The Committee received a briefing from the LoveLife on its strategy review and its agreement with Sports and Recreation South Africa. It outlined its programmes, its research challenges and financials.
The Sports Trust. spoke about governance, its financial status, its partnerships, infrastructure development
and sports codes development
Ms Grace Matlhape, LoveLife CEO, took the Committee through LoveLife’s strategy review and its agreement with Sports and Recreation South Africa (SRSA). She said that LoveLife had been established in 1999 and its focus then had been on mass media based awareness about HIV. The LoveLife Games had been established around 2000 as a vehicle to encourage youth participation in sport so that they could adopt healthy lifestyles which was one of the key objectives of the LoveLife Games. LoveLife had then with time realised that sport was important in the formation of identity and self-esteem amongst youth and thus its focus had to go beyond only talented athletes but include all youth in communities. LoveLife was visible and active in 900 communities and over 9 000 schools. Amongst those communities the entity had an adequate mix of urban and rural communities though it certainly was not everywhere. LoveLife was reaching about 40% rural communities, 55% urban and 5% mixed communities according to a research study commissioned by the Medical Research Council (MRC).
1: Target for maximum impact
In 2013 LoveLife had undertaken a strategy review process in response to the MRC research outcomes which had indicated that though there was a reduction in incidence of HIV infection amongst young people there was still an increase in HIV incidence in the general population overall. The research had also indicated that the knowledge levels about HIV were on the decline and thus the entity understood that it needed to intervene somehow. The entity understood that where there were increases in HIV incidence in the general population that seemed to occur mostly around the periphery of urban areas in informal communities and the same communities in rural areas.
2: Guarantee the quality of LoveLife
LoveLife had come to realise that the larger its reach became in communities the more inconsistent its programme delivery became. To that extent the entity had decided to maintain its current reach and to instead focus on improving the quality of its programme delivery by simplifying it. Moreover it became apparent that individuals at high risk for HIV infection were economically inactive young adults. After its evaluation of its programme offerings such its groundBREAKERS (gBS) programme, the entity had found that participants from that programme generally had better employment prospects, entrepreneurship opportunities and Further Education and Training ambitions and opportunities. LoveLife had thereafter established an academy in 2014 to offer the same training as that which gBS had received. The trainees would receive accredited certification and it was offered to anyone 18 years and above and not gBS only.
3: Next generation media innovation
The iLoveLife.mobi site was useful for finding out what youth perceptions were on current issues through the polling of young people’s opinions on a weekly basis by LoveLife.
The goGOgetter programme recruited and trained grandmothers in the communities that it worked in. The grandmothers ultimately offered support and supervision to orphaned children, mainly teenagers as that group was more vulnerable to HIV risk behaviours. There were also two toll-free help lines for both parents and children which reached about 60 000 people per month.
Mr Raxmax Mashigo, LoveLife Chief Operations Officer, said that the love4Life Challenge was an activity based programme that LoveLife had developed and coordinated during SRSA sport events so as to increase young people’s knowledge about issues that generally affected them. Teenage pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse would be some of those issues.
The UNCUT magazine which LoveLife published had a feature called ‘Mabaleng’. That feature captured an activity, event or sporting code but also drove knowledge and assisted the youth to know where to go to seek help and how to participate in the various codes offered by SRSA.
LoveLife had been invited by SRSA to participate in the rebranding and remodelling of the youth camps offering where from 2012-2014 that exercise had yielded nine youth leaders that had been elected from the participants by the participants of the camps. That also meant that there would be more input from the youth on how the curriculum of the youth camps should be developed and what needed to be included.
Sport for Social Change and Development
Amongst the recreational leagues that gBS had organised there was five aside soccer and Mkhukhu Function, which was a game that could be played with any object. It developed fitness and dealt with issues of cheating and other social aspects of human development.
The baseline research done in Muizenburg, Cape Town in 2013 where LoveLife in collaboration with HSRC had been investigating the use of extreme sport as a substitute rehabilitation programme for youth affected by substances abuse had some positive outcomes in that of the 14 athletes that were in the study, three had become full time surfers and were currently off substance abuse.
LoveLife’s Mpintshi programme had been assisted by certain provincial governments using the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) to employ them, such as the North West Social Development Department. However, there remained a high turnover of mpintshis, though the programme was contributing to youth employment.
Ms Linda Kumbemba, LoveLife CFO, took the Committee through the 2012/13 financial statements. She said the funding from SRSA had been split between administrative costs, programme costs and the total costs. That grant had totaled R33, 3 million for 2012/13. She said the 2013/14 financial accounts had been authorized for publication on the 26 March 2015. There had been no major issues from the audit outcomes. LoveLife had received a R34, 9 million grant from SRSA in 2013/14 which had been split in a similar manner. LoveLife had been declared as a going concern still at the end of the 2012/13 financial year.
Ms Kumbemba was alerted to the fact that the Committee did not have the 2013/14 financial document. She apologized and it was decided that it would be best to go no further with presenting the LoveLife 2013/14 financials.
Ms B Abrahams (ANC) wanted to know how big was LoveLife’s cellphone database, seeing that it used the iLoveLife.mobi site so widely. In which provinces had LoveLife established sports facilities and what type of facilities were they? Could it elaborate more on the refurbishment of its Y centres? Seeing that LoveLife received quite a few grants from various departments what was the purpose of that funding if there were no logos on any of the entity’s documents acknowledging departmental assistance. Was there any legislation barring the entity from acknowledging its sources of funding?
Mr D Bergman (DA) noted that he did not recognise LoveLife’s new branding and thought that was mainly due to its recent rebranding exercise, he felt the new logo was moving the entity away from the work it was doing. Moreover it seemed the new brand appealed more to corporate SA, directed at sourcing sponsorships rather than the youth it was supposed to be targeting and assisting. How was the entity monitored, because trusts seemed like conduits for receiving monies? On the Y centres that LoveLife envisaged building in urban centres, why would it want to build multipurpose sports facilities when there were such facilities already in those urban centres? Why could LoveLife not partner with those metros seeing that the metros were not intent on spending their 15% Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) for sports facilities? LoveLife could both maintain and make productive use of the already existing sports infrastructure. He noted small changes in what was reported in the 2012/13 financial statements document and the LoveLife magazine financial statements.
Ms D Manana (ANC) requested that LoveLife become more visible in rural areas. How much allocation had been set aside for specifically getting LoveLife into rural areas? How much investment had gone into cultural and school events? What was LoveLife’s relationship with nine provincial Departments of Arts and Culture?
Mr S Mmusi (ANC) noted that in the LoveLife graph on youth participation over the years, an increase in the entity’s reach could be seeing but there was no indication of a decline in HIV incidence among young people as a result of that reach. Could LoveLife elaborate on its academy programme, how people could access it and who was responsible for it? He had noticed in his constituency that young people were using only the subdermal contraceptive implant as a preventative measure against HIV infection though the Minister of Health, Mr Aaron Motsoaledi had advocated for the dual use of the implant and condoms. Could LoveLife interact more with the Department of Health (DoH) and intervene in the misuse of that implant by the youth. Successful as LoveLife’s radio broadcasting had been, he felt that the entity was not using television as best as it could.
Mr P Moteka (EFF) said that he rarely saw any LoveLife branded events or infrastructure in his constituency. How could local sports clubs and associations especially in rural areas access LoveLife?
Mr S Malatsi (DA) asked what the R152 000 allocation had been used for that LoveLife had received from Football for Hope. Moreover, in terms of the R500 000 donation that the entity had received from Brandhouse what was LoveLife’s stance on alcohol advertising given Minister Motsoaledi’s advocacy for the banning of such advertising. What was LoveLife’s stance on the random doping testing of school athletes and had the entity had any engagement with either the Department of Basic Education (DBE) or the South African Institute on Drug Free Sports (SAIDS) in that regard? What had informed the R14 million overdraft that LoveLife had taken out? Could LoveLife give a geographical spread of its 15 priority Y centres across SA? Could it also inform the Committee on whether it had a focused programme targeting young people in marginalised communities seeing that the prominence of the Y centres was mainly in urban areas?
The Chairperson said that the Committee had always noted that there was little transformation in sports development amongst SA’s rural communities. The Committee was quite strong in its oversight mandate and thus would lament the misuse of sporting funds or the limited impact that sport entities and SRSA were achieving in developing sport mostly in rural areas. Could LoveLife expand the goGOgetters programme to the deep rural areas of the country?
Ms Matlhape responded that LoveLife indeed acknowledged that possibly it was not as visible as envisaged in rural areas but that 40% of LoveLife’s income was invested in rural areas. The difficulty was that spatially rural areas were isolated from each other as a result one Y centre generally serviced one rural community.
The goGOgetters programme had actually been initiated by a group of gogos from Ethembeni region in the Eastern Cape. The 15 priority Y centres out of a total of 23 were spread across the nine provinces as evidenced in the 2012 annual report. Those priority nodes had been identified through the MRC research as the hubs where LoveLife had to focus and strengthen its service offering.
The R14 million overdraft had gone into the Y centres because the state grant that LoveLife received did not get to it on time though agreements were in place. Its core staff complement was 300 people with 1300 gBS and therefore operational costs had to be supplemented.
LoveLife’s relationship with the alcohol industry was quite complex because it did not accept advertising money from its donors nor did it accept monies as sponsorships. Grants that LoveLife received were from the 1% tax after profits that legislation required from all companies in SA as a contribution to social responsibility. It was certainly a problematic issue seeing that corporate social responsibility versus sponsorship could be complicated.
LoveLife had two partnerships with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), where Football for Hope had built 20 centres as part of the 2010 Soccer World Cup investment into Africa. Two such centres were built in partnership with LoveLife; one centre was situated in QwaQwa in the Free State and the other in Kimberley in the Northern Cape. The R152 000 per annum from Football for Hope went towards the operation of those centres.
LoveLife not being on television was simply an issue of how LoveLife understood young people to consume media communication. Moreover TV was much more expensive compared to radio broadcasting and LoveLife already had radio production infrastructure and moreover the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) assisted as well.
It would be interesting indeed to understand why young people were using the subdermal implant the way Mr Mmusi had described seeing that as a new invention everyone was still tracking how the youth used it. LoveLife had produced the dual protection campaign in partnership with the DoH though using dual protection was not easy.
The LoveLife academy was not a standalone structure, because all the 15 priority nodal Y centres each had a training facility. By academy Ms Matlhape meant a team of individuals that had previously constituted LoveLife’s training department. As the entity registered for accreditation of the training material it offered, that department had to be registered as a separate academy though it was still part of LoveLife.
The relationship between the increases in LoveLife’s reach and decrease in HIV incidence was that HIV incidence had indeed gone down as envisaged amongst young people. The graph had simply been excluded for fear of overloading the presentation with information. It was the age group that was in their early 30s that continued to get infected.
LoveLife certainly would love to get access to underutilised facilities as it had found that some communities had facilities, but because there were no attendant programmes for the utility of those facilities they ended up being vandalised. If there was any way the Committee could assist in getting LoveLife to partner with municipalities in that regard, it would be quite grateful.
LoveLife was registered as a non-profit trust, as was the academy. LoveLife was also a public benefit organisation (PBO) which meant it still had commitments in terms of the income tax legislation. There were very strong monitoring controls in place and an efficient audi committee which met once every three months and received reports monthly.
The new branding of LoveLife had been meant to appeal to young people which were the target of LoveLife. In that regard it had been the youth that had decided on what the new brand should look as they had been consulted.
Everything that LoveLife did with SRSA was dually branded as SRSA was a very involved department.
Mr Mashigo said that LoveLife’s relations with provincial governments were technically sound with only SRSA departments, however they had not moved beyond events and operations. The entity was generally invited to activities that had been already organised.
LoveLife currently did not have a relationship with the Department of Arts and Culture and it also did not have the funds to execute in detail a much broader arts and culture layout but it would certainly want to partner with DAC.
LoveLife’s core role was to empower young people in the Y centres to start their own sports clubs. Community clubs could only access the entity’s assistance through attending the coaching clinics run by sport federation-recommended coaches, where teachers developing sport in their schools would be also invited. Overall public sport clubs received minimal support from LoveLife due to budget constraints. Moreover the entity did not want to interfere with SRSA and sport federation mandates in that regard.
Mr Kumbemba said that the small differences in figures on the financial statements which Mr Bergman noted resulted from the rounding off of numbers.
The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee would like to receive documents well in advance so that they could be read beforehand, seeing that members were asking questions that had been addressed in the documents already.
Mr Malatsi asked where LoveLife stood regarding random dope testing of school athletes.
Ms Abrahams proposed that there be written responses to the unanswered questions due to time constraints.
Mr Moteka suggested that LoveLife should improve its marketing and communication seeing that it said its Y centres were evenly spread across the country.
Mr Mashigo noted that LoveLife did not perform doping tests since that was a competence of SAIDS.
Mr Malatsi said he would accept a written response because the response he had just been given was not addressing what he had asked which was LoveLife’s stance on the random testing of school athletes.
The Chairperson apologised to LoveLife for rushing the delegation and said the Committee was learning that it was not wise to have two entities coming to give a briefing.
The Sports Trust presentation: Enhancing education through sport
Ms Anita Mathews, Sports Trust Executive Director, explained that it also received some of its income from the 1% corporate responsibility tax after profit that all companies had to pay towards social responsibility.
Companies approached the Trust to act as its implementation partner to execute their corporate social responsibilities (CSRs).
The Trust spent 92% of its budget on its projects’ deliverables compared to its operational expenses.
Mr Simanga Matholeni, Sports Trust Projects Manager, took the Committee through the partnerships segment of the presentation. Ms Mathews noted that most of the work that the Trust did was in terms of project partnership funding where the Trust had no say in whom the beneficiaries were but it merely liaised between SRSA and the funder who then decided on the beneficiaries through a consultative process between national SRSA and its provincial departments.
Mr Obakeng Oganne, Sports Trust Project Coordinator, took the Committee through the infrastructure development section of the presentation. He said that at the completion of the facilities, the Trust did not bar the community from using the multipurpose courts in the interim because of scheduling challenges for official handovers.
Ms Mathews noted that in the past the Trust would do levelling, put in a concrete court and then put ‘sport court tiles’ on top before the children could play. Normally that whole process took a month to complete, but the Trust had recently investigated and managed to convince the American manufacturer of the multipurpose courts to send SA the tool for the sport base. Currently the Trust laid a recycled plastic sport base which took less time to lay and needed fewer materials.
Mr Oganne said that the Trust was trying to pilot a Let’s Play initiative at all the schools with the courts because it had realised that as much as it was laying the courts and then expecting federations to augment their programmes so that the courts could be used, the Trust was losing that battle. His appeal to the Committee was to get federations to develop programmes and implement them so that the courts could be utilised.
Ms Mathews said that the plan was to make the courts become integrated community sport hubs. With one court at a school that would then be shared with surrounding schools and other community club structures.
The Sisonke Boxing Club (SBC) had been on the Trust’s book for quite a while because at the time SRSA had instructed the Trust to get involved, the club was under the East London Veterans Boxing Forum. The Forum had originally purchased land from the owner who had in turn not subdivided the land before its sale. It had taken the Trust more than a year to locate the owner for the subdivision to be done. It emerged during that time that the Trust had to then register both Sisonke and the Forum within that community as legal entities before the subdivision application could be completed. All entities had been registered and the process for refurbishing was ongoing, with all the attendant legal delays. Of the R3, 8 million set aside for the project from 2012, expenses so far had been minimal seeing that the process was taking so long.
Sports Codes Development
Mr Tutu Skosana, Project Coordinator, Sports Trust, took the Committee through the sports codes development segment of the presentation.
Ms Mathews said that of the four youngsters representing the Western Cape cycling team, two had been earmarked by their coach as having potential to become part of the national cycling team by the end of 2015. There was a concerted effort to get young girls involved in the Nedbank schools cycling development programme.
Ms Mathews apologised that the Trust had omitted to include the National Schools Sport Championship (NSSC) programme which SRSA ran in partnership with the Trust since it acted as a conduit for SRSA to get funding from the National Lotteries Board (NLB). The Trust had in the 2013 NSSC managed to assist SRSA to host 9 600 participants in Bloemfontein. The Games had cost R64 million over five days, where that divided into R1300 per person each day, all inclusive. For the 2014 NSSC in Pretoria the total cost was R62 million though there were more participants as a result of more sports codes being played. There had been 13 500 participants which was R918 per capita over five days. Comparing the NSSC to the independent schools championship one could see that the state was still providing an inferior quality offering.
Mr S Mabika (NFP) asked the Sports Trust whether it was satisfied with the impact it was having in sports development in deep rural areas, seeing that the presentation mentioned disadvantaged communities on the periphery of urban centres as beneficiaries especially in KwaZulu Natal (KZN). Though the Trust was not deciding who the beneficiaries were, could it elaborate on its intention of ensuring that each municipality had a multipurpose court, in terms of actual numbers?
Mr Malatsi noted that the composition of the board of trustees for the Sports Trust was all male and that even in senior management there were no black females, could the Trust speak to that issue in terms of gender equality. The cost of office furniture and equipment had tripled between 2013 and 2014, could the Trust elaborate on that. Could it also speak to where dividend income from investments was located and what that income’s contribution was? Was the Trust established as a conduit for its various funders based on any legislative framework? Or was its existence in line with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between itself and each funder? What had been the role of the Sports Trust in managing, hosting and executing the Sports Awards? Of the 80 applicants that had been assisted from the discretionary fund, what was the total number of applicants for such assistance?
Mr Bergman was also interested over why the Trust had to be a conduit of SRSA in terms of distribution of funding that came from donors. Did the Trust tender for work that a funder would commission as part of its CSR? Where was the allocation for the SBC sitting? Where was the previous chairman, Mr Rob Fleming? Could the Committee receive the minutes of the Sports Trusts Annual General Meeting (AGM)?
Mr Moteka said that he found it problematic that the Trust had no input in who benefitted from its assistance. Possibly that was why certain provinces had been excluded so far. He then showed the Committee pictures of rural athletes that were using non-levelled surfaces, without kit and other equipment. He said that was why as Members they fought with some entities because they rolled out infrastructure in urban areas where they were underutilised whilst rural children were underserviced.
Mr Mmusi said that he heard Ms Mathews better when she noted that the Trust had no say in where to build and what to build. He had noted that the multipurpose courts did not include sitting stands, what was the reason for that? Even with the artificial soccer turfs, there were no athletics tracks enclosing the ground. That to him seemed to cater for one code without the other. Who was responsible for ensuring that communities could optimally use the infrastructure which the Trust was handing over? Could the Trust indicate whether it had ever supplied a multipurpose court with ablution facilities next to it?
The Chairperson asked what the Committee could do to assist the Trust in ensuring that there were sports facilities across the nine provinces. Could the Committee approach the Trust about communities in local municipalities needing sports infrastructure?
She asked Mr Malatsi to follow up with Mr Oganne on the promises he had made to supply two rugby team kits during the oversight tour in Limpopo during December 2014. Also there seemed to be no strong monitoring tools for the movement of funding between the NLB and the Trust. She noted that there had been large amounts of money lost by the NLB through ghost applications.
Ms Mathews said that the Trust itself was not satisfied with its sport development footprint in rural areas. However, as earlier stated when for example Harmony Gold in Theunissen, Free State approached the Trust wanting an implementation partner for its CSR. The Trust would then approach SRSA to say that it needed to consult its provincial Department to identify a beneficiary school in Theunissen. The reason behind the Trust approaching SRSA was because the SRSA had the national priority list of schools needing sports infrastructure.
The Trust did not do tender processes for the courts because there was only one accredited service provider in Africa for the installation of the courts. That also spoke to why the Trust was investigating local production of the surfaces due to the demand for the courts, but even local producers of the courts would still need to partner with that one service provider.
The reason behind putting the courts in schools was because that was where young athletes could be found. Moreover there was the safety and security challenge where the courts were concerned because that avoided the issues of vandalism altogether. There was also the extra cost of having to install ablution facilities if the courts were to be placed in a communal area, where schools already had access to ablution facilities. The Trust always emphasised to schools that the courts were to become an integrated community hub.
The only communal multipurpose court with no ablution facilities the Trust had installed was in Makhado, Limpopo and that was a great concern for the Trust.
On spectator stands, the funders felt that since the courts would be in schools, chairs could sourced from the school itself.
On the issue of the Trust’s BBBEE and gender representativity, corporate SA and SRSA would nominate their board representatives. All the Trust could do was to encourage its funders on the issue of gender representativity but ultimately it was their choice. That issue was certainly something the Trust’s management had also noticed. Ms Mathews was disappointed that Mr Malatsi did not see her as a black female since she considered herself black. In that regard the Trust would certainly rectify that omission to reflect generic black status. Moreover, she felt that the management team had a fair gender and skills balance to ensure delivery of sports infrastructure.
The office expenses of the Trust had increased because before 2012 when it started accessing more financial resources from SRSA, the staff complement had been five individuals. Realising that its mandate had been widened, the Trust had had to increase the staff complement as well as the hardware to accommodate its deliverables. Before that increase, the Trust had always relied on recycled office hardware from its trustees but it had realised that that tendency made seem incompetent sometimes as the hardware was old and sometimes not as cooperative. The Trust had decided then to simply get proper hardware to deliver efficiently.
Ms Skosana said that he received at least 10 applications per week for assistance via the discretionary fund. Everyone that fell within the criteria for being assisted was helped because though people had an idea of what they required they sometimes did not have the resources to fully support the documentation. The documentation was a single page requiring a description of the club, the number of participants at the club and the type of assistance they required. Indeed, the 80 applications had exhausted the resources at the Trust. Mr Skosana would have to back date the applications to 2014 April from April 2015 to capture the total number of applications for the discretionary fund. He had catered for all sport kits and equipment applications that came before him as far back as 2012, provided the single page had been completed.
When a trustee joined the Sports Trust they paid R1 million, which was put into seed capital to sustain the Trust as an operation and its deliverables. Every extra million rand that the trustees paid over to the Trust over a two year period at the beginning went to the Trust’s projects and deliverables. Over the years the Trust had invested that money and the interest accumulated from there, then ran the operations of the Trust. In that way in the future the Trust would be able to deliver on its projects, even without accessing any financial resources from its trustees.
In terms of the NLB Act, SRSA could not access financial resources from the NLB. SRSA needed a conduit and the Trust was allowed to act as such for the SRSA. SRSA was the owner of the NSSC, Sports Awards and any other property for which it needed access to funding. The Trust facilitated payment of suppliers and when suppliers heard that the Trust was involved, they were more likely to do business with government because of the Trust’s credibility and integrity record over the years. For the Sports Awards, the NSSC and the Mandela Day events, SRSA did not get the funding prior to the events; they were staged in debt because SRSA and the Trust had to wait for the NLB to allocate the funds. The 2014 NSSC suppliers were still owed just over R17 million since the NLB had not allocated funds to the Trust for SRSA. There was always that reconciliation that the Trust had to do for the properties of SRSA.
She reiterated the challenges with resolving the Sisonke issue and that the allocation for that refurbishment still remained with the Trust. The Trust did not have that money in its investment account because it was not allowed to draw interest on government and NLB funding. It was planned that the Trust would approach both bodies to get permission to put the money in a money market account so that it could earn interest, which would be used for projects.
Trustee representatives were identified by the corporates which they represented on the board. Those individuals had to be neutral when they sat on the Sports Trust because they had to look after the interests of the whole country in terms of sports development. With career advancement, people moved on so that a trustee had to choose a replacement representative. Mr Fleming had simply moved on to another company, because he had been elected to serve two years only, which was the recycle time for chairmen.
The Trust did not hold AGMs, therefore there were no minutes but it had two board meetings where the first meeting was for planning, financial projections and key performance Indicators (KPIs). Those minutes could certainly be given to the Committee.
She reiterated that the Trust did not decide who the beneficiaries were, as SRSA had the National Sports and Recreation Plan (NSRP) and the national objectives which guided who would be a beneficiary. In terms of the courts though, 17 of them had been installed in rural areas, the depth however, Ms Mathews had no idea. The Committee obviously could influence SRSA as to who the recipients of a court had to be.
The Chairperson interjected that Ms Mathews had to conclude as the venue had been booked for another Committee meeting.
Ms Mathews said that the Sports Trust was not responsible for community training for the use of multipurpose courts as there was not much training it could offer. The Trust relied on SRSA’s programmes and recently the Let’s Play initiative to train communities and schools to utilise the courts.
The Trust had proposed to their funders putting down a 400 metres athletics surface around the court, the disadvantage was that where there were courts already, the costing and the space needed were both not there. That would only be pursued in the future subject to funding.
Ms Skosana said that the youth race that was held before the Comrades Marathon in KZN where the Trust had found that there were a large number of learners from disadvantaged communities whom he had chatted with their coaches on the sidelines. The Trust did initiate conversation but it was an issue of correspondence stopping for one reason or the other, though it had supplied a school named Mandlakazi with netball kit and running vests.
Ms Mathews said that she was aware that since the Trust’s marketing manager had sent invitations to the Committee for the Cape Argus Cycle race, she was hoping members would join the Trust management at its marquee as the Trust had 90 cyclists participating in the race.
The Chairperson asked that the next report that the Trust came to deliver a briefing, it had to return with a full time chairman and not an interim chairman. She encouraged the Trust to keep doing its good work.
The minutes of the 24 February 2015 were amended and adopted.
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.