Election of New ICASA Councillors: discussion of Procedure

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
15 August 2006
ELECTION OF NEW ICASA COUNCILLORS: DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE

Acting Chairperson: Mr G Oliphant (ANC)

Documents handed out:
List of nominations for Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) Councillors

SUMMARY
A list of candidates for the five vacancies on the ICASA Council was tabled before the Committee. Members were asked to consider and agree on a procedure for the interview process. It was agreed that at the meeting on Friday, 18 August, Members would submit some suggestions of the names of experts who could be asked to assist the Committee, and would also agree a shortlist of candidates for interview. If many of those to be interviewed resided in Johannesburg the Committee would travel there to conduct the interviews. There was some discussion whether the exit reports that had previously been requested from those leaving ICASA were relevant to the interview process. The Chairman also undertook to follow up on the exit reports but the Committee would deal with them as a separate issue. There was also some discussion on party nominations but it was clear that the process followed would attempt to reach consensus amongst all members, rather than through party affiliations.

A member raised concerns about a recent press report that ICASA intended to approach the National Intelligence Agency about leaked exit reports of staff. The Chairperson agreed that this matter merited further discussion by the Committee but believed it should be separated entirely from the Councillor selection process.

MINUTES
The Acting Chairperson welcomed members and announced that a full report back of the oversight visit would be given shortly. He also expressed his condolences, on behalf of the Committee, to the members who had recently had bereavements. Finally he indicated that some members’ concern on administrative issues would be dealt with at a later stage.

The Acting Chairperson reminded Members that there were five vacancies on the ICASA Council, and the Committee had to recommend eight people to fill those vacancies. It was therefore necessary to discuss the short listing and interview processes and to decide on a timeframe. He suggested that the Committee attempt to finalise its process within about three weeks. There were currently only four sitting Councillors as the extension period of 45 days had now expired. It was possible that those finally appointed may need to give notice of leaving other employment.

The Acting Chairperson asked members also to consider whether they wished to exercise the option provided for in the law of using the experts. He said that this was a very important process and the Committee must ensure that those appointed complied with the law and with the requirements of the Committee and ICASA. The Committee would also need to consider the position of those without CVs and the self-nominations.

He added that about 30 of the persons listed resided in Johannesburg, and that less than 20% were women. From a practical cost point of view he thought that it might be practical for the Committee to travel to the centre where most of those to be interviewed resided, rather than calling all to Cape Town.

Ms D Smuts (DA) suggested that each party should, on Friday, propose experts in terms of section 5 to assist the Committee with the process. She felt that five people should be appointed, who would include academics in the electronic communications field, and lawyers. The experts’ availability would obviously also have to be taken into account when setting the interview programme.

She felt that the effectiveness of the legislation would depend on the quality of the Councillors. She wanted to discuss, on Friday, the course of action to be taken if the Committee felt, after interviewing, that people of sufficient calibre and skills had not emerged, and whether a further invitation could be issued. In particular she reminded the Committee that ICASA required Councillors with the ability to deal with economic analysis and definition of the markets, which were key to implementation of the legislation.

Ms Smuts also asked if those nominated had already been asked to complete the questionnaire relating to disqualifications, such as a close relationship to anyone in the industry, or being an office bearer in a political party. If this had not been done, she suggested that it be done when the candidates were shortlisted.

 Ms Smuts referred to the agreement with ICASA that the exit interview reports for staff and Councillors leaving ICASA would be forwarded to the Committee, who could then review the alleged in ICASA. She thought that these reports might be pertinent to the interviews, particularly since the nominees included a sitting Councillor.

Finally, Ms Smuts reported that she was disturbed to see the Mail and Guardian report (July 7-13) that ICASA had decided to approach the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) about “leaks” of information from departing ICASA staff. She believed that such an approach was inappropriate and believed that the Committee should investigate this further. She pointed out that the reasoning was apparently that because ICASA regulated a multi-million rand industry, any information leaked would have serious implications on the country’s economy. She believed this was nonsensical and that a full explanation was warranted.

Ms M Morutoa (ANC) agreed with the suggestions regarding the drawing of a shortlist on Friday, the consultation with experts and the Committee travelling to Gauteng. She was concerned with the gender imbalance and asked whether the Committee would address this issue specifically and decide if it could do anything to address it.

Ms S Vos (IFP) agreed that experts should be used, but noted that they did not have to be legal experts.

Ms Vos indicated that in the past some candidates had, in their CVs, regrettably over-exaggerated their qualifications or the depth of their knowledge. She pointed out that many foreign qualifications were included in the CVs, and urged that the Committee must check the content of qualifications and the relevance of the knowledge obtained.

Ms Vos also said that during the recent oversight visit it was made quite clear that the ICASA Council needed to include an economist and to broaden their “policy” expertise. The Committee was bound to follow that request, but she wondered how the Committee could justify its nominations and criticise the work being done if that expertise was not found.

Adv P Swart (DA) had two suggestions on the practicalities. Firstly, he did not believe that it was necessary to check all qualifications at this stage, as this would be necessary only for the shortlisted candidates. He felt that a shortlist of around 20 candidates was probably appropriate so that each Member should select between 20 or 30 before Friday to try to reach some consensus. He agreed with the suggestion that the Committee should travel to Johannesburg if necessary.

The Acting Chairperson queried a point raised in passing by Ms Vos that questions would be limited in the interview process.

 Ms Vos clarified that she did not mean that certain questions were “allocated” to parties, but that there were a limited range of questions that could be asked in each round.

Members agreed that a time of about 45 minutes should be allowed for each interview.

Ms L Yengeni (ANC) did not agree that there should be any limitation on the shortlist, as suggested by Adv. Swart. She personally felt that there were sufficient names to choose from so that the concerns on expertise probably would not arise. She also wished to clarify the issue raised by Ms Smuts. She pointed out that the information about the decision to approach the NIA was contained only in a newspaper report and she did not believe the Committee should respond to press reports but should use the proper channels to ask ICASA for comment.

Ms Smuts clarified that she had certainly not relied on the report, but mentioned it simply because it raised an issue which she felt should be investigated.  She asked if the Chairman would call upon ICASA to comment and explain.

The Acting Chairperson replied that there was some difference of opinion whether in fact the approach to the NIA had been made. He reminded Ms Smuts that she was at liberty to raise the matter herself with ICASA, although he understood that she would prefer a Committee approach. He pointed out that the Committee had only recently had an oversight visit, when other matters were raised, and he did not think that it would be appropriate to have a further oversight visit purely on this issue. He agreed that it merited further discussion, and would be considered, but he felt that the processes should be separated.

The Acting Chairperson commented that the Committee should be able to justify any objections to the process it had followed and therefore felt that there should not be any number limitation, as suggested by Adv Swart. It seemed to be generally agreed by the Committee that it should consider the names of experts on Friday, and that qualifications and gender considerations would be important. He pointed out, however, that the nomination process was a voluntary one and therefore if a person had not made himself or herself available for nomination the Committee could not “headhunt”. He pointed out that ICASA could always obtain experts from outside if it needed to.

In regard to the exit reports, he understood and took Ms Smuts’ point, but would not like this to delay the interview process. He felt the two matters should be treated separately. He had already requested those reports and he would follow up.

Ms Vos added that she had felt that the time spent with ICASA was perhaps too short. She and other Members had conducted their own interviews with those leaving ICASA. She agreed with Ms Smuts that the exit reports might well be relevant, because it had emerged during her discussions that the lack of good teamwork was a problem. Therefore it was necessary to consider the personalities of candidates as well as their qualifications. She felt that the exit reports would possibly provide valuable insight as to the strengths and weaknesses that the Committee should be looking at, in their attempts to achieve cohesion in the ICASA Council.

The Acting Chairperson commented that the decision to request the exit reports was taken a while ago. He felt that the reports should be tabled and discussed as a separate issue and cautioned that Members ran the risk of compromising their objectivity if they were drawn into lobbies or entered the discussions. He would follow up on them, but believed this should be a separate issue.

The Acting Chairperson then replied to Ms Smuts’ question on the qualification questionnaires. The advertisement (which he would forward to Ms Smuts) was couched in a standard form and made no mention of the qualifications. Obviously that would need to be dealt with.

Ms Vos mentioned that she would not be present at the meeting on Friday as she needed to attend another mandatory meeting, but that she would ask her party to send through the names of experts, and would try to arrange for an alternate to sit in her place.

The Acting Chairperson commented that this issue would not usually involve party affiliations.

Ms Smuts clarified that in the past the Committee had asked each party to draw up a shortlist, so that those nominations that were mentioned on most shortlists were accepted, and it remained only to negotiate on the additional names required. However, she welcomed the approach taken by the Acting Chairperson as consensus would be ideal.

The meeting adjourned.