PSC Commissioners: shortlisting of candidates

Public Service and Administration

14 October 2016
Chairperson: Ms R Lesoma (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Sub-Committee of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration could not short-list candidates from the 132 applications it had received. The reason was that it needed to establish criteria based on the legislation that it was going to use during the short-listing and interviewing processes in identifying a fit and proper candidate for the post. The Committee heard from the Parliamentary Legal Adviser about what the Constitution said of “fit and proper”.

The Committee was advised to make its own determination about candidates who had a default judgement against them and of the kind of experience and qualifications it was looking for from the candidates because the courts and the Act had not made pronouncements on the matters, respectively. But the Act covered the Committee when it came to the required managerial experience.

The Committee agreed that the officials should from the 132 applications received compile a list of candidates with senior management experience which would be considered by the Committee for short-listing. The short-listed candidates would then be vetted before the interview process begins. The media was free to attend the short-listing and interviewing processes. Finally, The Committee agreed that short-listing would start from the 21 October 2016 and interviews be done during the week commencing 1 November 2016.

Meeting report

Criteria for short-listing of the PSC candidates

Ms Noluthando Mpikashe, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, informed the Members that the Committee was guided by Section 196 (10) of the Constitution about a “fit and proper” candidate to be appointed as a Commissioner in the PSC. She admitted the Committee adhered to the legal opinion and Section 196 (10) of the Constitution at its initial stage of advertising the vacancies to members of the public. Having received the legal opinion, the Committee could still develop criteria to justify, during the short-listing process, how a candidate deemed to be fit and proper would be identified. The Committee had to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the entire process.

Ms Mpikashe further recommended that the Committee conduct credential verification of short-listed candidates to ensure that all information supplied was correct and ensure that their appointment would not cause any conflict of interest. Structured questions would be distributed on the interview day and would not limit a Member to make follow-up questions if candidates did not answer satisfactorily.

She also stated that, amongst other things, the candidate to be short-listed had to be knowledgeable with skills about how government worked; have appropriate or extensive experience in senior management positions in either the public or private sector, and middle management could also be considered if a candidate met other qualities; and possess relevant qualifications in relation to the core mandate of the Public Service Commission.

Discussion

Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) wanted to know if the candidates would be subjected to security clearance as happened during the short-listing process of the Public Protector even though some had judgements against them.

Ms Mpikashe said what was important was for candidates to have integrity. If there were a default judgement against a person, the court had not made a pronouncement on that, and that was what the Committee should decide on.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) pointed out the law said the Public Service Commissioner could not belong to a political party or hold a political office. It would be unfair to appoint a junior to such a position without having gone through the ranks because the criteria set stated that the candidate should be at the level of head of department; must not hold a political office; and must be judged on skills and experience.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) said when it came to “fit and proper”, the Committee had to play a pivotal role. The concept was open to different interpretations. The Committee should decide how it was going to observe the candidate during the interview process. What was contained in the CV was different from what was reflected during the interview. Probing skills would help in observing and assessing the candidate. During the interview, the Committee was going to consider what the advertisement reflected about what was contained in the Public Service Commission Act. She wanted to know if the remuneration package should be advertised just like last time.

Members agreed it has to be stated in the advertisement.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee not vet every candidate that had applied. The Committee would have to short-list first and vet those short-listed before the interview process began. She wondered whether it were better if the candidate had a better understanding of how government worked, rather than focusing on the experience.

Mr van der Westhuizen suggested the Committee should determine the criteria even though the Act stated the minimum requirements. He further suggested that from the 132 candidates that had applied, the Committee should short-list at least 8. It would be impossible to interview 60 people. The Committee should follow the Act: if it said the candidate should be from a senior management level and up, then the Committee should stick to that and not deal with middle management candidates as that would not help the Committee.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana proposed that, for the Committee to be on the safe side, it should be stated that out of the 132 candidates that applied, a certain percentage of candidates could not be short-listed due to technical reasons.

The Chairperson, to help the Committee in the short-listing process, suggested that next to the name of the candidate there should be a column to indicate the current managerial level of the candidate.

The Committee Researcher stated that the approach the Chairperson proposed used to be employed previously. This time the Committee was limited in terms of experience and qualifications. Members should decide because the Act said nothing about that.

Mr Mncwabe suggested that the officials should eliminate those who were not in the senior management level, but should not short-list.

Mr van der Westhuizen stated that as the sub-committee of the Committee they should agree on the way forward and establish criteria based on the legislation. The officials should, in the meantime, compile a list of candidates with senior management level experience and submit it to the sub-committee for short-listing.

Ms Mpikashe warned the Committee that the Act does not say anything about the qualifications, but the Committee was covered by the Act in terms of the required managerial level from the candidates.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana said it was important to take a decision on how far this process would be open to the media, from the beginning to the end.

The Chairperson stated the room that is going to be used for short-listing should be well equipped in terms of the recording equipment. The process would be open and the media was free to attend.

The Committee agreed that short-listing would start from the 21 October 2016 and interviews be done during the week commencing 1 November 2016.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: