Draft Road Accidents Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill; Legislative Programme, 2nd and 3rd quarter performance reports: Department of Transport briefings, in presence of Minister

This premium content has been made freely available


03 March 2015
Chairperson: Ms D Magazi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minister of Transport, Ms Dipuo Peters, was present for the first part of the meeting, when she briefed the Committee shortly on the fact that the Department was in the course of preparing the Road Accidents Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, but it was not yet ready for presentation to Parliament because getting input from the public consultation process was causing a delay. Committee Members reminded the Minister that it had already been agreed, in the previous year, that a full workshop with substantial public participation was needed, and asked that it be kept fully informed on the processes. The Department informed the Committee that the four areas that still needed more research, as comments from the public consultation process had shown, were family benefits, income and support benefit, funding model, and benefit levels.

The Department then gave a short presentation to the Committee on the 2015 legislative programme. Three priority bills had been mentioned in an earlier presentation - the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill 2014 (which it hoped to present to Parliament in April), the Administration Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill, 2015 (due to be presented in May) and the National Land Transport Amendment Bill, 2015 (due to be presented in May). It then outlined shortly what the status was, and read the preamble of other legislation that was in the pipeline. These bills currently in the process of being drafted or going through a consultative process, were:
1. Road Accident Benefit Scheme Amendment Bill, 2015
2. Airports Company Amendment Bill, 2015
3. Air Traffic and Navigational Services Company Amendment Bill, 2015
4. Single Transport Economic Regulation Bill, 2015
5. Ship Registration Amendment Bill, 2015
6. National Road Traffic Amendment Bill, 2015

Members urged the Department to ensure that there was full and substantial public participation, preferably by interrogating through questions that did not merely need yes or no answers. Proper procedures were important. Members also wanted to know how the new Bills would ensure that money was collected from infringers, if they failed to collect registered notices.

The Department finally took Members through a report of its performance in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 2014 financial year, noting that to date it had spent 76% of its allocated budget and expected to overspend. For each programme, the key achievements and challenges were outlined. In several instances, the challenges included "delays in internal processes" and this led the Committee to ask exactly what those delays were and how they were to be addressed. Members also noted the poor condition of roads in the Eastern Cape and wanted to know what exactly the Department was doing for this province, why some programmes had been held in only some provinces. Several Members were concerned about what they perceived as insufficient progress in the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme, which had low uptake and pointed out that since this was a Departmental project, the Department should have the solutions and track the money being paid. They asked if the DoT was engaging with the Department of Energy. Members questioned the over-spending projections and the instances of under-spending, noted that the fourth quarter in which adjustments were to be made was shortly ending, and asked for special considerations on the difference between provinces for the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant. They were interested in getting a status update for the Moloto Road project and wanted to know when the Department would be fully ready to implement the Scholar Transport projects. They urged that the RABS Bill must be expedited although full attention must be paid to public input. They thought that by now there should have been data collated and practicalities considered around the reopening of railway branch lines and wondered how exactly the Department would be dealing with the revivals. Members also questioned what was happening with the MyCiti services in Cape Town, and what controls the Department would have. Pointing to unhappiness particularly in Limpopo around the grants, the Committee wondered if all transport operators would be receiving subsidies, and asked for more detail on the transfer payments to a taxi council. The Department was urged to work on synergised programmes, and produce better integrated programmes and results. At the end of the day, the main issue was getting services to the people. The Department was requested to keep up its good work.

Meeting report

Draft Road Accidents Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill: Minister of Transport's briefing
Ms Dipuo Peters, Minister of Transport, took the Committee through a briefing on the draft Road Accidents Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, setting out what the Bill intended to achieve and what it would be covering, although she wanted to stress that the Bill had not been finalised yet, and was thus not ready to be officially tabled before Parliament. She requested the Committee to be understanding of the limitations and said that the Department must take into account the public comments. This meant that additional research needed to be done and the Department was not yet at the stage where it wanted to be. As soon as it did reach finality, the bill in its final form would be brought to the Committee.

Mr M De Freitas (DA) wanted to remind the Committee that last September, when the proposals for the Road Accident Fund (RAF) were presented, the Committee agreed that a workshop was needed for this legislation. The Department must give the Committee confirmation on that workshop and the time frame. 

Minister Peters replied that the Department had agreed with the Committee on that point and would be discussing the workshop next week. 

Mr M Sibande (ANC) emphasised that the Department must not be premature in their planning around the legislation and stressed that this workshop was needed.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked for it to be clearly stated on the record that there would be a workshop, as that was a major concern. The Department must keep the Committee informed on the process.

Ms D Carter (COPE) asked for clarification on the areas that still needed to be researched, although the more detailed explanation from the Department could come at a later time in writing.

Mr T Mulaudzi (EFF) requested full participation from the Department when discussing the workshop because the Committee had many questions.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was quite anxious. It saw that the current Road Accident Fund (RAF) was doing many good things, and appreciated the setting up the new Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) but there were also many other issues that must be discussed.

Minister Peters responded that on the matter of the workshop, the key driver in supporting the Committee was the Department. As was the case with the current RAF, it would be important to differentiate between those making law and those implementing the law. RAF was now working on efficiency and effectiveness. Many claims have been processed, but as the money came in it had been immediately disbursed. The RAF won public service awards for what it did for the people of South Africa. The RABS Bill also needed a process of certification before it was brought to Cabinet. The Department would share with the Chairperson the exact status of that process.

Mr Hunsinger said that there were still concerns about the publication of RABS Bill. Because there was an invitation for people to submit their comments directly, this led to a perception that there would be an open transition from RAF into RABS, and that was not clear.

Minister Peters replied to Mr Hunsinger that it was incorrect to assume that any member of the public could directly go to any office of the State to access services. The RAF established a national footprint, creating an avenue for everyone to access. If there was a misconception, the Department must clarify that. The RAF was very important, especially for the victims of accidents.

A member of the Department added that the four areas that still needed research, coming out of the public consultation process were: family benefits, income and support benefit, funding model, and benefit levels.

Mr Hunsinger noted that he hoped that one of the four key areas of concern still to be discussed would pertain to the tariff structure, and the impact that RABS would have on other departments and other spheres of government. It was important that there were centres available in all provinces.

Minister Peters replied that it was also important to identify and deal with the health challenges, through the National Health Insurance (NHI) and make sure that there were sufficient standards for health provisions. Thus, the various departments of government were working together.

Minister Peters responded to Mr Hunsinger’s issues, stating that when the bill did come before the Committee, all Members would have the right to “tear it apart” and really interrogate the issues until Members were satisfied, before it went to Parliament. However, the Committee must also have public hearings. She asked to be excused as she had to leave the meeting early.

Mr Pule Godfrey Selepe, Director General, Department of Transport, arrived two hours late and the Chairperson welcomed him, but emphasised that this Committee took things seriously and said that the Director General must lead by example, and should have not been late.

Mr Selepe apologised for arriving late.

2015 Department of Transport Legislative Programme
Advocate P Masausuka, Legal Services, Department of Transport, led the Committee through a presentation on the 2015 legislative programme. The aim of the presentation was to provide information on the objectives and status of the bills.

There were three priority bills on the Legislative Programme for 2015:
1. Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill 2014: The Department hoped that this Bill would be ready for presentation to the Committee before the end of April 2015
2. Administration Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill, 2015: The Department hoped the Bill would be ready for the Committee before the end of May 2015
3. National Land Transport Amendment Bill, 2015: The Department hoped that this Bill would also be able to be presented to the Committee before the end of May 2015

There were also a number of other bills still in the drafting process, which he outlined as follows:

1. Road Accident Benefit Scheme Amendment Bill, 2015
Objective of the Bill: To provide for a social security scheme for the victims of road accidents; to establish the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Administration to administer and implement the scheme; to provide a set of defined benefits on a no-fault basis to persons who suffered bodily injury or death caused by or arising from road accidents; and to exclude liability of certain persons otherwise liable for damages in terms of the common law; and to provide for other matters.
He said that this Bill had been drafted and published for public comments.

2. Airports Company Amendment Bill, 2015
Objective of the Bill: To amend the Airports Company Act, 1993 so as to insert new definitions; to substitute certain expressions; to provide for appointment and disqualification for membership of the Regulating Committee; to provide for vacation of members of the Regulating Committee; to provide for the meetings of the Regulating Committee; to amend the period for issuing of permission, to provide for decision of the Regulating Committee, to provide for the establishment of the Appeal Committee; to provide for appointment and disqualification for the Appeal Committee; to provide for the vacation of members of the Appeal Committee and to provide for other matters.

This Bill had been published for public comments, and the Department would incorporate the comments to produce the final draft.

3. Air Traffic and Navigational Services Company Amendment Bill, 2015
Objective of the Bill: To amend the Air Traffic and Navigational Services Company Amendment to insert new definitions, to provide for appointment and disqualification for membership of the Regulating Committee, to provide for the meetings of the Regulating Committee, to provide for decision of the Regulating Committee.

This draft Bill had been  published for public comments and the Department would incorporate the comments to produce the final draft.

4. Single Transport Economic Regulation Bill, 2015
Objectives of the Bill: To consolidate the economic regulation of transport within a single framework and policy, to establish the Transport Economic Regulator, to establish the Transport Economic Council, to make consequential amendments to various other Acts, and to provide for related incidental matters.

He reported that the Department was currently finalising consultation with internal stakeholders and thereafter the Bill would be published for public comments.

5. Ship Registration Amendment Bill, 2015
Objectives of the Bill: To amend the Ship Registration Act, 2008, to bring more clarity with regards to mortgage of vessels.

He said that the Department was busy at the drafting stage and once the draft was finalised it would be  published for comments.

6. National Road Traffic Amendment Bill, 2015
Objective of the Bill: To amend the principal Act so as to amend and insert new definitions, to provide for the registration of and licensing of vehicles manufactures, builders, body builders, importers and manufactures of number plates. The Bill further provided for the registration of driving schools and aimed to reduce the blood alcohol concentration levels permissible for drivers.

This Bill had been finalised and published for public comments.

Ms Carter made a plea to the Department to ensure that there was full public participation and to have questions that did not just call for yes or no answers.

Mr Sibande brought up the issues of procedures and emphasised that proper procedures must be allowed to unfold.

Ms S Xego-Sovita (ANC) asked how the legislation would address the current lacuna that could happen if an infringer did not collect his or her registered post at the post office.  In the previous presentation from the Department, there was discussion on the use of email.

Ms S Boshielo (ANC) asked about administration issues and said they must be dealt with quickly, particularly to address the long processes of consultations.

Mr Mawethu  Vilana,Deputy Director General, Department of Transport, then replied to the questions. He said that there had been an interactive process followed, and noted that last year there were nine workshops. There had been public consultations.

Mr Masausuka replied on the issue of how to deal with notifications in relation to registered mail. People would now be asked to choose what type of method they wished to use for service, and electronic methods of servicing would be available, which were mostly used by the fleet companies already. Other people who had access to emails and cell phones could use electronic services as well; the point was that they must choose which method they wished to use. Some of this was already covered in regulations that the Department had published in 2013.

Ms Boshielo asked about when the Bill pertaining to the implementation via bank accounts would be implemented.

Mr Vilana replied that there was an internal arrangement that was part of the approval process.

After this presentation, a number of members from the Department left the meeting.

The Chairperson stated that she did not give them permission to leave, and that it was very important for the legal team also to understand the operations of the Department. Mr Vilana apologised on behalf of the Department, and said that he also did not give them the authority to leave. Later, those Department members returned, and apologised to the Chairperson and the Committee.

Department of Transport Second and Third Quarter 2014 Performance Report
Mr Vilana presented to the Committee the non-financial performance information. There were a number of key achievements pertaining to the programmes. Challenges were also listed, along with the corrective measures the Department had put in place.

Programme 1: Administration
Key Achievements were outlined as:
-DOT Communication Strategy and the Transport Month plan were developed and presented to Transport Communicators and MinMEC respectively
-Merchant Shipping Bill submitted to National Assembly and NCOP
-26 vacant posts filled and 38 appointments were processed in the two quarters

Challenges were cited as:
-The draft International Relations Strategy was only developed in Quarter 2 due to delays in internal processes
-The review of the Internal Audit Charter was delayed in Quarter 2 by internal consultative processes

Programme 2: Integrated Transport Planning
Key Achievements were explained as:
-Field surveys on Rural Accessibility and Multi-deprivation Index were completed in eight provinces
-Draft Four of the Single Transport Economic Regulators (STER) Bill was produced
-BBBEE Charter Council was launched in December 2014
-Regional Corridor Strategy Desktop review report was submitted, in line with the project plan, on 24 November 2014

Notable Challenges were:
-Consultations with PICC on NATMAP 2015 were lagging behind
-The funding strategy for the Durban-Free State-Gauteng Logistics and Industrial Corridor were not yet developed
-The review of the National Freight Logistics Strategy was lagging behind
-Stakeholder consultations on the Energy Consumption Reduction Strategy were lagging behind

Programme 3: Rail Transport
Key Achievements were:
-Benchmarking of guidelines for submission of Rail Economic Regulatory information were completed and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the DoT and Department of Public Enterprises
-A situational analysis and preliminary Rail Safety Regulation gap analysis was conducted
-Strategic branch- lines were defined and identified.

Notable Challenges were that the development of the draft White Paper on the National Rail Transport Policy had been delayed by Cluster administration processes

Programme 4: Road Transport
Key Achievements were:
-Maintenance and rehabilitation of roads was monitored in provinces in line with the Provincial Roads Maintenance Grant budget
-A needs analysis and stakeholder consultations were conducted

The main challenge was that unfavourable weather conditions and delays to project commencements impacted on reaching the targets

Programme 5: Civil Aviation
Key Achievements were:
-Draft Amendment Bills to amend, respectively, the ACSA Act and the ATNS Act were gazetted and comments incorporated into further drafts
-129 schools and 6362 learners in three provinces were exposed to aviation related career events
-Air services negotiations held between RSA and Gabon. RSA had signed two MoUs, with South Sudan and the Republic of Philippines

The challenge was that at the end of Quarter 3, only three bilateral air services negotiations had taken place

Programme 6: Maritime Transport
Key Achievements were:
-A draft Maritime Transport Policy was developed and circulated for internal consultation
-There had been a Cape Town Agreement on the Implementation of the Torremolinos Protocol, presented to ICTS Cabinet Meeting, which was then sent for Parliamentary approval

Notable Challenges were:
-Amended Maritime Security Regulations were not yet approved due to internal delays
-African Maritime Charter was not yet approved due to outstanding ICTS Cluster presentation

Programme 7: Public Transport
Key Achievements were
-National Learner Transport Policy was approved by Cabinet in October 2014
-National Land Transport Amendment Bill was approved by NEDLAC in November 2014
-Integrated Public Transport Networks meetings were held

Notable Challenges were that:
-Taxi Recapitalisation Programme had low uptake by industry
-IPTN plans in two district municipalities and one district (Sekhukhune) were withdrawn

The 2nd and 3rd Quarter Performance reports and noted challenges were presented and discussed at EXCO.

Mr Collins Letsoalo, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transport, led the Committee through the presentation on the financial performance portion of the report. To date, the Department had spent 76% of its allocated budget. The Department expected to overspend.

Mr Mulaudzi stated that the roads in the Eastern Cape were full of potholes, so he questioned what the Department was doing for the Eastern Cape? He also wanted to know the time frame for the draft White Paper on the National Rail Transport Policy, commenting that he was concerned about the delays. Similarly, in regard to road transport plans, he wanted a specific update in relation to the Eastern Cape, and asked why there had been no mention of that province. The Department mentioned 129 schools exposed to aviation related career events, yet that was only across three provinces, and he enquired what was to be done for the others, and whether future planning would take them also into account. On the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme, and particularly in regard to the low uptake, he wondered if the Department had checked the amount of money that was given to the people selling the taxis. Finally, he asked what had caused over expenditure?

Mr G Radebe (ANC) asked the Department where it would be moving from here, given these assessments. On the issue of energy consumption, he asked if the DoT had engaged with the Department of Energy to find a solution? He mentioned a recent incident in Kwa-Zulu Natal where a pedestrian was killed by a bakkie, said that this was of great concern and that solutions were needed to such challenges. He referred to the under-spending and asked what the problem was and what solutions had been proposed. Finally, on the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant, he said that another issue that needed to be taken into consideration was the balance of spending and allocations to the various provinces.

Ms Boshielo asked about the draft International Relations Strategy that was reported as delayed, asked what internal processes had caused that, and why they were not addressed. She also asked for more detail on the Regional Corridor Strategy, and how it assisted the Department. She noted that there were quite a number of corrective measures to be taken in the fourth quarter, which was ending quite soon. She wondered why the White Paper was taking so long? She called for an update status report on Project Moloto. She commented that clearly, the taxi recapitalisation was not working, which meant that the Department needed to review it. The public transport system in South Africa must be improved. The issue of scholar transport was also very important as well. The policies and input were clearly being made and created, but processes to support them must also be there. The Department must come up with solutions for the children of the country.

Ms Boshielo also asked why Sekhukhune was withdrawn? All provinces must be provided for. On the issue of performance per programme, the administration programme was lower because there were no transfers. The Department must focus on service delivery. Finally, on the issue of overspending due to repatriation of bodies, she wondered what provision would be made to deal with this in the future.

Ms S Xego-Sovita (ANC) noted her appreciation that some of the posts had been filled. However, it was not good to hear that there was now overspending because of new appointments. There must be a budget for this. On the issue of municipality underspending, she asked what the results were, and whether the Department had identified the causes of underspending. She wanted to draw attention to the large number of accidents in Kwa Zulu Natal, wondered if this was over-reporting by the media, or whether the figures were genuine and the Department needed to address other issues. Finally, commenting on the slow progress of the new RABS Bill, she wanted the Department to be aware that there were people who had died without knowing the outcomes of their claims, or even that they could claim, from the RAF.

Mr Sibande noted that the financial information on the "expenditure per economic classification" format was an issue, and stressed that it was important for the Department to monitor constantly. Mr Sibande asked who was responsible for monitoring, especially pertaining to taxi recapitalisation. Another thing that was worrying was that several items had not been approved because of internal delays. That was a very broad reason to give.

Mr Sibande also said, in relation to the issue of reviving railway lines, that he would have expected that by this stage, there should have been data collection and practicalities considered. He wanted to know how the Department would deal with this revival?

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) asked about hands-on assistance that might be needed. There was money withheld because of "inconsistencies" but he was not clear from the presentation what was meant by that. He wanted to know specifically which municipalities were affected by the hands-on approach, and assistance required, and whether the inconsistencies affected everyone.

Mr Ramatlakane asked about the constraining measures for the MoU that the Department said it would provide. For example, there was an issue around the MyCiti services in the Western Cape, especially with evictions and removing residences, and he wondered if there were any considerations or oversight exercised by the Department? The Department seemed to be quite silent on this issue, and he wondered if the MoU would prevent the implementing agency from doing certain things?

Mr Ramatlakane asked about Cabinet approval on the Scholar Transport policy, and wondered if the Department was by now ready to “hit the road running?” he too was concerned about the Department’s overspending, which did not look good, What will the Department do about this?

Mr Ramatlakane raised the point that the taxi recapitalisation plan was the Department’s own plan, not imposed upon it, and it therefore was in the best position to understand the economy and the reasons why people were not coming forward, the issues of assets and liability. Subsidisation of buses, compared to taxis, was another issue. More discussion was needed around the planning exercises, although he fully appreciated that the budget was a problem.

The Chairperson was most concerned with the Public Transport Infrastructure Grant, in which there had been underspending. She asked what plans had been approved, what were the critical problems that the municipalities were experiencing, and whether it was possible to monitor the process.

In relation to the Transport Operations Grant, she also noted much discontent in Limpopo about some operators who were getting grants and some who were not. She wondered whether the Department was yet at the point where it could tell the whole country that all operators, including taxis, would get subsides.

She noted the transfer payments to the South African National Taxi Council (SANTACO), asked what that money was for, and whether there were business plans for this.

The Chairperson then wanted to raise the issue of potholes, particularly in relation to the grants that came from the Department into the provinces and municipalities. It was a very serious concern for people who were struggling to travel on rural roads, or were travelling on township roads. The Department had the money for this, and she wondered if there was a better accounting mechanism, whether communities should be requested to write directly to the Department and ask for intervention in specific areas and whether the Department could verify with the community to see which problems were true, so it could move forward and provide infrastructure where needed. The Department must be able to know that the community had received service delivery. She urged the Department to involve all the State Owned Entities (SOEs) and work with them, to produce integrated and synergised programmes, because it was, at the end of the day, all about the safety of all the people of South Africa.

The Chairperson ended by congratulating the good quality work of the Department, and urged them to continue with it.

Mr Vilana responded to the queries. The Department must develop standards, and he pointed out that there were already national standards, so there should not be differences between the different provinces. Also, the Department was creating a framework for transfers.

Speaking to performance of the DoT in the 4th quarter, he agreed that there were some areas that would be pushed, especially in some provinces, as the Committee members had already mentioned.

He noted that the field surveys on Rural Accessibility gave the Department some provisions on how best to target what the Department wanted to do and what programmes to implement across the provinces.

Mr Vilana confirmed that the Department would talk to the Department of Energy to discuss solutions, because the Department believed that transport has the biggest end role to play and thus must be at the . forefront of the discussions.

Mr Vilana then replied to the question on the internal processes. He admitted that sometimes the Department had the tendency to work as a single entity instead of cooperating across several other departments, so some of these delays could still happen.

The Moloto Road project was budgeted for in the Department's budget.

Mr Vilana appreciated that people were dying of their injuries sustained in road accidents and the Department was working on interventions, already at stage 2.

Mr Vilana then stated that a big question for the Department was how to support the taxi industries. The Department of Transport wanted to be a transparent authority and would like to see the receiving authorities being transparent as well, for example when it came to moving money from province to province.

Mr Mathabatha Mokonyama, Deputy Director General: Public Transport, DoT, said the Department had already requested the chance to talk to the Committee to specifically discuss taxi recapitalisation. The Department had created the impression that nothing is happening but there were a lot of things happening in terms of renewing the programme, and plans for going forward.

In relation to questions about targets, Mr Mokonyama said that there were differences in quarters 1 to 3, because those reflected quarterly targets, but in quarter 4, the Department was very confident that it would be able to reconcile all the targets and plug any gaps that were apparent from the last months. The Department was monitoring this process. Next week it would be looking at the portfolio of evidence of all of the quarter 4 targets. The Department was hopeful that it would definitely improve.

Mr Mokonyama reported that the Scholar Transport Policy, now approved by Cabinet, had gone out for public comments. It was ready to go back to Cabinet for final approval. It has caused a lot of interest from different stakeholders who wanted to make presentations on it.

Mr Mokonyama said that the Department did not necessarily decline its support to Sekukhune, but Sekhukhune indicated that, together with the province, it had managed to develop an integrated public transport network; what it was actually now seeking was support to implement the plan. That is why this item was taken off the development plan. The DoT would be continuing with the  and will continue with the Bojanala Bus in North West.

Mr Mokonyama noted that the Division of Revenue Act (DoRA) had a conditions framework, and those conditions had been tightened so that those to whom the Department was paying money would be accountable. The Department was receiving information from the public.

Answering the questions around slow expenditure, he explained that although the DoT, as a national department, was now in Quarter 3, the municipality had a different final year. Another reason was that the municipalities had not yet finalised issues of infrastructure, so they could not start with operations. Therefore the Department was withholding money, because it could not pay over knowing that it might simply sit unused. But once the municipalities were ready to implement, the money would be paid back to them.

Mr Mokonyama emphasised again that the Department had requested the opportunity to come to the Committee to discuss taxi recapitalisation. One of the challenges was around accessibility of finance by the taxi industry. That was why the uptake was very slow. The Department did have preliminary findings, and there was a public transport turnaround plan, to assist the Department in going forward.

He noted that in relation to the question about repatriation of bodies, there was a provision about what is unforeseen and unavoidable.

Mr Mokonyama explained that in relation to recognition of expenditure, a process was followed. If someone provided the service and gave the Department the invoice, then he could be paid. The Department only recognised services when it paid for them.

The Chairperson concluded by saying that the MyCiti buses were important to discuss, as the Department must be able to assess who was able to do what functions. There were a lot of complaints that there were more consultants getting paid than the actual job warranted, and that less attention was being paid to the services being in place.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: