Deliberations by Committee on candidates that were interviewed; Adoption of Outstanding Committee Minutes

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone at the meeting. He informed Members that they would first deal with the adoption of minutes before they deliberated on the names of the candidates that would make a final list and be recommended to the President.

Adoption of Committee minutes

Minutes of 2 March 2016

Ms Z Ncitha (ANC, Eastern Cape) complained about the incorrect spelling of her surname.

The Chairperson said that the error would be corrected.

Ms T Mpambo-Sibhukwana (DA, Western Cape) noted that in the minutes she was recorded as present, although she had been absent.

Mr Y Cassim (DA) said that he had not been notified of the previous meetings of the Committee. Yesterday he had had to catch a flight from Nelson Mandela Bay to come to the meeting because his colleague had informed him of yesterday’s meeting, which was why he was late for yesterday’s meeting. He had not received a notification for the of 9 March and 23 March 2016 meetings. Therefore, he wanted that recorded.

The Chairperson said that a printout would be made available to Mr Cassim, and it would be established from the support staff why he had not received a notification.

Ms N Mokoto (ANC) also complained that she had not been informed of the meetings of 2 March 2016 and 9 March 2016. However, for the meeting of 23 March 2016 she had forwarded an apology through her secretary.

Mr M Hlengwa (IFP) said that he had been present at that meeting, but that it was not reflected in the minutes.

Mr M Khawula (IFP) also noted that his name was not reflected in the minutes although he had been present.

Ms M Lesoma (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes, with amendments.

Mr S Mncwabe (AFP) seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the minutes, with amendments.

Minutes of 9 March 2016

Mr E Marais (DA) said that he had forwarded an apology for that meeting, but it had not been recorded in the minutes.

Mr M Hlengwa (IFP) said that he had been present at the meeting, but that was not reflected in the minutes.

Mr M Khawula (IFP) also noted that his name was not reflected in the minutes although he had also been present.

Ms Mpambo-Sibhukwana said she was recorded as absent although she had been present, and her initials and party affiliation had been incorrectly recorded.

The Chairperson assured Members that the errors in the minutes would be corrected. However, the contents the minutes were fine.

Mr B Mkongi (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes, with amendments.

Mr Hlengwa seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the minutes with amendments.

Minutes of 23 March 2016

Mr Marais said that he had been present at the meeting, although it was not reflected in the minutes. He asked what the point of signing a register was, if his name was not reflected in the minutes.

 

The Chairperson said that there were many mistakes in the minutes, especially in respect of attendance.

Mr Mncwango also noted that his name was not reflected in the minutes, although he had been present.

Mr Khawula said that his name was also not reflected in the minutes.

The Chairperson said all errors in the minutes should be corrected.

Mr Mkongi said that what has happened now with the minutes was very serious and important for the running of Parliament and the Committee. They were dealing with the very critical issue of the running of the NYDA, and politically it was a tough journey they were facing, going forward. If Members did not receive a formal apology from the officials, the integrity of the Committee and co-Chairperson was at stake.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee Secretary must explain what had happened and why there had been so many errors in the minutes.

Mr Moses Manele, Committee Secretary, said that note had been taken of the concerns raised by Committee Members. The problem was that from a processing point of view, the draft first set of minutes had gone through the content adviser via the co-chairpersons, which had been edited. However, they had printed the set that was not edited. Therefore, on behalf of the secretariat, they had an obligation to admit they had made a mistake and were apologising for that error. The Committee Members should rest assured that the attendance errors would be corrected.

The Chairperson said that the Committee accepted the apology.

Mr Marais said that initially the Committee had intended to interview 13 candidates, but had interviewed 12 candidates. This was not reflected in the minutes. Candidate 13 had not met the criteria and it should be reflected like that in the minutes.

Mr Nthebe (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes with amendments.

Mr Marais seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the minutes with amendments.

Minutes of 29 March 2016

Mr Cassim and Ms Mokoto noted that their names were not reflected in the minutes.

The Chairperson said that the omissions would be corrected.

Mr M Mohapi (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes, with the necessary amendments.

Mr Mncwabe seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the minutes with amendments.

The Chairperson assured the Committee that all issues raised by Members would be corrected.

Consideration and adoption of Committee report

The Chairperson said that the report should be separated from the final score sheet, because the report was about the process of the Ad Hoc Committee up to the present. The final point would be recommendations, but for now they were dealing with the content of the report. The officials should compile the composition of the Committee, because they did not want who was on the Ad Hoc Committee to be taken for granted.

 

Mr Mohapi noted that in terms of consistency, the Committee was referred as the “Ad Hoc Joint Committee” and from page 2 onwards, it was referred to as the “Ad Hoc Committee”. There should be consistency in the name of the Committee, and it should be reflected in the report as the “Ad Hoc Joint Committee”.

Mr Marais asked for clarity in terms of the words “rigorous process,” which were indicated in last paragraph of page 2 of the report. He added that in the last paragraph it was indicated that 13 candidates were going to be interviewed. However, the Committee had actually interviewed 12 candidates, and this should be reflected on the report.

The Chairperson said that the words “rigorous process” meant that the Committee had followed a painstaking process of short-listing. It had been very carefully done. It depended on how one put it. The officials had chosen the words, but they represented the same thing.

Mr Mohapi said that on page 2 of the report, in the last sentence of the last paragraph, it should read “each member present”, not just read “each member”.

Ms D Manana (ANC) said that there was something missing in the report on point 2 under procedure. because they had said that if a Member had not been present when interviewing the first candidate, that Member automatically became an observer for the duration of the interviews.

The Chairperson asked if they should include that in the report.

Ms Mokoto said that the second last paragraph on page 2 read as follows: “On the 23 March 2016 the Joint Committee considered the process of short-listing candidates for interviews”. She said that the word “considered” should be changed, because they were not considering a process but rather they were undertaking the process.

Mr Khawula moved the adoption of the report, with the necessary amendments.

Ms Mabe seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Deliberation on candidates’ final scores

The Chairperson reminded the Committee Members that yesterday they had agreed that they would collect scoring sheets from Members and request the officials to consolidate the score sheets into a one-pager. The one-pager represented the final scores made by Members, and the details of that were contained on another page which showed how candidates performed in terms of all the questions. A summary was contained on the last page.

The Chairperson said that Members should deliberate on the summary, which explained how the scores had been calculated.

Mr Hlengwa said that when looking at the document, with Members’ scores per question, the increase from 15 Members of the Committee to 17 Members would affect the average score of each Member. He asked about the status of Members who had arrived late for the interviews, and whether their scores would be considered.

The Chairperson said that they had scored and their scores had been considered. Two Members had arrived late -- Ms Lesoma and Mr Cassim. Their scores had been submitted and considered, and were reflected in the final score sheet.

The Chairperson said that they should engage on the actual names that had been recommended.

Ms Mokoto said that they should first find justification of the point that had been raised by Mr Hlengwa, because it would not be proper to leave it hanging like that. The Committee could be challenged on the basis of that question.

Mr Mohapi said that if the first candidate had been interviewed by 15 Members and the other candidates by 17 Members, the first candidate would surely be deprived of scoring by the late Members, which was unfair for that candidate, and would reflect inconsistency.

The Chairperson said that it therefore meant that they should take a break and allow the officials to recalculate the scores, excluding those of Mr Cassim and Ms Lesoma.

Mr Cassim said that he was fine with that ruling, because the process had been caucused anyway by the ANC.

The Chairperson asked Mr Cassim whether he was questioning the authenticity of that process, and if not he must withdraw that statement.

Mr Cassim said he would not withdraw the statement because it was true. The meeting was supposed to have started at 10:30am, but the Members of the ANC had arrived at 11:00am.

The Chairperson said that they should leave that issue and allow officials to do the recalculation of scores. He cautioned Mr Cassim about his statement.

Deliberations Continued

The Chairperson said that the officials had assisted them by revising the score sheet and excluded the scores of both Members who had arrived late for the interviews. There was a new document that had been distributed to Members, and the scores of the 15 Members were reflected in the consolidated final score list.

Mr Mkongi said that they welcomed the effort of making this process more transparent and credible, especially when they talked about scoring and so forth. The scoring was the reflection of what had been happening there. However, they had agreed yesterday that they were going to combine two methods -- the scientific one which was the scoring one, and the second one, which was the motivational method. They could therefore accept the outcomes and leave the debate to people who wanted to make a debate.

Mr Nthebe said that he agreed they were going for two processes today, but also agreed that through the Co-Chairs they would go and verify the qualifications of candidates and therefore feed to the broader committee as they go back.

Mr Nthebe said that they had also had a opportunity yesterday to go through all the candidates in terms of scanning their CV’s and listening to their motivations. He would like to suggest that the fourth name that was appearing in the one-pager list, based on the agreement they had in the past, should not go through the Committee and appear in the one-pager. They should also agree that in the process of doing this, it would mean that all other names following candidate number four would move up one. Therefore, number five would become number four, number six would be number five, and so on. All and all, they would have 11 names going through, taking into consideration the issues that had been raised lately about legitimacy and all the issues they needed to check.

Mr Mohapi concurred with Mr Nthebe, emphasising that part of their responsibility was to ensure that they were not creating any recipe for possible litigation.

Mr Mohapi said that the Committee should also recommend that the President should consider the issue of geographical spread, issues of gender and whatever would inform the entire process.

Mr Mncwabe asked for clarity with regard to the proposal that candidate number four should be removed from the list.

Mr Mohapi responded that when the advert had been adopted by the Committee, a post-matric qualification was one of the requirements for the position. Unfortunately, candidate number four (Mr Itiseng Morolong) had indicated that he was still studying towards his degree, which meant that he did not meet the requirements of the advert, hence his removal from the list.

Ms Mpambo-Sibhukwana asked what the Committee had decided about candidates who turned 36 years old this year.

Ms Mabe said they should be careful and not speak generally, but rather to be guided by the Act in this regard.

The Chairperson said that the Act was silent on the issue of age, but they would consider that issue as the Committee.

Mr Mncwabe said that some candidates had performed very well in the interviews, but he was worried that they were over-committed with other responsibilities and would not have enough time to concentrate on the NYDA. The NYDA needed committed full-time members who would move the Agency from the point of a clean audit.

The Chairperson said that they should have asked the candidates about their availability.

Mr Mohapi said that most of the candidates were committed to the issues of young people.

The Chairperson said that only candidate number four would be removed from the list and the seven top candidates would be recommended to the President.

Mr Marais asked for clarity with regard to the issue of age.

Ms Mpambo-Sibhukwana pointed out that two candidates on the list had been born in 1980 and would turn 36 this year.

Ms T Motara (ANC) said that those two candidates had still been 35 and when they had deliberated, they had said as Committee “up to 35.” Therefore they qualified for the positions in the NYDA.

The Chairperson said that therefore the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on Appointment of Board Members to the National Youth Development Agency, recommended seven candidates to be appointed to serve as Board Members in the NYDA.

The Chairperson thanked Members of the Committee for their inputs.

The meeting was adjourned.

According to the ATC, the Committee recommended the following names for approval by the House – Yershen Pillay, Thulani Tshefuta, Bavelile Hlongwa, Thembinkosi Josophu, Zandile Majoz, Naledi Maponopono and Ndumiso Mokako.