Public Service Commission Report on Management of Discipline in the Public Service

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
8 September 2004
MANAGEMENT OF DISCIPLINE IN PUBLIC SERVICE: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Ms L Maloney (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Presentation on Public Service Commission Report
Public Service Commission Report on the Management of Discipline in the Public Service (document awaited on the Public Service Commission website)

SUMMARY:
The Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Department presented the Public Service Commission Report on the Management of Discipline in the Public Service. Points of concern raised by Members included the non-compliance of departments in supplying adequate information; the distribution of the disciplinary code to their employees; and the need for co-ordination between branches of government involved with monitoring discipline in the public service.

MINUTES
Mr P Muthusamy (Chief Directorate: Public Administration) briefed the Committee on the PSC Report on the Management of Discipline in the Public Service highlighting that although the management of discipline in the public sector had improved there were a variety of concerns that needed to be addressed. Discipline remained primarily a management responsibility but that the professional ethos of the public service relied on the commitment of all stakeholders.

Discussion
The Chairperson pointed out that the PSC study involved all government departments.

Mr M Sikhosona (Director-General) suggested that the Committee approach the statistics in the Report with caution as there were a number of departments, both at national and provincial level, who had failed to submit information to the Commission, most notably at national level: the Department of Health, the Department of Housing and the Department of Safety and Security. He added that there was a suspicion that, due to the absence of proper document management in the departments and issues such as intimidation, many cases were not recorded. He also conveyed that there was disagreement over who was responsible for disciplinary action when a culpable individual had been transferred away from the department in which he or she committed the misconduct.

Mr S Simmons (NNP) inquired as to what action had been taken against those departments who had failed to submit adequate information to the PSC.

Mr Sikhosona explained that the study had been conducted in 2000-2001 and since then the PSC had decided that, in accordance with the Public Service Act, the departments who had not provided satisfactory information would be summoned and required to pay a fine.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) requested clarity on the difference between theft and embezzlement and asked whether the PSC had any recommendations concerning the issue of intimidation.

Mr Muthusamy responded that the PSC had attempted to categorise the different types of misconduct in order to acquire a better understanding of the reasons for their perpetration.

Dr Luthuli suggested that, as there was no material difference between embezzlement and theft, they should be included in the same category.

Dr D Balia (Acting Deputy Director General: OPSEC) pointed out that although there was little ethical difference between the two forms of misconduct, theft was usually overt in the sense of resources being physically removed whereas embezzlement was typically less explicit.

Mr Sikhosona added that it was important that all organisations and branches of government involved with monitoring and evaluation (M&E) use the same classifications and terminology in order to ensure that a common understanding of the problems surrounding issues of corruption and misconduct be established. In addition he explained that the PSC was involved with an audit of all M&E systems in government.

Mr M Mzondeki (ANC) voiced concern over the number of dismissals and stressed that the Report ought to include information on other corrective measures, as this would more clearly reflect whether corruption and mismanagement in the Public Service was being dealt with effectively.

Mr K Minnie (DA) asked what action had been taken to ensure that all departments and their employees had access to the Disciplinary Code and queried whether the Report should be tabled if the statistics were inaccurate and misleading.

Dr N Maharaj (Public Service Commissioner) highlighted that the Report indicated that the Code was available to the departments but that many had failed to supply their employees with the relevant information and explained that although discipline was a management prerogative, it was imperative that departments work in partnership with their employees to ensure that effective discipline was maintained. He added that an analysis should be made of the implementation of other forms of sanction including demotion and suspension in order to determine their effectiveness in reducing the levels of misconduct.

Mr Muthusamy stated that the number of dismissals due to theft, fraud and absenteeism were not surprising, as they were amongst the most significant problems in the public service.

The Chairperson asked whether lack of punctuality was included as a form of misconduct.

Dr Maharaj indicated that such misconduct was indicative of a poor work ethic and addressing this ought to be a starting point for managers intent on creating and maintaining proper levels of discipline and conduct.

Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) noted that the Report dealt with the 2000-2001 period and did not necessarily reflect the current situation He also queried the absence of a mechanism by which departments could check whether a potential employer was under investigation for misconduct and why employees in salary levels 2-8 appeared to be the most corrupt.

Ms P Mashangoane (ANC) requested details on whether programmes and measures had been put in place to deal with the lack of qualified investigating officers.

Mr Muthusamy acknowledged that the lack of adequate training programmes for investigating officers was a concern and that it was the intention of the PSC to establish a permanent team of officers to deal with disciplinary problems.

Mr E Saloojee (ANC) asked why the PSC Report distinguished between different ethnic groups in terms of levels of corruption and whether the PSC had a strategy for addressing the issue of intimidation in the provinces.

Mr Sikhosona stated that the great majority of workers employed in the public service fell in the salary brackets 2-8 and that this accounted for the unusually large degree of misconduct found in these brackets. Issues such as the specific working environments needed to be taken into account when considering the levels of delinquency. The record of difference in levels of corruption amongst ethnic groups was significant in view of the country's history. With regard to transfers, he said that it ought to be mandatory for departments to record pending misconduct charges.

Dr Luthuli suggested that there was a problem with the monitoring of public service activities as the authorities were only informed after the events.

Dr Maharaj responded that the PSC shared many of these concerns and stressed that the role of the PSC was to monitor departmental compliance in terms of exercising discipline and make recommendations to the legislative authority after which the legislature was required to assist with the implementation of such recommendations. He added that the extended period between when the study was conducted and when the final Report was tabled was a consequence of the failure of many departments to submit adequate information in the allocated time frames.

Dr Balia pointed out that, linked to the Report, was a study involving an evaluation of the impact of the disciplinary code on the public service which dealt specifically with issues such intimidation, victimisation and whistle-blowing.

The Chairperson asked if the Report made recommendations to the government regarding issues around misconduct and requested that the PSC keep the Committee informed.

Mr Sikhosona explained that the PSC was currently involved in a general audit of all M&E branches and organisations of government but stressed that all such organisations should co-ordinate their action to ensure that information was reliable. In response to concerns about workers access to the disciplinary code and the establishment of an induction programme, he indicated that a programme was being instituted.

SALGA and CAPAM conference attendance
The Committee then discussed the allocation of Members to represent the Committee at the SALGA and CAPAM conferences scheduled for 26-30 September and 23-27 October respectively. It was agreed that the ANC should have two representatives out of the four invited to the SALGA conference and four out of the six invited to the CAPAM conference.

The meeting was adjourned.