Evaluation of Heads of Department Report: briefing

Meeting report

LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE
26 August 2003
EVALUATION OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENT REPORT: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr. B J Mkhaliphi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
The HOD Evaluation Framework

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the Public Service Commission on the Head of Departments evaluation process and the importance of Performance Management in general. The purpose of the exercise was to identify areas of success and weaknesses. The Public Service Commission said it was there to assist in the implementation stage of the Performance Management process, but that departments would have to take full responsibility in the near future.

MINUTES
Ms. V Nhlapo (Chief Director: Senior Management & Conditions of Service - Public Service Commission) noted that the commission wanted to avoid a situation whereby an individual was evaluated as a shining star, when his department was in mess.

Please refer to attached presentation.

Discussion
Ms. N C Kondlo (ANC) asked how evaluation was done, in cases where there were differences in material conditions between a given province and another, or one department and another. Why was there was such a long process in matters where there was a dispute regarding an HOD performance/grievances. Such cases should be immediately referred to the review committee, then Deputy President instead of the process first going through a mediator, before being referred to a review committee and the Deputy President.

Ms. Kondlo also asked why the newly appointed HODs were deferred, and suggested that they could have been evaluated on the period they had been in their portfolios.

Professor Richard Levin (Deputy Director-General: Good Governance and Service Delivery) said his office was trying to standardize the actual process, by ensuring that the panel evaluating a particular HOD involved people who were familiar with the material conditions of a given place and the department.

Ms. V Nhlapo (Chief Director: Senior Management & Conditions of Service) said the PSC only comes in the evaluation process in terms of the overall annual performance, and said continuous monitoring was the responsibility of the various departments.

Mr. M L Mokoena (ANC) complimented the commission for its "wonderful" work. He asked what measures could be taken with HODs who had reached the ceiling in terms of non-performance. Why was there a need for disputes that a review committee had failed to solve, to go as far as the Deputy President. He felt that this was 'jumping so many levels'. There were so many people who could handle such matters. How could the PSC force those HODs who failed to submit financial and operational reports for evaluations to comply? He feared this could become a trend amongst non-performing HODs.

Mr. J Ernstzen (Deputy Chair: Public Service Commission) said the Deputy President could appoint or delegate someone to handle a dispute on his behalf, and that he would not necessarily be required to be present at all appeals. One way of getting rid of non-performing HODs would be to not review their contracts once they had expired.

Mr. R M Nyakane (UDM) asked how the commission evaluated other staff such as typists.

Mr. Ernstzen said the PSC only reviewed HODs under the Performance Management programs.

On the question of unresolved disputes being referred to the Deputy President, Professor Levin pointed out the Director Generals were appointed by the President and dealt with high budgets that sometimes ran into millions or even billions of rands.

Professor Levin said there were training programmes that the commission or evaluating committees could recommend to the departments.

Ms. Kondlo asked how objective the panels entrusted to evaluate HoDs were. Were there any measures to limit a conflict of interest within evaluating committees?

Ms. Nhlapo said the PSC tried to recommend objective committees when possible, but said there would always be line of objectivity and conflict of interest. While Chief Executive Officers were present at committee meetings evaluating their HODs, they did not form part of the panels.

Meeting was adjourned.