Public Service Commission on Citizens Forums Update: briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
4 September 2002
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ON CITIZENS FORUMS UPDATE: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr. Baloyi

Documents handed out:
Citizens Forums Update Presentation
Compliance/Non-Compliance by government departments
Recommendations of the Public Service Commission Presentation [e-mail for the MS Word version of this document]

SUMMARY
Public Service Commission Deputy Director General briefed the Committee on citizen forums. The main issues covered, dealt with the latest pilot studies in the Eastern Cape (department of social development) and Mpumalanga (department of health). The processes to be followed in the citizens forums were also discussed as well as general issues within the pilot studies of the provinces Eastern Cape, concerning poverty alleviation and Mpumalanga, concerning Primary Health Care.

The Public Service Commission briefed the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee on the powers and functions of the PSC within the constitution. The PSC presentation focused on the compliance/non compliance of government departments on key performance areas: Professional Ethics and Risk Management; Risk Management; Professional Ethics Promotion; Special Investigations; Management and Service Delivery Improvement; Human Resources and Development; Labour Relations and Senior Management and Conditions of Service.

MINUTES
Citizens Forum Update
Public Service Commission Deputy Director General, Dr. Richard Levin firstly referred to the latest timetable set forth for the pilot studies in the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga. He noted that Public Service Commission (PSC) had run into delays in Kwazulu-Natal. The province of Kwazulu-Natal had wanted an increase in citizens' forums, which would not be viable, as it would be deemed uncontrollable. The PSC thus decided to focus on the pilot studies in the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga.

Dr. Levin moved onto the manner in which the citizens' forums would take form, and the processes would be followed. A public hearing would occur on the first day of the forum..Great participation had come from the Mpumalanga citizens' forums, whereas, in the Eastern Cape, because of linking up with district staff, the stakeholders were identified differently with issues being identified more quickly. On the second day of the citizens' forum, workshop issues would be dealt with which had arisen from the public hearing the day before. He also stated that site visits would occur, following the workshops, if time-wise, it became viable to do so. The PSC would then compile a citizen report once the citizen hearings were completed. Once the department had read the report, an agreement would be reached between the PSC and the department for implementing the recommendations in the report. From this, a feedback sheet would be created, in which the outcomes of the study would be relayed back to the participants on why their recommendations were or were not implemented. The last step was the monitoring of the implementations in these provinces.

Dr. Levin stated that the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee Members and Public Service Commissioners would chair and facilitate these citizens' forums. He said that the PSC needed to get a sense of which members would be attending which forums. Dr. Levin also stated that panels would be set up for the discussion of technical issues. He briefed the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee on the number of members within the panel - one member from the Public Service Commission Office; one member from the office of premiers; three members who would serve as departmental representatives; one member from the standing committee; one member from the integrated development programme for the Eastern Cape; one member from the independent Serviced User for the Eastern Cape; and lastly x member(s) from local government (an issue which would be discussed at a later stage).

Dr. Levin named the issues within the Eastern Cape dealing with Poverty Alleviation. The first issue being the lack of capacity in financial and project management skills, the second, being the poor commitment between project members. The third issue was the fulfillment of institutional requirements. The fourth issue was the integration of different Poverty Alleviation Programs, fifthly, the rate of project failure, and lastly, the monitoring of the project at project level.

Dr. Levin also named the issues being faced with on the level of Mpumalanga Primary Health Care. He spoke of monitoring the medical supplies within the province, and the province's lack of medicine. He noted the importance of supervision and inspection of clinics, and the need for an increase in personnel within these clinics. He also spoke of a 24-hour service in clinics and staff security, transport to referral points, the accessibility to clinics and hospitals, and the fees for consultation at clinics.

Discussion
Mr. Baloyi stated that the citizens' report was a very useful tool. He praised the PSC for breaking down the process of implementation into time-frames and areas and issues which had been identified and need attention, in all three of the provinces. He stated that the PSC had identified three venues, and had spoken of a member of the portfolio committee being involved with these projects. Mr. Baloyi asked the PSC about the number of members they were expecting to recruit from the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee - would it be a single member or a delegation?

Dr. Levin of the PSC stated that the Portfolio Committee would have to discuss at a later stage the decision-making about the members being represented on the panel. At the moment the PSC would only be looking for one member to chair the panel. He said it would be useful to have more members because it was a pilot project, so that the PSC gets a collective response to the process in terms of improving as they go forward. He stated that if the implementation of the pilot project did work, then an annual project could be set up in the same manner as the pilot. In the initial stages, therefore, Dr. Levin said that it would be useful to have more people present, but later chairperson from the portfolio committee was a necessity. PSC should also recognize that the provincial legislature standing committee members would want to be involved, and that the PSC had engaged at that level as well. Dr. Levin said that the element of parliamentary oversight in the process was also very important.

Mr. Walters, a member of the Portfolio Committee stated that in view of the severity of the pandemic of HIV/AIDS, he felt the case of HIV/AIDS needed to be mentioned under the primary health care of Mpumalanga. He stated that the PSC had noted the monitoring of medical supplies and the lack of medicines under issues to be discussed within Mpumalanga Primary Health Care. But he also said that due to the fact that issuing if antiretrovirals to pregnant mothers with HIV/AIDS and to rape victims, has just become new government policy, this should be a point on the agenda that stands out on its own, and to be thoroughly investigated, when addressing clinics.

Dr. Levin stated that the issues of HIV/AIDS both in poverty alleviation and primary health care had been important in the discussion build-up. He said that this information would be fed back to the steering committee.

Mr Sangweni stated that the guidelines set out in the citizens' forums document were merely guidelines for the structure of the process, flexible enough to allow input. He also said that the portfolio committee's input would definitely be accommodated under these recommendations.

Mr. Modise of the portfolio committee asked for the reason for Kwazulu-Natal as a province not cooperating with the recommendations of the PSC.

Ms. September (ANC) said that the committee should put somebody from the committee up to chair, but not neglect the floor - to avoid having one persons point of view in the situation.

Mr. Bell (DP) said that the PSC should not forget the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) when it came to citizens' forums, as the NCOP represented the provinces. He also stated that despite saying there should be an involvement of parliamentary oversight, the NCOP should be the main players involved, even before parliamentary oversight came into play.

Prof. Sangweni that Kwazulu-Natal not complying with the PSC recommendations was an incorrect perception. He said that the PSC had been in communication with Kwazulu-Natal at the highest levels. There were political problems within Kwazulu-Natal which the cabinet had not yet met. He said that the PSC, though, is in communication with the premier. He said that on another note, looking at all three provinces, the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga as pilot studies were the only ones, at the moment, that the PSC was able to cope with effectively. The PSC, he said, was able to focus their resources more practically on these two provinces.

Mr. Sangweni stated that the assistance of the NCOP in the process would be very much appreciated. The PSC was taking the initiative to make contact with the NCOP. PSC would also appreciate Mr. Bell's help on the matter.

Compliance and non-compliance by Government Departments with Public Service Commission Recommendations
Prof. Sangweni said that it was a constitutional requirement that the PSC give feedback on government performance. He referred to section 196(4)-(6) of the constitution, which states the powers and functions of the PSC. He emphasized that fact that the PSC was not approaching the Public Service and Administration portfolio committee because of non-compliance, but because it fell within their duties to, at least once a year, provide a report of accountability for government action.

Prof. Sangweni said that the PSC had, in the past, submitted reports on government compliance or non-compliance, but also stated that this is the first time, which the PSC had carried out its constitutional duty of providing a presentation on accountability. He stated that the presentation was the beginning of the creation of an instrument used between the committee as the implementers, and the commission as the recommenders, to capture recommendations made, to see extent of compliance within government.

Prof. Sangweni also said that the recommendations made by the PSC fell into two categories. Firstly, the PSC made policy related recommendations, which fell within arm of policy. The PSC did not make the policy themselves, but they monitor implementation of policy. Prof. Sangweni stated that the second recommendation had arisen from the mandate of the PSC, to ensure that practices and procedures were followed. These recommendations would be linked to, for instance, the appointment of officials; these appointments must be kept within procedures. This role was very important to fulfill.

Prof. Sangweni said that when the PSC made recommendations, and a department to whom the recommendations were made did not respond within six months, to the president, those recommendations become automatically enforceable. He also said that the PSC did not have the power of enforce these recommendations. Prof. Sangweni stated that recommendations were always subject to contestation or people ignore them, but increasingly, departments were implementing recommendations. He also said that the PSC are trying to exploit situations, perhaps in the confines of legal practice, where the role of the committee and the commission, ensure that the departments implement recommendations of the PSC. Prof. Sangweni stated that when the departments refused to implement recommendations, they should would be accountable in one way or another for not implementing. Prof Sangweni was adamant when he stated that the PSC were not the sole custodians of good practice in the department.

For the departments' compliance/non-compliance information and recommendations in these cases, please refer to document.

Discussion
Ms. September stated that Prof. Sangweni correctly stated that the commission was reporting to the portfolio in the manner that the constitution stated in Chapter 9. How could the committee take the process forward that had been laid out by the PSC in the briefing? She said that she would like to make some suggestions.

Ms. September stated that firstly, in addition to PSC taking the report to cabinet and to the public service and administration committee, the PSC should organise a joint reporting for the National Assembly (NA) committee and NCOP committee. She stated that the reason for including the NCOP has already been noted -that they had to deal with a lot of the administration of policy implementation within the provinces. She suggested that the PSC make another attempt to make sure that the report would not be given without the involvement of the NCOP.

Secondly, Ms. September stated that there were a number of issues which could be taken up in a cluster group of other portfolio committees. She stated that she served on a number of other committees, who had already dealt sufficiently with some of the issues brought up by the PSC in the compliance/non-compliance presentation. She gave examples like the South African Police Committee and Correctional Services Committee. They should be included in this cluster briefing to enable a greater input of ideas around recommendations.

Ms. September asked the PSC whether they envisage any legislative changes, having dealt with the public service in administration and in other areas, merely because of their perceptions.

She stated that the majority of the report was administrative based. She said that it was difficult to see the output or the service delivery in the report. How were administrative recommendations put into policy format.

Another member of the committee stated that she had read in one of the media reports that the entire issue around blacklisting. She asked the PSC about certain areas within the implementation blocks in their report stating 'uncertain' and 'unknown'. Were there tracking devices in place to track whether recommendations had been implemented or not.

Lastly, the member stated that there had been a real problem with interfacing with other departments. Many of the members in the committee did not serve in other committees, thus would not know if PSC's recommendations had been taken into account. She asked the PSC is they would be able to find a mechanism with which to deal with this problem, to make sure that recommendations were being enforced. She also asked the PSC if they received feedback on recommendations.

Mr. Waters (DP) stated that despite the good and innovative work of the commission, the PSC was not being taken very seriously by the departments around the country. What legislation would they like to see being amended or introduced, which would give them more teeth. He said that if the recommendations were not being complied with, the department was clearly wasting taxpayers money.

He then referred to the key performance area Human Resources Management and Development. He said that although the report stated that the submission of information from 25 officials were still outstanding, he had heard in parliament that all managers had handed in their outstanding information. He said he would like to get clarification on that - because if he was incorrect, then the answer in parliament was misleading. Why did it take so long to summons these officials with outstanding information, as the process has taken two to three years already.

Referring to the professional ethics promotion to do with financial disclosures submission he said that, according to a parliamentary reply received in 2000/2001, 911 senior managers did not submit their financial report, and that last year 1 404 senior managers did not submit their financial reports. Was the PSC was able to take any disciplinary action on this issue.

Prof. Sangweni began with general comments. He referred firstly, to the envisaging of legislation by Ms. September and Mr. Walters, to give to PSC more teeth when it comes to enforcement of recommendations. He stated that as the PSC presented their briefing, they had not discussed the finer details of enforcement. They had though, recognized that this was one area that needed to be looked at. He said that this question would be noted and a representative would reply to the committee in due time on this question. He said though, that this question would possibly involve some form of constitutional amendment - and that it needed to be closely examination before making recommendations.

Prof. Sangweni went on to address the question by Ms. September on administrative reports versus service delivery reports. He stated that he had already addressed this issue at the beginning of the briefing, that as the PSC attempted to develop this instrument of accountability, these deliveries in our report would be developed, to make it clear in which direction the PSC was going.

Mr. Sangweni referred to the recommendation related to policy and recommendation related to applications of procedures and practices. He said it would be extremely dangerous to come out with conclusions that state '23 out of 25 managers submitted financial reports'. He said that the PSC was not dealing with a common pot of recommendations - rather, a distinction had to be made between those recommendations that were related to the broad policy issues, and those dealing with administration. The PSC was not recommending that recommendation be implemented at the moment, but rather give a certain direction in which departments could make changes.

Dr. Levin stated that there was still a great amount of research which needed to be completed around the enforcement of recommendations. He stated that there were mechanisms that could be implemented in which departments became more accountable to parliament, and take seriously the reports of the commission. He agreed that the recommendations concerning policy and the recommendations concerning service delivery were uneven, and that there was scope for improvement. He then stated that departments should seriously take into account the reports of the Auditor General's Office, as they know if they did not comply, 'they face the lashings of SCOPA'. He also said that the success of implementation meant the PSC assisting the committee in setting up a data base and tracking system.

He discussed the issue of financial disclosures, and stated that the problem of counting the number of reports that had come in, was due to the fact that most of the reports were sent directly to the Executing Authority (EA), and not to the PSC, which made them very difficult to keep track of. The PSC has thus demanded reports to be sent directly to them, as they felt that they have the ability to manage them more effectively, and can interact directly with HODs. He stated the PSC has not heard that all reports had been handed in, but said that an effort would be made on their part to find out whether those financial reports had been disclosed or not.

He stated that a media briefing had been given two weeks prior to this briefing on blacklisting. The PSC had stated that there was a legal framework in place concerning blacklisting, but it still was a legal challenge. He stated that an anti-corruption clause should be inserted into all government contracts, and a supplier procurement code should be developed to minimize legal risks, as well as to prevent corruption. He said that the PSC promoted and supported blacklisting.

Dr. Levin said anti-corruption measures and tracking on recommendations were merely a first step by the PSC. The idea of bringing these issues forward, he noted, was to gain feedback from the committee on these ideas. Concerning different recommendations, alternative implementation assessments need to be put in place.


Mrs. Ramsingh of the PSC stated that the PSC had indicated that they were in the process of summonsing the officials, as the public service summons rule was only gazetted in July 2002. She stated that the PSC was now acting on those rules.

Prof. Sangweni commended the joint and cluster reporting point, brought up by Ms. September. He noted that it was a very positive direction taken by her.
He said that it would go a long way in the monitoring and tracking of recommendation implementation.

Mr. Bell referred to the key performance area of senior management and conditions of service. He referred to the report on the management of overtime at the Department of Correctional Services and that the SAPS had just as major problems, and maybe that should be looked at in conjunction with the SAPS. Secondly, he referred to the sick leave trends, and stated that the PSC reporting to the committee every three years on sick leave trends in too long a period. He advised that the period be brought down to a report on a monthly basis or a quarterly basis.

Mrs. Ramsingh stated that originally SCOPA had asked for an annual report on sick leave trends. She however, stated, that when looking at the information in relation to time periods, an information download took a few months in itself, due to the irregularity of people taking sick leave. She said that there were a lot of administrative logistics around the PSC accessing information, as it took a great capacity. Due to these logistics, the PSC would then be able to create a meaningful evaluation over a period of three years.

She stated that the issue raised by Mr. Bell on SAPS overtime would be looked into by the PSC as the process proceeds.

Meeting was adjourned.