Shortlisting of SABC Board candidates: preliminary discussion

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson opened the meeting by urging the Members of the Portfolio Committee to consider the applications seriously and distinguish the best from the pool of applicants for short-listing. The selection process required participation from each Member. Subsequently, there was concern that representatives from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the Congress of the People (COPE) and the Pan African Congress (PAC) were not present, because they had been consistent Members of the Committee. Thus their inclusion along with those present, from the starting point to the conclusion of interviews, would have been advantageous. However, the process to be followed and documentation required for the interviews would be highlighted as a means of guidance during the selection process. The office had prepared ‘reference documentation’ for guidance purposes which the Content Advisor would present as the roadmap.

During the recent deliberations, the Committee had discussed the approach to undertake during the interviews, particularly whether questions should be given to the Parliamentarians to ask, or if free rein of questioning the interviewees should be opted for instead, since the interviews would be broadcasted live. Therefore, the accuracy of the information and the documentation that was to be received was paramount, because it would be problematic if the Parliamentarians appeared to be insufficiently knowledgeable. He stressed that as the selection process progressed, Committee Members were not to repeat any previous process or propose alternative nominees during these stages, once decided upon.

Mr Mbo Maleka, Committee Content Advisor, said that the intention of the presentation was to assist Members by outlining the process for the appointment of SABC Board members, taking into consideration the prescripts of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999. They would be adopting resolutions relating to the process for: (i) short-listing; (ii) interviews; and (iii) deliberations.

Short-listing

 

• Outline prescripts of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999 as the governing legislation;

• Number of candidates to be short-listed;

• Deliberation on whether the nominees’ list information is provided to the public – the Broadcasting Act states that the names of short-listed candidates must be published;

• Broadly discuss the criteria for key skills needed for the Board nomination process;

• First and final round of short listing of candidates nominated to serve on the SABC Board; and

• Adoption of progress report of short-listed candidates.

 

Interviews and Deliberations

• Member evaluation of interview process (lessons to be learnt);

• Presentation and motivation of recommended names by Members; and

• Adoption of report recommending candidates for appointment to serve in the SABC Board.

The Committee had to decide if the Human Resource Department of Parliament was to be involved or not.

Mr Maleka said the overview stated that on 5 October 2016, the Committee had resolved that an inquiry into the fitness of the SABC Board to hold office in terms of Section 15A of the Broadcasting Act, 4 of 1999 was necessary. Subsequent to the resolution of the Committee, on 3 November 2016 the National Assembly had established an ad hoc committee to inquire inter alia into the fitness of the SABC Board to discharge its duties as prescribed in the Broadcasting Act, No 4 of 1999, and any other applicable legislation. On 14 February 2017, the ad hoc committee had resolved that the SABC Board be dissolved and that the National Assembly appoint an Interim Board. The National Assembly had adopted this resolution on 7 March. On 14 March, the Committee had deliberated on the names and had recommended to the National Assembly that the following candidates be recommended for appointment to the Interim Board of the SABC: Mr John Matisonn, Mr Mathatha Tsedu, Mrs Febbe Potgieter-Gqubule, Ms Khanyisile Kweyama, and Mr Krish Naidoo.

On 2 June, the Committee had published an advertisement calling for persons to be nominated to serve on the SABC Board. The advert had closed on 30 June, and the Committee had received 363 nominations in total. The summary of the abridged curricula vitae (CVs) of nominated candidates had been distributed to Members electronically on Friday, 4 August. The hard copies of the CVs had been made available to Members on Monday, 14 August.

Mr Maleka concluded by highlighting Section 13: Members of the Board of the Broadcasting Act, 4 of 1999:

(1) The 12 non-executive members of the Board must be appointed by the President on the advice of the National Assembly.

(2) The non-executive members of the Board must be appointed in a manner ensuring:

• participation by the public in the nomination process;

• transparency and openness; and

• that a shortlist of candidates for appointment is published, taking into account the objects and principles of this Act.

(3) The President must designate one of the members of the Board referred to in subsection (2) as the chairperson and another member as a deputy chairperson, both of whom must be non-executive members of the Board.

(4) Members of the Board, when viewed collectively, must:

• be persons who are suited to serve on the Board by virtue of their qualifications, expertise and experience in the fields of broadcasting policy and technology, broadcasting regulation, media law, business practice and finance, marketing, journalism, entertainment and education, social and labour issues;

• be persons who are committed to fairness, freedom of expression, the right of the public to be informed, as well as openness and accountability on the part of those holding public office;

• represent a broad cross-section of the population of the Republic;

• be persons who are committed to the objects and principles as enunciated in the Charter of the Corporation.

Discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions.

Ms P van Damme (DA) asked if the CVs of the short-listed candidates could be uploaded on the website of Parliament for the sake of transparency. If so, civil society should be granted five working days to comment on the selection of short-listed candidates. The public comment, along with the Members’ analysis, would be taken into consideration for the final decision. Also, regarding the questions to ask, the Content Advisor could give questions, but such should serve merely as a guideline, because the Committee should not be restricted to the list.

The Chairperson replied that the short-listing would not take place today, because no hard copies of the CVs were on hand to peruse. Short-listing would occur on another date. The questions to ask would serve as a broad guideline.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) commented that if it was compulsory for a certain set of questions to be asked by the Members, it would evoke disadvantage, because each candidate would have a different skill set. Therefore the questions given could not possibly be entirely inclusive.

Ms N Tolashe (ANC) said that the questions would obviously be of a broad nature. The dates needed to be taken into consideration.

Mr G Davis (DA) raised two points. Firstly, there was the issue of falsifying qualifications, which was the reason for the hearing that had transpired, so what measures were in place to ensure that repetition of such situation would be avoided, particularly so that no one would fall through the cracks? Secondly, the number of short-listed candidates should be confirmed.

 

Mr R Tseli (ANC) said that there was no issue on the process, such as the publishing of the names, because the Broadcasting Act had specified the need for it. However, what was the number of candidates for short-listing, given the large amount of nominations?

Mr Maleka answered that for every vacant post, three prospective candidates should be interviewed.

Ms Tolashe replied that the extent of interest should be recognised, so a proposal for 50 candidates from the 363 nominees for interviewing should be made, as opposed to 36 candidates.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) agreed that out of the 363 nominees, 36 candidates should be short-listed according to legislation. He also proposed that each Committee Member should review 12 prospective candidates.

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) said it appeared as though the Committee was jumping the gun, because the 363 names of nominees had been received while receipt of their CVs was pending.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) agreed to align with the proposal that the Committee should not to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of interest. 36 candidates out of 363 nominees could be achieved on the basis of quality. Should candidates have the necessary expertise, academic background and experience, the selection process would not be challenging. Strict dates should be established.

Mr M Gungubele (ANC) commented that quality was not related to academic acquisition alone, because life experiences could result in transferable skills that could be deemed eligible for the weight of responsibility as an SABC Board member.

The Chairperson noted that a management meeting would take place tomorrow, because no delay was to be incurred. The Committee agreed that out of the 363 nominees, 36 candidates should be short-listed.

Mr Tseli indicated that the schedule available to Parliamentarians reflected some names as ‘self-nominated.’ Why had this distinction beenmade? Did the Broadcasting Act insinuate that persons could not nominate themselves? If not, why was it indicated, as in the past candidates that had nominated themselves were accepted as normal nominations?

The Chairperson said that some applicants had indicated ‘incomplete’ for their status of nomination, which was unacceptable, given the elapsed time since the closing date of 30 June. As this was the final stage regarding the name collection, the administrative particulars should have been completed.

Mr Maleka clarified that ‘incomplete’ status meant that all of the documentation required from the applicant had not been received yet.

Mr Tseli asked if each of the 363 nominees had qualified to go to the next stage, were they suitable candidates to have begun with?

The Chairperson asked for an example of pending documentation, because it was imperative that there should be no legal loopholes, which entailed stricter application from the outset.

Mr Maleka replied that in terms of the list of nominees, the routine had been that an incomplete application usually omitted a certified copy of the identity document (I.D) or qualifications. However, once the short-listed candidates were decided upon, their background particulars would be verified and it would be ensured that no documentation from those candidates was pending.

The Chairperson said that this was acceptable, and asked if the Broadcasting Act permitted acceptance of those who had nominated themselves?

Mr Maleka answered that in terms of the Act, there was no explicit refusal of self-nominations, due to a citation within Section 13, which referred to “participation by the public in a nomination process”. Those who had nominated themselves were subject public participation as well, and self- nominations had occurred before in the past.

The Chairperson emphasised that clarity on this issue was crucial.

Mr Gungubele noted that the difference between those nominated and those nominated by others should not be a concern, because a wide range of applications was encouraged. What was critical was the background of the candidate, such as his/her track record, which might constitute as competence for the position or not. Being nominated by someone else did not necessarily mean that the candidate was better suited for the job than someone who had nominated him/herself, because a nomination by another could have occurred on the basis of personal commonality with the nominator. For instance, both the nominator and the nominee could have attended a function, and since they have the same soccer interest in common, personal bias would lead to the nomination of the candidate on the basis of compatibility, as opposed to competence. Therefore, the concern over how the candidate was nominated was immaterial.

The Chairperson responded that due processes were to be followed at the outset, guided by the Broadcasting Act, as this would prohibit legal challenges in the future.

Mr Maleka said that Section 13 stated that the public in a nomination process should nominate non- executive members of the board, after which the legislation stopped. In other words, no specification was made regarding self-nominations as opposed to other nominations. Therefore, there were no restrictions about it and it had been accepted in the past. However, the Portfolio Committee could make a decision about its acceptance as an adequate public nomination or not. An alternative could be that after someone had nominated him/herself, he/her would require a loved one or colleague to back up the nomination as a means of public participation.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee could agree to such an interpretation, which was that a nomination would be accepted as public participation if it stemmed from civil society, irrespective of whether it derived from oneself or from another person nominating oneself?

Ms Tolashe said she was reluctant to agree.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could revert on the clarity of nominations at a later stage.

Ms Van Damme asked that in view of transparency and openness, could it be agreed by the Committee that both the names and the CVs of the short-listed candidates would be uploaded on Parliament’s website? The public should be able to peruse the CVs of the short-listed candidates.

The Chairperson noted that the proposal was that not only would the short-listed names be made public as per legislation, but in this instance their CVs would be made available for public viewing as well.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) agreed to the publishing of the CVs with the short-listed names.

The Chairperson recorded that it had been decided that short-listed candidates would have their CVs made available for perusal by the public on Parliament’s website (http://www.parliament.gov.za).

Ms Van der Merwe agreed with the publishing of the CVs, as the same approach had been undertaken with the candidates for the Commission Gender Equality (CGE). However, caution should be taken regarding their personal details. As means of protecting their privacy, details such as their identity numbers, email addresses and mobile numbers should be omitted from the uploaded information.

The Chairperson commended the recommendation, as exposure could entice abuse of information.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) proposed the publication of the 36 names for public comment. He said it was uncertain if the interviews should be broadcast live or conducted privately. However, the manner in which the interviews were to be done should be decided upon, such as conducting them over two days, and spending a collective 12 hours per day on the interviews, inclusive of a one-hour lunch break and two tea breaks. Since the interviews would be open to the public, they should be conducted in the shortest time possible. Even though it was impossible for 36 candidates to be adequately interviewed in one day, the issue of fairness should be considered. For instance, the quality of interviews and the issue of intimidation may be differently perceived by candidates who were interviewed later than of those who were initially interviewed, because the latter could watch and study the style and manner of the Parliamentarians. Regarding the timing of the interviews, his personal view was that each candidate should be given a maximum time of 40 minutes, because allocations should be benchmarked at 30 minutes. Interviews should start at 9am in the morning and end at 10pm in the evening for the two days. Could days for public comment on the short-lists be advised?

The Chairperson answered that the interviews should be done publicly, and it had been agreed that the public should be given five working days to comment on the short-listed candidates. The Committee should agree on the proposal of a time allocation for a maximum of 40 minutes per candidate. This was independent of whether 12 hours per day would be spent or not.

Mr Davis agreed that the interviews could not take place within the span of one day. However, two days for interviewing were impractical for the 36 candidates, because each candidate required at least an hour of interviewing time. The objective of a one-hour interview was motivated by the need to establish the best quality SABC Board possible from the pool of candidates. Thus, the Committee should be given the opportunity to cross-exam each candidate thoroughly. Some candidates might require even more than an hour for the interview. Since the interviews were a direct engagement with the candidates, it should not be a task that was rushed, which required that the Committee should adopt a more realistic approach. Therefore, his proposal was that the interviews take place over a period of four days, spending collectively nine hours each day, which would be one hour per candidate.

The Chairperson noted the counter-proposal of one hour per candidate, as opposed to 40 minutes, as interviewing time.

Ms Tolashe replied that three days, as opposed to the two that might be too exhausting and the four that might be too long-winded, would be the ideal amount of time demarcated for interviewing the 36 candidates. Regarding the aspect of time, 40 minutes to one hour per candidate would be sufficient. Should it be determined that each candidate received an hour, those who could be finished within 40 minutes could misuse the time to extend the interview into an hour.

Mr Ndlozi expressed concern for the big problem that the Committee faced, which was the backlog of administration in the back office. Efficiency was essential from back office to ensure that the Committee received all of the documentation on time. Another aspect of concern was the probability of unfairness should the interviews be publicly broadcast live across more than two days. Those interviewed on the third and fourth days would disadvantage those interviewed on the first day. Therefore, it was not viable for the interviews to take place over four days. As the interviews should be impactful, they could not be longer than 40 minutes, which was sufficient for both questioning and follow-up questions. He pointed out that it was not a Public Protector position that the candidates had applied for -- the vacancies were for SABC Board membership. The initial five minutes of the interview should be a presentation by the candidate as a means of introduction, followed by the questioning by the Committee. Not only was 40 minutes adequate time, but if the interviews stretched across four days, those interviewed on the last day would be well equipped with a stylistic study.

Mr Gungubele agreed with the 40 minutes as a benchmark allocation of time, but this did not need to be followed in a militarily rigid fashion. However, there would be instances of candidates that might require longer allowances of time, due to the quality and material investment. In such instances, those could be accommodated for up to an hour, but this should not be indicated up front in order not to waste time. Hence, it was important to set up a sensible time. Secondly, the issue of educational psychology was well articulated. The concern over copycats should be managed well. This obligated Parliamentarians to ask questions in such a fashion that the probability of plagiarism would cease to occur. Therefore, receiving guidelines would prove advantageous, because it would equip Members to ask quality, sensible and concise questions within 40 minutes.

Ms Van Damme noted that every time Parliament appointed a Board, the processes would be successful up until the final stage, when there was a tendency for the ball to get dropped. Given the occurrences that had transpired with the last SABC Board, it was essential that the ball was not dropped with this appointment. Secondly, it should be confirmed if the proposal for the time allocation was 40 minutes to an hour. Normally, each Member would ask one question followed by the answer of the candidate. In so doing, no one could be allowed to copy another interview. Therefore thorough research was necessary and permission for original questions should be allowed for the Parliamentarians, accompanied by the possibility of cross-examining each candidate. Each Member should be given five minutes to ask the questions and follow-ups in one go.

Ms Van der Merwe said that due to previous experiences of Board membership appointments, it would not be fair to interview candidates throughout a 12-hour cycle. Candidates interviewed at 10pm in the evening would not receive the same quality of interview as those interviewed during the day, or receive the same extent of focus as candidates interviewed in the early morning. At 8am in the morning, Parliamentarians would be fresh and better attentive than when exhausted and possibly grumpy at 10pm in the evening. Therefore, it was feasible that the interviews should take place over three to four days, as opposed to two days. The timeframe should be decided upon as well, because the durations may fluctuate. For instance, during the last set of interviews, there had been a candidate -- whose name also appeared amongst the current nominations -- who had claimed that his TV licence had been eaten by his dog. Subsequently, his interview had lasted for only five minutes, so allowances for these differences should be accommodated. Therefore, the proposal that the interviews should be three to four days, as opposed to two days with 12-hour shifts, was supported.

Mr Ndlozi said that it was evident that a trading off of principles should occur. Fairness, in the sense of time allocation that would enable good quality interviews, would require the trade of the element of the interviews being done publicly. Fundamentally, this was the argument made. If a candidate scheduled for the last day of questioning was seated at home watching in-depth one hour interviews of his/her competitors, he or she would be advantaged by noting how it was done. Taking into consideration the counter proposals, the interviews could stop at 4pm to ensure that each candidate would not encounter exhausted Parliamentarians. However, having it over a period of four days within public display would be unfair for those who were first interviewed.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee should deliberate the other issues pending a decision, because the issue of time could not be discussed for over 30 minutes. Thus, the ruling from the Chairperson would be given as the final answer.

Mr Kalako asked if that was applicable to all of the proposals.

The Chairperson answered that agreement had already been achieved on the other proposals.

Mr Kalako queried the issue of cross-examination within the time proposed. If each Member were to question before the candidate answered, much omission might take place due to mere forgetfulness, particularly under pressure. Proper follow-up questioning and cross-examination could not take place as a result.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee agreed that the follow-up questioning occur mid-way through the interview.

Mr Gungubele asked at what time the cross- examination would take place within the given framework of the interview. Would it be realistic to ask both the initial questions as well as cross-examine within the same five minutes? Ideally the questioning should take place, the interviewee should answer, and then the follow-up queries could be posed for the sake of clarity.

The Chairperson answered that it should not be open-ended questioning, but that cross-examination should take place within the allocated minutes per Committee Member.

Mr Tseli questioned the decision on the one-hour proposal, because a minimum of one minute and the maximum of 40 minutes had initially been understood as acceptable. A Committee Member had even given an example of an interview lasting five minutes, having said that demarcating an hour for the interviews could prove much too long. Secondly, was the Committee accepting those who had nominated him/herself as a nomination? If so, could confirmation be given?

The Chairperson answered that the Committee had agreed that those who nominated themselves were accepted as a nomination made by someone else.

Mr Tseli questioned why the documentation available to the Parliamentarians indicated how the nomination had been made. If it was insignificant that the nomination derived from the individual, why was the difference cited in the first place? Surely a distinction should be made between self-nomination and those nominated by others.

Ms Van Damme expressed concern that the Committee was engaged in trivial matters by repeating the distinction between self-nominated candidates and other nominees, as those self-nominated had been accepted as normal nominations in the past. Secondly, the interviews should continue to be broadcast publicly, but should not take place over a span of merely two days. Fairness would not be compromised, because each candidate had a different skill set and would be asked questions accordingly. For instance, those with a financial background would be engaged differently to those deriving from media, or had a journalistic background.

The Chairperson said that a calculation had been made. If the interviews were 30 minutes each, the process would take four days. If interviews consisted of 40 minutes, it would take three and half days. If the interviews consisted of 45 minutes, it would be up to three days. Therefore, it should be definitive that the interviews consisted of 45 minutes for each of the 36 candidates over a period of three consecutive days.

Mr Ndlozi asked whether the list would be divided into categories, since the short-listed candidates would derive from different backgrounds.

Mr Davis asked if measures would be put in place so that no one fell through the cracks.

The Chairperson assured the Committee that there would be vetting

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma, Committee Secretary, said that a consent form would be given to the short-listed candidates requesting permission to verify their qualifications. The consent form would be a prerequisite for the interview. In so doing, it would prohibit possible fraud.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee agreed with the proposal that the consent form for verification purposes should be a prerequisite for the interview.

Mr Davis asked if the qualifications would be verified by an independent qualifications body, such as the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA).

Mr Ngoma answered that the cited academic qualifications of the short-listed candidates would be verified.

Third term programme

The Chairperson asked if the Committee would still convene on Friday 18 August, as reflected in the programme for the term, or whether the revised programme would be followed instead.

Mr Tolashe asked if the Film and Publications Board (FPB) was incorporated within the programme for the term.

Mr Ndlozi noted that the two weeks of recent political activity had affected the programme, as it had not been foreseen in the original planning. Also, the presentation reflected that the electronic copies of the CVs had been sent on the 4 August, but it had been done a week later on 11 August. This was not the first occurrence of an administrative error

Ms Van Damme reminded the Committee that the initial programme had been amended, but it had not been received yet. Therefore, was the proposal to meet on Friday based on the original programme or its amendment? The Committee could not deliberate on its particulars if no definitive program had been received yet.

The Chairperson admitted that the back office required support for the sake of efficiency. It was pertaining to the FPB Amendment Bill.

Ms Tolashe felt that the Committee Secretary was not doing his job properly. The Committee support staff was remunerated for administration, so it was unfair that the Parliamentarians consistently had to point out administrative errors.

Mr Ndlozi also felt that in the end, the accuracy of administration was the responsibility of the Chairperson of the Committee. It was within the scope of the Chairperson to check the documents.

The Chairperson responded that he would take the criticism as constructive. Since the CVs had been received by 30 June, it should have been sorted out within 1 to 5 July.

 

Mr Gungubele asked if this was the last time that the concerns over administration were discussed, as it served as a trivial distraction to the purpose of Parliamentary deliberation.

 

The Chairperson assured him that this would be the last engagement on administrative errors, and confirmed that no meeting would take place on Friday 18 August.

 

The meeting was adjourned.