The Committee deliberated on and considered the report to the NA on recommendations to appoint members of an Independent board to hear and decide on appeals against decisions made in terms of Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (Sasrea), Act 2 of 2010 (Sasrea Appeal board).
The Committee voiced concerned about the lack of representivity in terms of gender; youth and disability in the candidate list. A Member advised the Committee to be wary about recommending a list for appointments to the Speaker for that list to be only sent back to the Committee for review as had occurred with another Committee of Parliament. It therefore had to be sensitive to the issue of gender representation.
The Committee recommended nine board members rather than seven minimum which was required by the Act.
The report was adopted with one amendment.
The Chairperson welcomed members and said that the Committee would only focus on the consideration of the report to the NA on recommendations to appoint members of an Independent board to hear and decide on appeals against decisions made in terms of Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (Sasrea), Act 2 of 2010(Sasrea Appeal board) as some members were rushing for flights.
Deliberation on and consideration of the report to the NA on recommendations to appoint members of an Independent board to hear and decide on appeals against decisions made in terms of Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (Sasrea), Act 2 of 2010(Sasrea Appeal board)
Mr Teboho Thebehae, Committee Content Advisor, took the Committee through the report. He explained that the score sheets that members had were scored out of a total mark of 95 instead of a 100. The staff had then based the percentage calculation of each candidate on that 95 total and the number of members of the Committee present at each interview. The members present would constitute the 5% leeway left out in increasing or decreasing a particular candidate’s score. However, he was certain that there was no such instance where the 5% would have needed to be used as the scores before the Committee had been as objective as the score sheets could make them. He directed the Members to read the column with the marks each member had allocated each candidate and said that the staff had then averaged those collective scores from members to reach a final candidate average for each interviewee.
He reminded the Committee that the Act recommended that the size of the board needed to be a minimum of seven directors.
The Chairperson interjected that as it was the recommendation was not capping the number of directors at seven and therefore the Committee was supposed to also deliberate on the size of the board. She asked whether the Committee would then like to have seven or more directors.
Ms D Manana (ANC) asked if the number could not be increased to nine directors.
Mr L Filtane (UDM) said that if the Committee found that the top seven candidates for the board were found to have qualifications suited for the work and there remained a candidate which would not have made the cut but possessed qualifications befitting the work of the board and adding value it would then make logical sense to enlarge the size of the board to nine.
Mr S Malatsi (DA) said over and above what already had been said the Committee had to be mindful of representivity in terms of gender; youth and disability. He was therefore in support of a nine member board.
The Chairperson noted that there was consensus that the Committee would recommend a nine member board.
He then presented the list of candidates with their average scores to the Committee. He said there had only been two females in the list and one disabled person. Experientially the top seven candidates ranged from lawyers to sport practitioners to risk management, engineering and accounting professionals.
Mr Malatsi said that he was concerned with the seeming over representation of individuals from a legal background in the top seven candidates. In casting the net widely he was further concerned in terms of who ultimately would become the Chairperson of the board seeing as that individual would be presiding over applications for sporting events. Therefore in the final recommendations the Committee could consider making sure that those people would be people that would and could actually attend some of the events.
Mr Filtane noted the fairness in the scoring system as there was no bias towards any particular candidate.
The Chairperson said she was concerned that there were only two women and one disabled persons in the running for director candidacy. However, the Committee would be recommending the nine people which had actually come for the interviews.
Mr G Mmusi (ANC) said that the Committee had to be wary about recommending a list for appointments to the Speaker for that list to be only sent back to the Committee for review as had occurred with another Committee of Parliament. It therefore had to be sensitive to the issue of gender representation and he had thought there would be State Law Advisors at the meeting to further clarify the requirements of equality in that regard.
Regarding those that had not scored well but the Committee felt had the requisite expertise; Mr Mmusi said it would be entirely upon the Committee to decide whether the score would be a barrier.
Ms Manana said the matter of gender inequality was already indicative at the application stages of the appointment process because if there had been only three or four female applicants, the Committee could do no more but shortlist from the available pool of applicants.
Ms Malatsi said that if the Committee felt strongly about gender balance it would be useful if the scores were closer together between the people at the lower end and what the Committee was trying to achieve however, the Committee would be lowering its standards if it were to say that on the basis of gender imbalance it would simply recommend another female.
Mr Ralegoma said that he had originally thought the appointments were procedurally done differently from those of Chapter 9 institutions but seeing that the Minister would be making the final decision it would be useful for the Committee to be briefed on how those Chapter 9appointments were made.
The Chairperson asked whether the Chairperson of the board was also a recommendation from the Committee or was it the Minister’s prerogative.
Mr Thebehae said that the finalised list would have to be adopted by the Committee for tabling before the Minister as a report.
Mr Filtane moved for adoption of the list of candidates for the Sasrea Appeal board.
Ms B Dlomo (ANC) seconded the motion.
The report was dully adopted
The Committee further clarified to the staff that it would be recommending nine board members rather than seven minimum which was required.
The meeting was then adjourned.
No related documents
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.