The presentation gave a background of how the MPAT was developed. The DPME, in collaboration with the Offices of the Premier and transversal policy departments -- the Office of the Accountant-General (OAG) and Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) -- had assessed the quality of management practices since 2011 to avoid the duplication of systems that already existed. The difference was that the MPAT provided a holistic view of management performance, and drew on data from other agencies. The data was used to check how the departments assessed themselves. This tool was not developed only for the external audit of management practices, but included a strong element of improvement, self-assessment by departments themselves, and learning. Its methodology was based on how the departments undertook to diagnose themselves in determining what the problem was and what measures or plans should be put in place to rectify identified challenges. The tool was also based on international good practice for departmental performance management and assessments. MPAT was designed to go beyond compliance, by determining whether a department was making an impact with regards to service delivery within the department in complying, and if management used collected data towards service delivery improvement.

MPAT used four well-defined levels of assessment based on existing legal frameworks, and most of them originated from the Public Service Act or the Public Finance Management Act.  Level 1 meant that the department was not compliant with legal or regulatory prerequisites in a particular area of management; level 2 indicated there was partial compliance, but not full competence with legal requirements from the department; level 3 showed full compliance with legal or regulatory requirements; and level 4 looked beyond compliance with legal frameworks, by assessing whether departments were doing things smartly. Overall, the tool was developed to get all departments to level 4. He commented that the departments invited to the presentation had reached level 4 in some standards.

MPAT measured 31 standards in four key performance areas (KPAs) that were used to assess 155 departments. Mr Akhalwaya referred to examples on page 40 of the Appendix 1 booklet. These were related to service delivery improvement mechanisms within public service regulations. The standards required, as per the legal framework, that departments had an approved service charter, delivery standards and improvement plans, and adhered to these standards in order to improve services. The standards were developed in collaboration with the DPSA.  For level 1, the department did not have a service charter and standards (non-compliance). At level 2, department had a draft service charter and service standards, and allocated itself a score of level 2 because it was self-assessment. Documents had to be produced to show that there was physical evidence of service charter and standards. At level 3, the department had an approved service charter, service standards and service delivery improvement plan (SDIP), and evidence of these had to be produced. This meant the department consulted stakeholders or service recipients regarding service standards and the SDIP, and evidence of the consultation with the recipients had to be produced. The department also had to display its service charter, as required by legislation. Level 4 required that the department met all the requirements of level 3, and additionally monitored compliance to service delivery standards on a quarterly basis, that management considered monitoring reports for better decision-making processes, and reports were used to inform improvements to business processes to ensure that targets were met.

There were four KPAs that the DPME assessed. Firstly, strategic management was concerned with the department’s ability to develop strategic plans that contributed to government’s overall strategies and that it understood the sector’s external environment in which it operated. Annual performance planning was concerned with the departments’ ability to develop coherent performance plans and how these clearly indicated “smart” and measurable targets, and monitoring and evaluation looked at whether DPME had systems in place to monitor data collection-related work, and if data was verifiable from these systems.

Secondly, governance and accountability looked at service delivery improvement. This referred to how management structures functioned within the department -- were there clear terms of reference when management committees met and if they took decisions, did they follow up on them? Accountability and ethics covered whether senior members completed financial disclosure forms annually, if these were checked to see if correct information was given, and if there was any conflict of professional and personal interests. Was there a functioning internal audit within the department and, if so, did management check audits? Was risk management to determine if financial and human resource delegations in place?  In the area of governance there were the information communication technology (ICT) arrangements and promotion of access to information — did departments have processes in place to respond to the requirements of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).

Human resource management looked at standards related to HR strategy and planning, whether HRwas strategically positioned, what skills were needed in an organization, the long-term needs of some professionals in particular areas, and HR practices and administration.  Important was performance management which distinguished if there departments that had performance agreements for staff from level 1 to 12, senior management, Heads of Department (HODs), if there were bi-annual assessment performances, consequences for poor performance and how that was addressed, what rewards were given for good performance, and employee relations with other departments.

The financial management performance area included supply chain management -- payment of suppliers by the departments -- and management accountability for unauthorised and wasteful expenditure, and if there were mechanisms and to identify and correct this.

There were three phases of assessment within the DPME, such as self-assessment and validation, external moderation and feedback, and the improvement and monitoring phase. The process showed how the assessment phases were different from those of the Auditor-General. Under self-assessment and validation, there was a senior management agreed score, where the DPME expected that the department’s senior management, under the HOD leadership, went through all 31 standards, scored themselves, and provided evidence for their scoring. A web-based system had been developed, to enable departments to upload their evidence to the DPME. An internal audit certified processes and checked if evidence provided by the department was sufficient, and there was an electronic sign off by the HOD. The cut-off was September every year. The second assessment phase was referred to as external peer moderation and feedback, because the DMPE used experienced public servants from other departments for particular standards and areas of management. The public servants were allocated departments to assess and were not remunerated for their work. They looked at the evidence provided and how departments scored themselves. It included DPME/OTP feedback to department and external moderation, which allowed departments to clarify issues that were not communicated prior to and during the assessment. The feedback was done through the DPME and Offices of the Premier. Therefore, the phases allowed for re-scoring and re-moderation of the departments. The main intention was to allow the department to start implementing improvement plans. Within the improvement and monitoring phase, there was a department improvement plan based on the score. After the department has discussed the 31 standards assessed, they need to start with the improvement plan, and the evidence received would reveal if the assessed department had carried this out. The whole process was managed by professional civil servants, and no consultants were involved.

The 2013 assessment results revealed evidence of improvements when compared to 2012 results through most departments. Nonetheless, there were still some management areas that did not show any significant improvement, and these required urgent attention. The DMPE had documented good practices as from 2011 to help departments improve their management practices. Over 35 good practice case studies were listed on the DPME website. The case studies were from different provinces and departments, and showed how it was possible for departments to reach level 4.

The strategic management KPA analysis focused on Annual Performance Plans (APPs) and Monitoring and Evaluation, which had declined from 2012. However, the bar had been raised in 2013 for standards in levels 3 and 4. The requirement was that the department should have achieved at least 80% of their targets in their APPs, with no findings by AGSA on the relevance, reliability and quality of reports against objectives that were pre-determined in the APP for level 4.

In the 2013 assessments, 43% of departments had scored between level 1 and 2 for APP standards, which meant their APPs were non-compliant with Treasury regulations and guidelines and management did not regularly engage with the quarterly progress report. Coincidentally, 43% of the departments scored at level 1 or 2 did not comply with the M&E standard, which meant they did not have standardised processes for the collection, management and storage of data. The implication was that departments struggled to set realistic performance targets and accurately report achievements against them.

Case studies focused on eight standards. Examples of departments that scored at level 4 for both standards (APP and M&E) were illustrated. The departments were the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism. These departments documented M&E processes and policies, had systems to collect, store and verify data in place, and programme managers understood the importance of M&E to assist them with evidence-based decision making, and that M&E was not there merely for compliance sake. The challenge in some departments was that M&E was done and reports were submitted, but managers did not engage with the reports -- so how could there be improvement in their delivery? Actual calculations of departments at levels 1 and/or 2 were shown to the Committee, and the findings correlated with what was found, based on pre-determined objectives.

In the KPA analysis of governance and accountability, 70% (79% in 2012) were at level 1 or 2, below the compliance level for the service delivery improvement standard. This poor performance raised questions about the appropriateness of the Service Delivery Planning Framework issued by DPSA in terms of the Public Service Regulations. The DPME was in discussions with the DPSA to review the regulations for the standards and the provision of support for departments to comply. In addition, 73% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 on the standard related to the PAIA act.

Service delivery improvement standard case study lessons focused on the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development. It was found that national departments were still non-compliant with DPSA requirements under the regulations for Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIPs) compliance. Regardless of effective service delivery in relation to issuing identity documents and passports, the DHA still scored at level 1. Regulations governing this area needed to be revisited. However, EC Department of Rural Development scored at level 4, and had good practice in respect of consultation between farmers and front line extension workers on the setting of service standards.

Risk and fraud management standards focused on the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) and the North West Department of Agriculture, which both scored at level 4. It was found that the DMR had a buy-in from top management by allocating a Chief Director (CD) as a risk champion in each branch, and Deputy Director Generals (DDGs) assessed how they managed risk. Subsequently, that provided a successful integration of management into their daily work and departmental functioning. On the other hand, NW Agriculture had its function for managing and responding to risks that emerged located in the HoD’s office. In most provinces, this function was centralised. The department carried out good practice in terms of how issues relating to risk and fraud were communicated via the staff newsletter.

Analysis of human resource management KPAs disclosed that 65% of all 155 departments (74% in 2012) scored at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to organisational design. A further 82% of departments (88% in 2012) scored at level 1 or 2 for the HR planning standard and the area was noted as an area that had to be revisited. Only two departments scored at level 3 and 4 for the diversity management standard. The Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) was the only department in all 155 departments that scored at level 4.  Also, 90% of departments (88% in 2012) achieved level 1 or 2 for standards related to the management of disciplinary cases.

Lessons from case studies for organisational design standards focused on the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Northern Cape (NC) Department of Social Development. Both achieved level 4 for this standard. The DOE took its time in implementing the necessary organisational changes and was aware of the significance of staff consultation. NC Department of Social Development used the DPSA guide and toolkit on organisational design effectively, and ensured that the department was positioned to implement its War on Poverty Programme. They were effective in the decentralisation and delegation of responsibilities their regional offices. As a result of the department’s approach, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) was reduced by 30% in De Aar.

Lessons from case studies for the recruitment and retention standard showed that GCIS and the NC Department of Roads and Public Works achieved level 4. As mentioned, GCIS was the only department that met equity targets, and vacancies were filled within two months due to their excellent monitoring and tracking system. The Department had good practice in how interviews were conducted, and analysed why staff was leaving the organisation. For the management of disciplinary cases, the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) and the KwaZulu Natal (KZN) Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA) scored at level 4. It was found that the DMR had good practice in creating staff awareness about what constituted misconduct, especially when people were not well informed in that regard. The department’s managers were empowered to manage their disciplinary case processes, and they were resolved within the prescribed 90 days. The KZN EDTEA completed all its cases within 90 days through effective collaboration with other provincial departments, which assisted with the chairing of disciplinary hearings. They also had clearly documented processes in place.

The analysis of financial management KPAs revealed that 87% of departments achieved levels 1 or 2 for the standard that related to payment of suppliers. Commendably, the bar in the standard was raised to the level 3 prerequisite of paying suppliers within 30 days, according to PFMA regulations. Not paying suppliers negatively affects cash flow and small business sustainability. It also appeared that 50% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to the management of unauthorized, irregular and wasteful expenditure. Under this standard, the DPME wanted to ensure that there were mechanisms to detect irregular and unauthorized expenditure, and prevention strategies in place. The payment of suppliers’ standard looked at the DOE and NC Social Development Department, which scored at level 4. The DOE’s buy-in from the Director General drove the improvement process, and issues were frequently monitored by all management structures. The NC Social Development Department, through leadership commitment, implemented useful decentralised delegations and managed to pay suppliers in five days. Staff non-compliance was managed by means of effective disciplinary procedures. Tracking and monitoring systems needed to be put in place to ensure that invoices were attended to and suppliers paid on time.

Mr Akhalwaya showed a summary snapshot of all national departments’ ranking order that was based on the number of level 4s achieved by departments.  The DTI and the Department of Science and Technology were at the top.

An overview of the ranking order of the nine provinces and national departments in their performance against KPAs in 2013 was provided. It provided information on how provinces were ranked in relation to each other and departments.  Western Cape Province performed well when compared to other provinces. Limpopo showed significant improvement from the last assessment.

This overview assessed the quality of management practices, and did make conclusions on whether departments were doing the right thing, or met their outcomes. The DPME worked in collaboration with the University of Witswatersrand (Wits) School of Governance, which helped with the writing of case studies and statistical data correlations. Data generated by MPAT was compared to other data, such as that from AGSA and the DPSA. The analysis against external criteria revealed that HR-related standards were very important in achieving results in terms of the AG’s indicator of meeting more that 80% of APP performance targets. The findings also indicated that the stability of senior management service, such as DGs and DDGs that occupied offices for more than three years, correlated recurrently with various MPAT standards.

Mr Akhalwaya concluded by providing the main points:

- There had been improvements from 2012-2013. In 2013, 69 of 155 departments were evaluated as compliant in at least half of the measured standards, when compared to 59 in 2012. Average scores for national departments and seven provinces had increased since the 2012 assessment, with a decline in Free State and Mpumalanga provinces.

- Areas where more than 50% of the departments did not meet legal requirements included SDIP, fraud prevention, HR planning, organisational design, diversity management, senior management service in the Department of Performance Management (PMD), HoD Performance Management Development System (PMDS), disciplinary cases, payment of suppliers, and unauthorised and wasteful expenditure.

- National Treasury, DPSA and the Department of Justice (DoJ) needed to review their regulatory frameworks or provide additional support where most departments showed non-compliance with legal frameworks.

- Some departments scored at level 4 for all standards, which implied that it was possible for all departments to reach level 4 for all standards. The DPME, in collaborated with Wits School of Governance, had documented and disseminated case studies of departments that had achieved level 4, in order to assist other departments to improve.

- Executive authorities and accounting officers had to work towards ensuring that their departments implemented improvement plans to reach level 4 for all standards.

- Portfolio Committees needed to interact with their departments with regards to improvement plans.

Discussion

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) sought clarity on why one of the pages in the book that was handed out was classified “secret”, if it was developed for public servants. Quality management came at a cost, and there were departments that struggled to deliver on their basic mandate. Who carried the cost of the entire process within the departments, and to what extent did the process focus on departments’ core mandates, since the PMAT measured different key performance areas? If the EC Rural Development Department performed well, real action must have taken place on the ground. He sought an explanation on how they had managed to get the right balance.  He asked how the results were interpreted, especially since Gauteng province was thought to be well-resourced in terms of HR. He asked what value could be attached to the course that had been developed by the DPME.

Mr S Motau (DA) referred to the ranking order that highlighted that Western Cape was the best performing province in 2012 and 2013, whereas the Free State and Mpumalanga provinces had shown a decline. He asked what the Western Cape was doing right that Free State and Mpumalanga struggled with.

Ms V Mente-Nqweniso (EFF) expressed surprise that the department in the Eastern Cape had achieved level 4, as outlined in the MPAT. She asked about the department’s location in the EC, what actions they had put in place to achieve the highest level. She was of the view that outsourcing and equity issues were main reasons why most departments scored at level 1 or 2. She asked if the greatest contributing factor to level 1 or 2 scores of the departments was outsourcing which ended up not being monitored correctly. Nepotism also contributed to departments’ failure to reach the targeted goals of 2% of disabled people and gender equity, due to lack of careful monitoring systems which led to the employment of unqualified families and friends in departments. Law enforcement services in the country contributed to the achievement of level 1 or 2, because people were employed based on their physical abilities, and then given higher positions within the organization for which they were not qualified. On the performance management tool used by public services, she asked if the DPSA had the correct assessment tool and if they correctly monitored their own quarterly assessment before they presented it to the DPME.

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) expressed concern about a methodology which largely relied on a questionnaire. He asked what the effect of the methodology was, and if it would not have been an option to engage with the departments first, as opposed to sending tools which they used to assess themselves. What ways had to be adopted that encouraged good practice across departments, so that the outcome was a process, and where a level 4 achievement was not seen as an “event” based on self-assessment. Some municipalities did report on Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plans (SDBIPs), and he asked if that was the information provinces relied, on since the local government was not yet involved. If the process was completed by September, did it leave enough time for departments and provinces to receive feedback on their weak areas before their financial year ended? He asked how they aligned the report with the fiscal year. He sought clarity on whether the rankings meant that an individual in the WC was the best in terms of performance, and someone from the FS was the worst. The situation which may have made the WC to appear as the best performing province was the historical context of all the provinces, whereby the FS -- as a former homeland -- had a disadvantaged political administration. He asked if those historical contexts had no influence on the situation and problems faced by the worst performing provinces, when tools such as MPAT were applied to improve service delivery.

Mr M Dirks (ANC) said that he was happy about the assessment tool project that had been piloted, and hoped for future feedback from the Department. He also hoped that the pilot project would be expanded to local government, which was the core of service delivery. He asked what the government desired to achieve with the MPAT as a holistic tool in dealing with the concerns raised by the public. He was satisfied that the MPAT which would assist the ANC to build professional public servants and improve service delivery in respect of administration and efficient government.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) suggested that provinces that performed well should interact with provinces that “underperformed”. She asked how departments that scored a level 3 managed to achieve their results as indicated by the graphs and rankings, because government approved their business plans. She mentioned that there had been a statement that legally they were not supposed to deal with local government, but there were mechanisms to phase in their intentions regarding incoming ministerial committees, intergovernmental relations, and the role of the Premier’s Office. She asked if the WC had started at the same time as the other provinces, or not.

Dr M Cardo (DA) wanted to know how the MPAT results translated into improved behaviour. What plans were in place to address deficiencies? He referred to the point that 90% of the departments were non-compliant for the management of disciplinary cases and financial management, and which indicated that 87% of the departments were non-compliant with standards required for the payment of suppliers. On the medium term strategic framework for the next five years, he asked what plans were in place to provide clear delegations and the introduction of standards of administration within departments.

The Chairperson noted that the Department of Military Veterans performed worse than other departments. Since the MPAT was a public document, she asked how it was going to be communicated to members of the public, and how the DMPE made sure the information was not biased. She sought an explanation from DPME as to why they had not performed as well as some other departments, when MPAT was their own product.

The Chairperson expressed her concern about the many departments, which included the DMPE, that were not compliant with the PAIA. She asked why this was the case and if they had the capacity to address the issues raised by Committee members, as well as whether they were able to check if work was done properly on the ground, since the document reflected what was happening in the real world.

The Chairperson asked if they had HR capacity. if they would visit local governments based on challenges faced, or if they looked at the municipalities that were doing well. She expressed satisfaction with improvements at national departments and provinces, and hoped for more improvements, particularly with the DPME. She noted that 50% of the departments did not comply with the legal requirements. 

The Chairperson welcomed the collaboration of the DMPE with the Wits School of Governance, the Auditor General and the Public Service Commission.

Dr Phillips apologised for the fact that there was a page marked “secret” in Appendix 1 that should have been taken off, but explained that the documents had gone to the Cabinet recently, where they had been classified as secret, and said that it was an error on their side.

The DPME monitored various things across government and they could not monitor everything within government departments with a single tool.  Different monitoring mechanisms needed to be put in place. The MPAT monitored the quality of management practices within national departments and provinces in terms of legal or regulation frameworks, but MPAT did not monitor actual outputs on the ground for departments -- a different mechanism was used to monitor outputs. It was possible that departments could have efficient and good management practices, but were doing things wrongly. They did not measure whether departments were doing right or wrong things on the ground. He cited the reasons that the MPAT was informed by the NDP, which stressed the importance of having a capable and developmental state, and said that most service delivery issues across departments related to backroom management practices that were missing in some departments. For example, the late payment of suppliers, after 30 days, was due to weak administrative management processes within those departments where there was no tracking system to check if invoices were paid or not because of PFMA regulations or requirements. Weak administrative processes contributed to inefficiency in service delivery.

Dr Phillips said that MPAT attempted to achieve various things. Since the DPME was in the Presidency and collaborated with Offices of the Premier, they wanted to send a strong message to departments about the importance of getting basic administration right for effective service delivery. They wanted to support departments in order to improve.  It was not internal audit. The Department wanted to ensure that management in the departments looked at the standards and assessed themselves, so that they owned the assessment results. With case studies, they were trying to get departments to improve the quality of their management practices. The DPME found that often weaknesses within departments were not deliberate, and different factors influenced their areas of weakness.

On the EC Department of Rural Development, he emphasized that the tool was not developed to assess whether this department impacted the lives of EC residents on the ground, but monitored services through the outcomes management system for backroom management practices, and performance was measured through service delivery on the ground, not just backroom management practices. They also found that in departments that had good management practices, the HoD paid careful attention to issues that emerged in the department. Senior managers in some departments were of the view that some issues were not strategic, and minor issues were addressed by lower level officials. As a result, these departments were most likely to have a weak performance. All provinces had an HoD’s forum, which was a meeting between the DGs and provincial HoDs, and provinces that performed better had the MPAT assessment and improvement of their management practices as items that they included in their HoD forum agenda, and provincial DGs actively drove the process of getting their departments to improve in terms of the MPAT. National departments also had a forum of DGs. 

The DPME had a web-based automated system and in 2011, departments were involved throughout the whole process, and they were also invited to top management meetings with other departments in assisting them to improve. Fortunately, most departments were familiar with the automated system, which enabled them to do their assessments and upload physical evidence documents of their management practices, and they still engaged with departments on assessment results and communicated with departments that did not provide adequate information and scores. The AG checked documents provided by departments to see if they had carried out their responsibilities. The DPME had the capacity, by using moderating teams, to check the documents provided by departments to motivate whether they had complied with the standards.

Dr Phillips replied that SDIPs had to be put in place by the national and provincial government regarding public service regulations. Due to different legal frameworks which covered management issues for national, provincial and local governments, the DPME had to develop a different tool to be used by municipalities.  This looked at SDBIPs at the municipal level, and the tool had been in its pilot phase since 2013, where ten municipalities had been assessed.  There was a target to assess 20 more during the 2014/15 financial year, using the municipal assessment tool. The tool was designed to assess compliance with local government legislation (Municipal Systems Act), and service delivery factors in local governments, to assess the quality of service delivery in terms of roads, water supply, sanitation, and waste removal. Results would look at service delivery on the ground. The DPME did not have sufficient capacity in terms of municipal assessment to monitor everything, though applications for more budget to employ staff hads been submitted and had not been a success because government was constrained financially. He said that the department planned to have a total of 200 staff members. However, the problem had been resolved by joining forces with key departments in that regard. For example, the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCoG) nationally had a responsibility in terms of local government legislation, to monitor local government, and DCoG provincially had to monitor local municipalities. The DPME had to make sure that they did not duplicate any work done by departments they partnered with, and that it did not place burden on the municipalities. They used the capacity of DCoG by training their staff on how to monitor local government, and how to use the municipal assessment tool.

Dr Phillips noted it was the first time the DPME had compared moderated results from 2012. Although there was not a huge improvement, it was evident that SDIPs were showing improvement as a result of the assessment process, towards improving administration across government. The DPME hoped that the process had an influence, since the Presidency and Offices of the Premier emphasized accountant officers paying more attention to fixing basic administration and performance, and trusted that case studies provision, through departments engaging with them, would help improve behaviour. Other departments, such as the DPSA, were involved in programme on how the capacity of departments to handle disciplinary cases could be strengthened, as that was a crucial weak area.

On payment of suppliers, National Treasury (OAG) had implemented different initiatives, such as issuing an instruction which required all departments to submit a monthly report on the issue of non-payment of suppliers. At a recent director’s meeting, the DG in the Presidency called for departments that performed well, such as the NC Department of Social Development, to present what they were doing to perform well in their areas of management, and DGs of departments that were not performing well also presented their cases on the payment of suppliers. They were available to present the results to other Portfolio Committees to improve service delivery and increase MPAT scores.

Mr Akhalwaya commented that they were seeing interactions between departments. The DPME produced a list of all departments that scored at level 4. If a department struggled in a particular area, they could call the departments that performed and ask how they reached level 4. Nonetheless, that action reduced DPME’s dependence on consultants, and interactions between departments were encouraged. Full reports with annexures were published on the DPME website. Regarding DPME scores, the MPAT was strict to the extent that if a department missed one standard, it put them in the position of being on level 1.

Dr Phillips said that the whole assessment process was completed by September, which included engagements with departments on moderation. The departments had time to put in place their improvement plans and obtain their improvements before the next assessment cycle.

Mr Akhalwaya commented that when departments completed their assessments, they had to start immediately with their improvement plans. The process cost was minimal to the department, because the DPME made use of officials within the department.  Therefore there were no additional costs, because the process was incorporated within the work of corporate services which helped them with the management of documents, since all the evidence was in one place.  This also assisted the AGSA when it needed evidence.

The Chairperson gave members an opportunity to ask further questions, but said the DPME could respond in writing.

Mr Dirks expressed his concern on the five-day pay plan, and sought clarity from the DPME in that regard.

Ms Lesoma supported the Chairperson’s point that “underperforming” departments had to be called in, and ways found to assist them. She asked how the assessment was linked to performance bonuses, and was of the view that it should have an impact on the payment of bonuses.

Mr Ntombela asked if it was possible for the assessment cycle to be shortened, to allow for immediate implementation after the completion of assessment process. He was of the view that it would give them an opportunity to see the results.

The Chairperson apologized for the fact that departments that the DPME had invited to the meeting were not given an opportunity to speak in terms of their good practices, but opened a platform for one representative from one of the best performing departments.

Dr Phillips suggested that the Department of Social Development (DSD) brief the Committee on their five-day plan.

The Chief Financial Officer, NC DSD, said that they had general challenges within the department, but they had put systems in place in order to monitor the issuing of orders to service providers, the tracking of time from when the order was issued and when services were delivered, and tracked when the invoice was received up until the time it was paid. They were doing monthly internal reports, but also to the management. She said that their HoD took things seriously. There had been a regression with regards to payment of service providers, and they had needed to account for that. Staff members had been effective in paying within the specified period. It required strong commitment at all levels. They had implemented internal controls, but also had a tracking system in place. The department had a shortage of staff to deal with these challenges daily, and it took hard work and commitment from everyone in the organization.

The Chairperson commented that most government departments were challenged with paying suppliers on time.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked how they overcame the challenges that many departments were struggling with, and if the five-day period was measured when they received invoices.

The CFO said they had decentralised their process and delegated authority to their district offices. The five-day clock started immediately when the invoice reached the department. They had a tracking system in place before the five-day started, for tracking orders from the day they were issued, but the department had some challenges in that regard where they placed orders but they were not delivered in time. She said that there were people who were responsible to call, follow-up and ensure that services were rendered and done before time. After a service was rendered, they were also responsible to call and ask for an invoice. Overall, invoices were captured in the register when they arrived, and should also be authorised within that period.

The Chairperson recommended that the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, in the next report, needed to improve from level 1. She thanked the DPME for the informative presentation.

Department of Public Service and Administration on Ethics and Integrity Management

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director General, Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), gave an introduction to the presentation which focused on measures that DPSA had introduced, which ranged from enabling policy frameworks, guidelines that were put in place, as well as proposals that were made in the promotion of ethics and integrity management in the public service. He said that the presentation spoke to the new measures that they were introducing which had been presented to the Committee before -- about the eDisclosure system and responses received from departments. In 2014, they had tried get departments to utilise the eDisclosure system, although it was not a legal prerequisite. The responses encouraged DPSA and showed that they were on the right track in getting the public to use eDisclosure for the purpose of supporting ethics and integrity management.

Mr Kenny Govender, Deputy Director General: Governance, DPSA, presented on the ethics and integrity management in DPSA. The presentation focused largely on the Public Sector Integrity Management Framework (PSIMF) that was introduced in 2013, and aimed to address gaps that were identified within DPSA in that regard. There was a need for the Department to move towards ethics and integrity management. On an international scale, it was found that corruption multiplied in places where infrastructure in terms of ethics was weak and ineffective. There was a need to go beyond legal compliance and mere prevention of fraud, corruption and misconduct. DPSA wanted to create a firm and clear infrastructure around the management of ethics and integrity, in order to reduce corruption within the public service. South Africa’s response was clearly enunciated in the National Development Plan (NDP), and found its expression in the National School of Government.

The overview included the work done by DPSA in the past, which involved the introduction of public service regulations that governed corruption and anti-corruption management; the Minimum Anti-Corruption Capacity (MACC) requirements and introduced the concept “Ethics Champion,” which did not have a rigid infrastructure. and they had wanted to address that as a department. They had introduced a Public Service Anti-Corruption Strategy which was formulated in 2002 as a holistic approach to fight corruption within the public service. A number of legal tools were introduced after the corruption strategy. MACC and the Public Service Anti-Corruption Strategy focused on key elements in fighting corruption, such as the prevention aspect, detection of corruption, investigation, and resolution. They were currently busy with the PSIMF and Public Administration Management Bill, and how DPSA responded in addressing public service misconduct management. DPSA did not introduce new approaches, but their present work consolidated and strengthened the initiatives regarding anti-corruption requirements and closed the identified gaps.

The PSIMF was approved in October 2013 by the Cabinet. This framework was introduced because of non-compliance with current prescripts. There was weak administration and there were gaps in legal prescripts. PSIMF focused on four key areas:

- ensuring that an ethics infrastructure was established at department level to reduce corruption;

- strengthening the disclosure of employees’ financial interests, which included the introduction of the eDisclosure system, which DPSA wanted to be compulsory;

- clearly defined acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits by employees; and

- addressing the performance of other remunerative work.

DPSA wanted to strengthen the ethics infrastructure. It was important to create an environment in which it was not easy for corruption to take place. In order for that infrastructure to be effective, it needed good leadership, support and buy-in from other senior management in the organisation. The Executive Committee needed to lead the entire process. The HoD was the ethics custodian of the department. The ethics champion needed to chair the ethics committee, to drive ethics and anti-corruption initiatives, with an ethics committee providing oversight and an ethics office for

DPSA consulted with government and administration clusters in the disclosure of financial interests by employees. The intention was to extend the disclosure of financial interests to all public service employees, but 10 000 of 1.2 million employees were reached currently. They had looked at the process to amend the regulations, to ensure that all public servants disclosed, the system had been updated to manage it, and the infrastructure was in place to support it. Through regulations, they wanted to clarify that if an employee whose spouse, partner, business associate, or close family member acquired direct benefit from a contract with their department, they should have disclosed the benefit in writing to the Ethics Officer and withdrawn from participating in the process that related to that contract.

Acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits included that employees were prohibited from directly or indirectly accepted gifts, hospitality or private benefits of any value from any person that was contracted to the employees’ department. DPSA partnered with Chief Procurement Officer in the National Treasury to prohibit service providers to offer gifts to employees or significant others in return for other benefits. Gift prohibitions excluded tokens that were acceptable within normal standards of courtesy by any entity.

On remunerative work outside the public service, DPSA intended to issue a directive which established a very clear process for consideration through executive authorities (the Ministers and MECs) before they made a decision to approve an employee’s application to work outside the public service. Executive authorities would assess whether the outside work interfered with the employee’s productivity and performance functions by considering the nature and extent of the work undertaken, the time required for outside work, and the employee’s performance record. Approval would be granted through regular reviews. If outside work was with the state, approval would be withdrawn. Every application was limited to 12 months, but DPSA wanted to introduce a transition period, because many public service workers had received approvals.

He said that in the disclosure of financial interests by the employees, there was going to be an electronic submission of financial disclosures. The official roll-out of the eDisclosure system for SMS members began in 2014. The disclosure had been amended because a new category of registrable interests was added. He said that eDisclosure was not a full lifestyle audit.  The Department intended to prevent public servants from receiving gifts, unless if they followed normal standards and processes as already indicated. There would be amendments of chapters 2 and 3 (financial disclosure framework) of the Public Service Regulations.

The Department looked forward to the Public Administration Management Bill, which addressed a number of key areas. In the absence of legislation, a lot of work had been done by DPSA, which had worked with other government departments to provide support for intergovernmental relations and other issues related to implementation at local government level with DCoG.  Financial disclosure was going to be a requirement of law in terms of chapter 3 of the Act. It looked at gifts, remunerative work, verified submissions of electronic financial disclosures, as well as the Ethics, Integrity, Disciplinary Technical Assistance Unit (EIDTAU) in chapter 6. EIDTAU intended to assist with problems involving the management of discipline at the departmental level, and the challenges relating to meeting the 90 day time frame. Together with legal and labour relations experts, DPSA wanted to help and support departments in eradicating the backlog of suspensions.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that 12 departments were not doing well in terms of ethics.

Dr Cardo said the NDP recommended three major steps to manage accountability and integrity management in the public service. These were an accountability framework that linked the liability of individuals to public service responsibilities, restrictive rules which governed the business interests of public servants, and a “javelin throw” for politicians and public servants. He asked whether the NDP’s proposed accountability framework was the same as the integrity management framework.  If so, did they have a clear scheme of measures for public servants who were non-compliant with the presented framework? He noted the information of financial disclosure of interests, and mentioned that the OPSC reported in March 2014 that senior management from 17 national departments had failed to submit and meet the deadline for their financial disclosure forms. What sanctions did DPSA propose for financial non-disclosure and how did they plan to enforce them? He asked how they dealt with “javelin throwing” practices, where public servants used their offices to set up further business opportunities, and what plans there were to prevent corrupt officials moving around the public service. What plans had DPSA in place to extend the scope of the current Protected Disclosures Act (also known as whistle-blowing legislation) to other bodies, except for the Public Protector and AGSA, as recommended by the NDP, and how were measures strengthened to ensure whistle blowers’ security? He asked if DPSA would be able to tell how many public servants were currently on suspension, and also asked them to expand on plans to manage disciplinary cases, citing that MPAT had found that 90% of departments were non-compliant with service standards, as per DPME’s presentation.

Mr Motau referred to implementation of the eDisclosure system by SMS members. He noted that the presentation struck a cautionary note, and asked whether information provided could be used. He sought clarity whether the disclosure was about financial interests only, or considered other interests.

Mr Van der Westhuizen raised three issues. He asked about part-time councillors who were public servants. He sought clarity over disclosure, because in the past, financial disclosure forms required people to declare their interests, but forms were largely on debts and loans. He asked about labour unions’ response on the proposed integrity measures, and if DPSA got full cooperation from all organised labour.

Ms Mente asked that, where a case of non-compliance to ethics was found, what disciplinary procedures were going to be applied in cases where public sector employees at the lowest level were not informed about the principle of  not accepting or receiving cash at work. Most of the DPSA presentation differed with the Public Service Act. She was of the view that they could not apply amendment mechanisms that the DPSA had come up with, which Public Service Act allowed. Since DPSA identified the need for amendment, she asked when they planned to make the amendments so that the presentation could also be implemented. She asked what the diagnosis of unethical public servants was, citing the reason that public servants were paid low incomes, which made it easier for them to accept bribes.  She was of the view that low incomes contributed to some public servants, though unjustifiable, being unethical.  Suspensions were a result of incomplete application of ethics, and she asked if ethics were communicated to the lowest level of the public service, and if communication was not an issue surrounding the suspensions.

Mr Ntombela asked if there were any cases of public servants involved in fraud and misconduct that affected the image of state and public services, and if so, what actions were taken. He asked if DPSA was able to assure that the ethics infrastructure was tamperproof. He asked if there was any mechanism in place to examine areas that were designated as Ethics Champion, Ethics Offices, and Ethics Committee members in office.  What standard was used to assess them?

Mr Dirks said that problems were greater at the local government level, and was of the view that financial disclosure had to focus at local government, where service delivery was implemented. He commented that most national government levels were on the right path, hence the need to focus on local and provincial governments. He mentioned that public servants getting paid inadequate salaries were not an excuse to engage in corruption.

The Chairperson referred Mr Dirks to Chapter 3, which clearly defined how local, provincial, and national governments were interrelated.

Ms Lesoma commented that the NDP addressed what the Chairperson had alluded to. On integrity, she asked if they zoomed in on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to report directly to some of the committees of government at the national level. She hoped that DPSA would communicate with them on the issue of intensive consultation, by visiting public servants at lower levels when it was appropriate. She asked what action was taken in cases where public servants were found doing remunerative work without permission, saying that senior management filled in forms for permission to engage in other remunerative work but they were not signed nor attended to, and asked if DPSA took note of persons who were public servants but had businesses on the side.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) asked if the framework was already in use, because a lot needed to be done to it. It focused on public servants that were already in the system, and not about persons whose applications had been submitted to the state. She said the framework could have focused and assessed individuals that were entering the system.  She believed that was what cleaning the system entailed, and asked how DPSA was going to examine people that entered the public service sector, bearing in mind what the constitution said. However, she somehow understood why they had decided to focus on public servants already employed. The PSIMF focused heavily on financial disclosure, and integrity was beyond that disclosure. Integrity was about doing the job thoroughly by assisting public service employees to change their attitudes in their jobs.  They needed to work hard because the document provided insufficient information on the PSIMF. She referred to the standard set by the DPME in their handbook, (2.4.1) which outlined that ethics was a key performance area in policy assessments and standards, and asked why the DPSA came up with their own framework instead of adopting DPME standards, which the Committee used to measure departments. She also referred to 2.4.2 on standards of fraud and corruption. She was of the view that the Department did not have a prevention plan for whistle blowers. Government functioned through constructive partnerships and interactions with relevant parties. She said things had to be standardised and individuals that entered the public service had to be vetted.

The Chairperson asked if DPSA had the capacity to do what was required of them in terms of the PSIMF and standards.

Mr Dirks asked if it was unconstitutional to ask public service employees to do lifestyle audits.

Mr Govender replied that some of the things Committee Members asked were beyond the Department, and they did not have all the answers. Lifestyle audits depended on employment conditions, but were subjected to regulations, and people being aware that they had to undergo lifestyle audits. People joining the public sector needed to make a conscious decision and be aware that they were subject to regular lifestyle audits. The work they presented did not subject public servant to lifestyle audits, but the legal framework required them to disclose their financial interests including their assets. He clarified that the work DPSA was doing supported the NDP, but did not address all aspects of the NDP because their purpose was to address gaps that had been identified in the past, which the department wanted to deal with. The document was not the answer to a comprehensive accountability framework that was mentioned in the NDP, and DPSA addressed a small aspect. There were initiatives within the DPSA, the Presidency and DPME that addressed accountability, including performance management. Different initiatives at different levels collectively contributed to creating an accountable public service and a framework to allow management of the public service, to a large extent. One of the key focus areas which they wanted to challenge, was doing business with state. He said that in the absence of a legal framework, the Public Service Act section 32, allowed a public servant to receive remuneration outside the public service provided that the employee was granted permission to do so. They wanted to put in place a strict process in order to manage the approval, on condition of not doing business with state

He said that the “javelin throwing” aspect was still continuing in the public service, but its constitutionality was still being debated, together with the financial complications. Government had not taken a decision on it but needed to come up with clear proposals in that regard. DPSA would present a proposal when it was ready. It was part of the Public Administration Management Bill account. As part of the parliamentary processes, it was then removed from the account. On whistle blowers (Protected Disclosures Act), DPSA had legislation in place and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PACCA) in public service, which also supported and protected whistle blowers. It ensured that the system was in place. Everyone in South Africa, including public servants, were subjected to PACCA provisions and could be charged for engaging in corrupt activities. He noted that not many public servants had been taken through the criminal process. However, there were public service employees that were charged criminally in the Limpopo province, under section 100. The DG would deal with the number of suspensions as part of his input. The figures on the voluntary financial disclosure application forms indicated the number of departments that voluntarily made use of the eDisclosure system, not a compliance report. The Public Service Commission was a custodian of the financial disclosure framework which collected all financial disclosures through executive authorities that were in a position to provide compliance reports. DPSA tried to get an indication of compliance levels from the Public Service Commission, but that was not successful as they were still consolidating the report.

Financial interests included all assets that had to be disclosed, and the review of financial disclosure in their current form presented many gaps which the Committee also alluded to, since it was found that there were public servants who were in debt. Discussions on pension grants were related to this issue. The Department was aware of the financial interest area, and they were looking at it. He noted that perhaps they had to look at the forms, and not merely the assets disclosure, but also the liability level too.

Organised labour, as part of the public service charter, had been brought on board and was committed to ethical and corruption-free activities within the public service, as part of the section of the charter that was established in 2013. All work was linked to the public service charter, therefore labour agreed with the work that DPSA was doing, but DPSA wanted to build public services that behaved ethically. He said it was important to note that where they had identified public servants that were guilty of misconduct, particularly those that did not submit their financial disclosures, they all were subjected to disciplinary management processes. The process made use of progressive discipline, taking into consideration public servants such as low level workers that were not aware and fully informed about the framework and principles, and aimed to guide and support them.

DPSA had to ensure that public servants were taught ethical and moral behaviour and communicated frequently. They wanted to put in place an infrastructure within the public service that promoted ethical behaviour. It was found that it was not an adequate measure to put laws in place but needed to go beyond these to educate, advocate and communicate information. Also, new public servants were introduced to a compulsory induction programme for all new employees by DPSA. All public servants had to be evaluated.

The implementation of the PSIMF did not require any amendment of the Public Service Act, but to the public service regulation for Chapter 2 and 3. Regarding remunerative work outside the public service was the issuing of a determination based on the Public Service Act, which supported the provisions of the act.

He could not respond to why there were high levels of corruption in the public service, and believed it was influenced by multiple factors, which needed extensive research and analysis. This would enable them to identify courses and be able to derive strategies to address the situation adequately. Based on the analysis, DPSA identified gaps where public services employees behaved in particular ways, and they wanted to close the gaps to improve ethical behaviour.

DPSA participated in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) working group on bribery, and were aware of seven cases they were dealing with as priority crime in South Africa. He thought there was not a system that was tamperproof, but through identifying loopholes, they looked addressing them to ensure the system was not abused. There were public servants that did remunerative work outside the public service without permission, and action would be taken against those individuals. All senior managements had to disclose their financial interests within 30 days. He noted that standards set by MPAT were developed by DPME and DPSA, and were based on the current legal framework. PSIMF did not ignore the framework that was already in place and measured by MPAT, and focused on specific areas, not the strategy as a whole. The fraud prevention strategy that the Department had developed formed part of the minimum anti-corruption requirement that they needed to do. DPME and DPSA needed to update the standards and include new requirements that they wanted to put in place.

Mr Diphofa reported that 163 provincial public servants and 238 public servants in national departments were on precautionary suspension, according to the report they received in July 2014. That was where the issue of the approach they had taken to seek approval on the creation of a pool of experts that will manage these cases and make themselves available to support departments who had officials on long precautionary suspensions, to deal with them. In provinces that had been provided support, experts had availed themselves to help these departments. It was found that the challenge when instances that resulted to suspension were revisited, some of them were unnecessary because there were specific circumstances within which public servants had to be put on precautionary suspension. Nonetheless, there were possible cases where there was a possibility that the public servant on suspension would have posed a danger in the workplace, maybe to respondents. Therefore, the pool of experts would look into all circumstances.  In some instances, if departments in some provinces where officials were reluctant to process a case, an expert from another national department of province could be called in.

On sanctions that were proposed on financial non-disclosure of interests, they were not determined centrally by DPSA, but they had developed a draft guideline on the sanctions used by public service, and one was approved to be used by other departments. However, it was important to bear in mind that in some cases, disciplinary management issues were considered, where they were correcting the behaviour

The main purpose of the disclosure process was to help with the management of conflict, and it was important for employees who entered the public sector, after having accumulated wealth before their appointment, to disclose their interests. Failing to do so was problematic both for the public servant and the state. On the standards between DPSA and DPME, the presentation covered work that was done in the past, such as the anti-corruption strategy and minimum anti-corruption capacity requirement. The standards in the MPAT also spoke to anti-corruption strategies and requirements. He agreed that integrity should be looked at beyond financial disclosure, and stressed the importance of looking at work as a whole and appreciating the roles of ethic champions and officers, because ethical decision making was a process of reflecting on decisions daily. In terms of an ethics infrastructure, where public servants were in doubt, they could speak to their ethics officer and get solid advice on the appropriate decision. Also, they had to be active on awareness and training, which was crucial.

The Department accepted the comments of the Committee, and said they would work on improving the document.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked if he had missed the dysfunctional function they were getting from the organised labour.

Mr Govender replied that what they had presented was part of the public service charter that was accepted by organised labour in 2013, and they would continually communicate through regular labour briefing sessions

Auditor-General of South Africa on the use of Annual Reports as an oversight tool

The AGSA presented a video that provided information on the role of the AGSA that allowed portfolio committees to execute their oversight function effectively. An overview of the presentation included oversight (model, components, and components); combined assurance; audit (legislation, AGSA audits, and regularity auditing process); audit report; as well as the briefing process.

The combined oversight model involved Parliament, provincial legislature or municipal council senior management that were responsible for the implementation of immediate action in terms of the finances and internal control, and effectiveness of these within organisational environments. The model included policy development by identifying desired impacts, and the relationship between strategic planning, operational planning and budgeting, implementation and in-year reporting, and end year reporting within government institutions. Oversight legislation looked at three levels of assurance:

- National (under Section 55(2) of the Constitution, which stipulated that the National Assembly had to provide for mechanisms to ensure that all executives of the state were accountable to them;

- Provincial (Section 114(2) of the Constitution, which provided overall responsibilities of the provincial legislature; and

- the responsibility of Committees: Portfolio Committees that had to oversee the overall performance and functioning of departments, and Public Accounts Committees (PACs) that examined financial statements of state departments and reported to AGSA.

The AGSA audit mandate originated from the Public Audit Act (No. 25 of 2004) under Section 20, that AGSA had to prepare audit reports which contained opinions or conclusions on financial statements and positions, compliance and financial management, and predetermined performance objectives. The audit mandate was also from the Public Finance Management Act (No. 1 of 1999) for accounting under section 38 (general responsibilities of accounting officers), section 40 (reporting responsibilities), section 51 (general responsibilities of accounting authorities), and section 55 (annual reporting of financial statements).

Public sector auditors’ responsibilities involved the assessment of the stewardship of public funds, implementation of government policies, and compliance with key legislation objectively; auditing of financial statements; and performance audits that may have been performed in determining whether there was economical procurement of resources, and if they were used effectively and efficiently. The audits were done on a sample basis.

The Annual Audit Process included risk assessments, where auditors determined whether they agreed on terms of engagement, planned the audit, and performed risk assessment procedures; risk response, which involved the designing and performance of procedures to address identified risks; and preparing a final audit report.  Before an audit conclusion, AGSA required management to give responses on it and provide evidence of their disagreements, and reach an agreement before the audit report was finalised.

Key concepts for predetermined objectives needed to be reliable, well defined, verifiable, cost-effective, appropriate and relevant to the institution’s mandate. Performance targets had to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound (SMART). Regular audits were interpreted by means of looking at financial audit opinions – unqualified, with findings on compliance and pre-determined objectives (PDO); qualified; and disclaimer, where there was inadequate evidence for AGSA to audit; and adverse.

Discussion

AGSA noted that it was a comprehensive presentation that was intended to be presented over a period of two days, but spoke to what was relevant in the current environment.

The Chairperson commented that the presentation had not done justice towards strengthening their oversight functions, which were important. The information had to be presented when everyone was relaxed and focused, and not when time was a constraint.  She invited AGSA to give a thorough presentation during the workshop in Johannesburg in the next week. The presentation had to empower the Committee to deliver their oversight functions.

AGSA agreed with the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said the secretariat would communicate with AGSA regarding the invitation.

The meeting was adjourned.