Public Service Commission Annual Report: briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 October 2005
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT: BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr R Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Public Service Commission Annual Report 2004/05: PowerPoint Presentation
Public Service Commission Annual Report 2004/05 (see www.psc.gov.za)
Public Services Commission

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission (PSC) delegation began by outlining the details of the PSC’s 2004/05 financial statements. Officials noted that the PSC had received an income of R73.4 million in 2004/05. Of this, the PSC had spent R71.26 million. The delegation then discussed the achievements of the PSC’s three programmes, namely Administration; Investigations and Human Resource Reviews; and Monitoring and Evaluation. The PSC’s achievements for 2004/05 included receiving an unqualified report from the Auditor-General; finalising 299 public service employee grievance cases; implementing the Grievance Procedure Rules; investigating allegations of maladministration; establishing the National Anti-Corruption Hotline; implementing the Financial Disclosure Framework; producing the Public Service Report; and assisting in the implementation of the Citizen’s Forums.

In the ensuing discussion, Members enquired about the re-appointment of Gobodo Corporate Governance Services as the PSC’s internal auditor; why some senior public service employees were still not disclosing details of their financial status; whether the PSC had surrendered or rolled over its budgetary surplus; whether centralising the Anti-Corruption Hotline had improved its efficiency; and what the differences and similarities were between the PSC and the Public Protector. Finally, a discussion was held around how to improve the Committee’s relationship with the PSC. Both parties agreed that there needed to be a strategic relationship. The PSC needed to present reports to the Committee on problems in government departments, and the Committee could then call these departments to account.

MINUTES
The Chairperson was unable to attend the meeting. In his absence, Mr R Baloyi (ANC) was nominated as the Acting Chairperson.

Public Service Commission briefing
Mr D Maphumulo (PSC Deputy Director-General: Corporate Services) began by discussing the PSC’s 2004/05 financial statements. He noted that the PSC’s total income for the year was R73 405 000, while its expenditure was R71 263 000. This meant that the PSC had earned a surplus of approximately R2.1 million for 2004/05. The compensation of employees, along with goods and services, accounted for most of the PSC’s expenditure.

Mr Maphumulo added that the PSC had received an unqualified audit report from the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General had however, questioned why the internal audit function was been operating from August to October 2004. This situation had arisen because the PSC was busy appointing internal auditors at that time. The delegation then discussed the performance of the PSC’s programmes, which were Administration; Investigations and Human Resource Reviews; and Monitoring and Evaluation.

Mr Maphumulo outlined the performance of the Administration Programme. The Administration Programme was responsible for managing and organising the Office of the PSC. He noted that the PSC’s overall staff vacancy rate in 2004/05 was 20.6%. The PSC had provided skills development training to its staff, and it had implemented an ‘employee wellness programme’.

Ms O Ramsingh (PSC Acting Director-General) then discussed the performance of the Investigations and Human Resource Reviews Programme. This programme was divided into three sub-divisions, which were:
- Labour Relations Improvements Sub-Programme. This sub-programme was tasked with investigating labour relations complaints submitted by staffmembers of the public service, and undertaking research on labour relations principles. In 2004/05, this sub-programme had received 471 grievances from public servants and finalised 299 of these. The sub-programme also produced reports on labour relations officers and the implementation of the Grievance Procedure Rules.
- Public Administration Investigations Sub-Programme. This sub-programme was responsible for undertaking audits and investigations into public administration practices. During 2004/05, this sub-programme had investigated allegations of irregularities and maladministration in a number of government departments.
- Professional Ethics and Human Resource Reviews Sub-Programme. This sub-programme was responsible for establishing a culture of professional and ethical behaviour in the public service. It was also responsible for reviewing human resource practices in the public administration. In 2004/05, this sub-programme had established the National Ant-Corruption Hotline, implemented the Financial Disclosure Framework, developed the Explanatory Manual for the Public Service, developed whistle-blowing guidelines, and commenced an evaluation of the implementation of the Policy Framework on managing HIV/AIDS.

Mr M Diphofa (PSC Deputy Director-General: Monitoring and Evaluation) discussed the performance of the Monitoring and Evaluation Programme. This programme was divided into three sub-programmes, which were:
- Governance and Monitoring Sub-Programme. The aim of this sub-programme was to promote good governance and improve governance practices in the Public Service. During 2004/05, this sub-programme had produced 14 reports on government departments and their compliance with the principles of the Constitution; written a Public Service Report; developed guidelines for the verification of qualifications of public servants; and produced a monitoring report on the implementation of the Promotion of the Administrative Justice Act.
- Leadership and Performance Improvement Sub-programme. This sub-programme was tasked with improving leadership. In 2004/05, this sub-programme had evaluated the performance of 40 national and provincial Heads of Department (HODs); issued new guidelines for the evaluations of HODS; and implemented an evaluation of the government’s poverty relief programme.
- Service Delivery and Quality Assurance Sub-Programme. This sub-programme was responsible for ensuring that public sectors’ service delivery was improved. During 2004/05, this sub-programme had produced a number of service delivery evaluation reports; a number of service delivery guidelines for the public sector; a survey on the criminal justice sector, and a toolkit for the implementation of Citizen’s Forums.

Discussion
Ms H Mgabadeli (ANC) noted that the contract with the consortium of Gobodo Risk Management and MSGM Masuku-Jeena, to undertake an internal audit of the PSC, had been terminated in July 2004. Gobodo Corporate Governance Services had then been appointed as the PSC’s internal auditor in November 2004. She enquired why Gobodo’s contract as the internal auditor had been terminated in July 2004, and why they had then been re-appointed as the internal auditor in November 2004.

Mr Maphumulo acknowledged that the internal audit contract with the consortium of Gobodo and MSGM Masuku-Jeena had been terminated in July 2004. This had come about because the contract had expired. Gobodo had then expressed an interest to re-bid for the internal audit contract. There were, however, other companies that were bidding to become the PSC’s internal auditor. As a result, the PSC had to wait for Gobodo to finish its outstanding internal audit business, before considering which company would be contracted as the internal auditor. This had been undertaken to ensure that there was not a bias towards Gobodo during the decision-making process. Nonetheless, Gobodo was selected as the successful bidder and, therefore, they were re-appointed as PSC’s internal auditor in November 2004.

Mr A Trent (DA Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts) enquired whether the PSC would be permanently outsourcing its internal audit functions. Mr Maphumulo replied that, as successful bidders, Gobodo Corporate Governance Services had been contracted to undertake the PSC internal audit functions for 36 months. This would again be reviewed once the contract had expired. The PSC had outsourced its internal audit functions to ensure that they were conducted independently.

Ms Mgabadeli asked whether a Member of Parliament could contact the PSC if they encountered problems with the public service in their constituencies. Mr J Ernstzen (Public Service Commission Deputy Chairperson) replied that the PSC would assist any person that encountered problems, such as maladministration. However, if there was a situation where the alleged problems were linked to a power struggle between two parties over local government elections, then the PSC had to be cautious. The PSC had to maintain its independence at all times. Nonetheless, this needed to be explained before one turned a complainant away in such a situation.

Ms Mgabadeli asked whether the PSC would be able to strengthen its partnership with Members around monitoring and evaluating the performance of the public service. Mr Diphofa replied that the PSC was responsible for technical oversight over the public service, while Parliament was responsible for political oversight. The PSC and the Committee needed to work closely together to ensure that the public service was performing properly.

Ms Mgabadeli asked why Members had not been invited to the PSC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Conference. She felt that the PSC should have invited Members or, at the very least, solicited their input. Ms Ramsingh replied that it was the PSC’s policy to invite Members to all of its conferences, and they would investigate this situation.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee needed to identify the conferences that they wished to attend. Indeed, the Committee should insist that Members be invited to important conferences.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) stated that the PSC had conducted much advocacy work around the need for senior public servants to undergo financial disclosure. However, there were still some senior public servants that were not making disclosures. Perhaps legislation was needed to ensure this. Ms Ramsingh acknowledged the problem, but clarified that 79% of senior public service officials had made financial disclosures. The PSC was examining ways to ensure 100% compliance. Misconduct action may be taken against senior public servants that fail to disclose.

Mr Trent observed that the PSC Annual Report had stated that it had surrendered its budget surplus for 2004/05. However, the delegation had stated that the PSC’s 2004/05 budget surplus had been rolled over.

Mr Maphumulo clarified that when the PSC had compiled its Annual Report, the Treasury had not yet taken a decision on whether to allow the surplus to be rolled over. It was therefore a prudent accounting measure to state in the Annual Report that the surplus had been surrendered - one could not have simply assumed that the roll over would have been granted. Nonetheless, in the interim, the National Treasury had authorised the roll over.

Mr Trent commented that the Anti-Corruption Hotline had initially been established at regional level, but had recently been centralised. He asked whether this process had improved its efficiency.

Ms Ramsingh responded that an evaluation of the impact of the Anti-Corruption Hotline’s centralisation still needed to be undertaken. Nonetheless, centralisation of the Hotline had allowed the PSC to compile an integrated database, which contained the details of public service corruption cases. It had also allowed the PSC to consolidate the registration, and the reference process, around alleged corruption cases. It made it easier for the PSC to monitor whether departments were investigating allegations of internal corruption. The centralisation had also made it easier for the PSC to provide feedback on the investigation status of corruption cases.

Mr M Mzondeki (ANC) noted that Members had recently conducted unannounced visits to public sector service delivery points. The information gathered during these visits had been sent to the Department of Public Services and Administration. He enquired whether Members would receive feedback on the findings, which had arisen out of this exercise.

Mr Diphofa explained that the PSC had also conducted unannounced visits to service delivery sites, and developed a protocol for such inspections. This outlined the goals of the inspections; how information should be gathered, and how the information should be used afterwards by the PSC office. Once this was complete, the PSC would provide feedback on the results of the inspections. He suggested that the Committee contact the Department to establish how they handled the information gathered during their inspections. Such information could perhaps be used by the Committee for its oversight work.

Ms Mgabadeli asked about the differences and similarities between the PSC and the Office of the Public Protector. Ms Ramsingh replied that the mandates of the PSC and Public Protector did overlap in certain areas. In order to avoid duplication, the PSC had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Public Protector that outlined their respective functions. The delegation would send a report to the Committee that outlined the differences and similarities.

Mr Trent asked why the PSC had stipulated in their Annual Report that: "There was a strong need for a clearer link between the national anti-corruption strategy and Parliamentary strategies". Ms Ramsingh replied that there needed to be strong links to ensure that corruption was effectively combated. It was only through transparency, efficiency, and accountability that corruption could be addressed.

The Acting Chairperson observed that in 2004/05, 471 public service employee grievances had been lodged with the PSC. The PSC had referred 220 of these cases to other entities or government departments because they did not fall within its jurisdiction. He enquired why these grievances had initially been lodged with the PSC. Was it due to poor communication, or were public servants not understanding the role of the PSC? He also asked whether the PSC knew of the outcome of these grievance cases.

Ms Ramsingh responded that the PSC was concerned that it was still receiving cases that fell outside of its mandate. The introduction of the new grievance rules should have alleviated this problem. However, some departments had failed to implement the new grievance rules properly, which meant that this problem had continued. Nonetheless, many of the 220 grievances had been referred due to procedural issues. Departments were required to deal with grievances within 30 days. Many of the larger government departments were unable to do so due to logistical reasons. This meant that intra-departmental communication was slow. This had resulted in the PSC receiving grievances that should have been addressed internally by departments. For this reason, the PSC would refer these grievances back to the departments involved. The PSC’s communication strategy also needed to be improved in order to ensure that public service employees were aware of the PSC’s jurisdiction. The PSC had translated the new grievance rules into the 11 official languages. The PSC required the departments, which had grievances referred back to them, to provide an update on the status of these grievance cases every six months.

The Chairperson commented that the Citizen’s Forums were intended to promote participatory governance. Government departments would have to liaise with, and address the issues raised by these forums. He enquired how one could monitor whether government departments were addressing the issues raised by these Forums. Who would be responsible for monitoring and overseeing the process? Perhaps the government needed to undertake a study on how citizen’s forums functioned in other countries.

Mr Diphofa answered that the PSC would be returning, at a later stage, to provide the Committee with a briefing on the Citizen’s Forum Toolkit. The issues raised by the Chairperson around the Citizen’s Forum could be addressed at that meeting.

Ms Mgabadeli commented that, at a previous meeting, the PSC had promised to send her information on issues such as the names of the KwaZulu-Natal delegates to the National Anti-Corruption Conference. They had also promised to forward certain reports to her. However, the PSC had failed to do so. Ms Ramsingh responded that this would be rectified urgently.

The Chairperson asked what challenges the PSC faced. Mr Ernstzen responded that one major challenge was to improve its relations with the Committee and the provincial legislators. Indeed, the PSC wished to have joint meetings with the Select Committee and the Portfolio Committee. The PSC was also responsible for submitting recommendations to departments on how they could improve their service delivery, but the PSC could not force departments to implement recommendations. The PSC needed the Committee to call departments, which failed to implement the PSC’s recommendations, to account.

Mr Ernstzen added that the PSC had received a number of requests to undertake ad hoc projects, which made budgeting difficult. In fact, there was a massive demand on the PSC’s functions and resources. The Chairperson replied that the Committee would be willing to call the problematic government departments to Parliament in order for them to explain why they had failed to implement the PSC’s recommendations. The Committee would also examine how the PSC could get financing for the ad hoc projects that it was undertaking.

The meeting was adjourned.