Construction Industry Development Board on its 2014/15 Annual Report: meeting postponed

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone and asked the delegation from the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) to introduce themselves.

The Chairperson expressed dismay upon hearing that two officials were acting CEOs on a rotational basis. He added that it would be important for the Committee to ascertain whether pertinent questions should be directed to the officials or the Department about why they were acting, for how long this had been the case and what impact this had on the entity.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) also expressed concern about the “back-and-forth acting on positions”. She had seen this in other departments [with bad results]. The law was clear that a person could not be in an acting position for more than a specific period of time.  It was clear that the Department was treating the Committee with contempt by not being present at the meeting without submitting an official apology.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) agreed that the officials from the Department should have been present in the Committee in order to explain why the two officials had not been hired on a permanent basis. It would be useless for Members to grill the two officials on the matter that was the responsibility of the Department.  

Mr F Adams (ANC) reminded the Committee that the Department had promised in the last engagement that the matter of rotational acting CEOs in the CIDB would be resolved with urgency. The Department should have been present at the meeting in order to clarify on the matters that were being discussed. 

Ms Hlengiwe Khumalo, Chief Financial Officer of CIDB, explained that the matter of rotational acting CEOs was done precisely because the former CEO was dismissed following what was alleged to be non-performance. The CEO challenged the dismissal and the matter was eventually taken to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The CCMA ruled in favour of the previous CEO and the Board was compelled to challenge the ruling even further in the Labour Court. The matter was currently under investigation. The entity usually came to these kinds of meetings with the Chairperson of the Board but the current interim Chairperson was also the DG of Public Works.

Ms Kohler-Barnard added that the general rule was for the Committee not to allow the officials of CIDB to make a presentation, as it was clear that it was being treated with disrespect and contempt. It would be pointless for the Committee to grill the two officials while neither of them was holding a permanent position. The meeting should rather be cancelled and then rescheduled again so as to send a strong message to the Ministry that the Committee could not be treated with grotesque contempt. She was outraged by the fact that that the Department did not even bother to be present in the meeting as there were lot of questions to be answered.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) supported the concerns of Members around the absence of officials of the Department. However, she suggested that perhaps the Committee should continue with the meeting and then forward all the relevant concerns to the Department.

Mr Adams supported the proposal that the meeting should rather be cancelled and rescheduled.  The message should be clear that there should be stability within the Board. 

The Chairperson admitted that the Committee should reschedule a meeting together with CIDB and the Department where there would be frank discussions on why there had not been stability within the entity. The Board had a fiduciary responsibility and therefore it was also compelled to answer about the rotational CEO situation. The responsibility of Members was to act in the best interest of the people of South Africa. The officials from the Department as public representatives were also expected to act in the best interest of South Africans.

Ms Khumalo added that the matter was further delayed by the fact that the previous Board, at the time of the former CEO, was dissolved and then reappointed. The Board had been briefed that the sitting for the hearing on the former CEO was to be in early November 2016. It must be highlighted that the Board had tried to settle the matter with the former CEO outside the court but the offer was turned down. The legal opinion was that the entity should rather wait for the conclusion of the matter before appointing a new CEO.  The matter had been discussed further in the Remuneration Committee of the Board and it was decided that the proposal would be taken to the Board at the end of March 2016 in order to decide whether to advertise for the position even though the matter was still in the Labour Court.  The Board was equally concerned about the current situation and also wanted to ensure that there was a permanent CEO in the entity.   

Ms Inba Thubirana, Programme Manager: Procurement and Delivery, CIDB, added that the Board was also equally disturbed by the fact that there had not been stability in the entity. Although the situation was bad, the Board was still able to achieve some of the annual targets. The combined strength of the Board was able to ensure that it was able to work together towards achieving the annual targets. The rotational setup was also able to relieve the stress of being in the position of a CEO, as this was the most hectic position and this allowed the Board to look at things differently and confront the challenges collaboratively.  

The Chairperson reiterated that the decision of the Committee was that the meeting should be cancelled and rescheduled. The Committee would meet with the Department together with the Board to find a solution going forward.

The meeting was adjourned.