Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on its oversight visit to Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), the Department of Communications as well as its reporting entities, dated 17 October 2017
Communications and Digital Technologies
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on its oversight visit to Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), the Department of Communications as well as its reporting entities, dated 17 October 2017.
The Portfolio Committee on Communications (Committee), having conducted an oversight visit to Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), the Department of Communications (the Department), Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA), Brand South African (BSA) and Films and Publications Board (FPB) from 28 to 31 March 2017, reports as follows:
1. Introduction
The Constitution of South Africa Act 108, 1996 empowers Parliament and Provincial Legislatures with an oversight role over their respective Executives. Section 55(2) of the Constitution deals with the powers of the National Assembly (NA), and states that it must provide for a mechanism to:
- Ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government are accountable to it; and
- To maintain oversight of the national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation, and any organ of the state.
In addition, Section 92(3)(b) of the Constitution requires members of Cabinet to provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control. The challenge facing members of Parliament is to improve the capacity of the Parliamentary Committees to hold Departments and State Owned Entities (SOE’s) to account for their performance, using their strategic plans, budget documents and annual reports as the basis.
Oversight and accountability are constitutionally mandated functions of legislatures to scrutinise and oversee executive action and any organ of state. Oversight entails the informal and formal, watchful, strategic and structured scrutiny exercised by legislatures, including Parliament, in respect of the implementation of laws, the application of the budget, and the strict observance of statutes and the Constitution. In addition, and most importantly, it entails overseeing the effective management of government departments by individual members of the relevant executive authority in pursuit of improved service delivery for the achievement of a better quality of life for all people.
2. Role of the Committee
The Committee is mandated to legislate, conduct oversight over the Executive and also facilitate public participation. In line with its role and the mandate as per: (i) the Constitution; and (ii) the Joint Rules of Parliament, oversight is a mandated function of Committees of Parliament to scrutinise and oversee executive action and any organ of state. As such, the Committee has powers to conduct oversight of all organs of state, including those at provincial and local government level.
The appropriate mechanism for Parliament to conduct oversight of these organs of state would be through parliamentary committees. In conducting oversight, the Committee would either request a briefing from the organ of state or visit the organ of state for fact-finding, depending on the purpose of such visit. The Committees would have to consider the appropriate means for conducting oversight to cover all organs of state. One of the most important aspects of the oversight function is the consideration by Committees of annual reports of organs of state and the Auditor-General’s reports. Given their involvement in the legislative, budget and in-year monitoring processes, the Committee also exercises oversight of the service delivery performance of SOE’s and Departments.
Accountability is an important element of democracy. Gutto broadly defines accountability as a social relationship where an actor (an individual or an agency) feels an obligation to explain and justify his or her conduct to some significant other (the accountability forum, accountee, specific person or agency)[1].
Accountability is the hallmark of modern democratic governance. Democracy remains clichéd if those in power cannot be held accountable in public for their acts or omissions, for their decisions, their expenditure or policies. Historically, the concept of accountability was closely linked to accounting in the financial sense. It has, however, moved far beyond its origins and has become a symbol of good governance both in the public and private sectors.
Oversight is one of the important mechanism utilised by legislatures to ensure accountability. The conventional Westminster view on oversight, as inherited by many former British colonies, is often rather adversarial and in some instances oversight is professed to be the purview of opposition politicians and not the legislature as an institution. The emphasis is placed on the oversight role of legislatures, especially as it relates to ensuring government compliance with approved public spending. The task team adopted the following definition of oversight:
In the South African context, oversight is a constitutionally mandated function of legislative organs of state to scrutinise and oversee executive action and any organ of state.
3. Purpose of the oversight visit
Programme three of the five-year Strategic Plan of the Committee on Communications commits the Committee to enhancing the Committee outreach oversight functions; whilst Strategic Objective one of the Committee Annual Performance Plan (APP) commits it to increase public participation in its work programme.
For purposes of working efficiently, the Committee had divided its oversight plan into phases. The first phase of the Committee’s oversight plan was to visit the Department and its entities in Gauteng.
It was important that the Committee conducts oversight in order to (i) formally introduce Members of Parliament to the Department and its entities; (ii) gain familiarity with and better understand the area of expertise of the Department and entities reporting to it; (iii) continue the work of oversight and evaluate status on progress made to 4th Parliament’s recommendations by the Department and its entities; (iv) assess and evaluate the Department and its entities in relation to competency in delivering on their mandates; (v) evaluate implementation of the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) recommendations; (vi) evaluate management at both at executive and non-executive levels; (vii) engage and evaluate staff conditions and morale in alignment to labour practices of the country; and (viii) where relevant, evaluate tools of operation as service delivery tools.
The Department is structured as illustrated below:
|
Department of Communications Department of Government Communication and Information System |
|
|
Entities |
South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) |
|
Film and Publications Board (FPB)
|
|
|
Brand South Africa (BSA) |
|
|
Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) |
|
|
Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS) |
|
|
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) |
|
4. Committee Delegation
The Committee delegation was constituted as follows:
Members: Mr CHM Maxegwana (Chairperson and leader of delegation); Ms N Tolashe; Mr M Gungubele; Mr L Kalako; Ms M Matshoba; Ms V van Dyk; Ms L Mbinda and Mr W Madisha.
Support Staff: Mr TK Ngoma (Committee Secretary); Mr L Dibetso (Committee Researcher); Mr J Molafo (Principal Communications Officer) and Mr E Vos (Committee Assistant).
5. Day 1 (28 March 2017)
5.1 Visit to the Department and GCIS
Upon arrival at the Department, the Committee was welcomed by the Deputy Minister of Communications, Ms ST Ndabeni-Abrahams. She thanked the Committee for the opportunity to visit the Department and see first-hand what had been reported to Parliament. The Committee proceeded to meet with the staff of the Department and GCIS, respectively.
5.1.1 Meeting with staff
The meeting was opened by Ms Ndabeni-Abrahams. The Chairperson introduced the Committee delegation and outlined the purpose of the visit and of the meeting with staff members. He provided a brief background on the oversight work of the Committee in relation to the Department and GCIS. The Chairperson requested staff members to raise any matters of concern in their working environment. He assured staff members that no one would be intimidated or victimised as a result of matters raised during the meeting with the Committee.
The Public Service Association (PSA), through its representative assured the Committee that it had a sound relationship with the management of the Department. The union indicated that although they do not always agree on matters with the employer, it was always consulted on matters affecting employees. However, the union was concerned that the job grading in the public sector was not consistent. There were departments that graded their employees higher than other departments. Furthermore, the Department’s employees were overworked and underpaid when compared with their colleagues in the public service and parastatals. In some instances, people with specialised skills were often remunerated lower compared than people who do not possess relevant skills. There were staff members who had worked for the Department and GCIS for over 20 years but remained in the same levels of employment, earning the same salary over the years. The Department had the lowest salary levels.
Government message could not be fully implemented without resources. GCIS communicated government message but other media house communicated contradictory messages and GCIS was unable to compete with the latter due to lack of capacity and budgetary constraints. On many occasions staff had to sacrifice government programmes as a result of limited resources. This led to GCIS being unknown even though it was the communication arm of government.
In the last 5 years, the Department and GCIS had acting Director-Generals and this impacted on other directorates since they were also led by people in acting capacities. The Committee was requested to put pressure on the Executive to ensure that people who had relevant skills were appointed to fill the vacant positions.
The Department was under-capacitated. Some staff members expressed regret for having accepted to be transferred from the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services (DTPS) to the Department. In one unit, there were only seven staff members and were expected to develop four Bills for the Department. However, this was impossible to achieve.
Both GCIS and Department consisted of young and energetic staff members. However, the energy was depicting as staff were overworked and not properly remunerated. Instead of increasing capacity at the Department, the National Treasury introduced austerity measures and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) cut off on overtime.
Staff challenged the Committee to critically interrogate the vision of the GCIS. They were concerned that GCIS was unable to protect the image of the state since it did not have authority over other government departments. They felt strongly that government communication should be centralised to GCIS as there seemed to be no coordination between GCIS and government departments.
In relation to community media, staff were concerned that the 30 per cent of government advertising, which was supposed to go to community media, was not achieved. In addition, government departments thought that community media operated for free and refused to pay for advertising at community media projects whereas it was the responsibility of government to sustain them through advertising.
5.1.2 Meeting with Ministry and Executive Management
After meeting with staff members, the Committee proceeded to meet with the Deputy Minister and the Executive Management of the Department and GCIS. The intention of the meeting was to discuss matters of concern that were raised by staff members during their meeting with the Committee.
The Department was represented by the following officials: Mr Ndivhuho Munzhelele (Acting Director-General) Ms P Pillay (Chief Director: Office of the DG); Ms B Baloyi (Chief of Staff); Ms M Thusi (Chief Director: Corporate Services); Ms M Thindisa (Chief Financial Officer); Mr F Mamuremi (Chief Director: Entity Oversight); Ms N Masakazi (acting Chief Director: Broadcasting Policy); Dr F Mutuvhi (Chief Director: Digital Terrestrial Television); Mr W Dlangamandla (Chief Director: Digital Terrestrial Television: Technical); and Ms N Mokoena (Director: Special Projects in the Ministry).
GCIS was represented by the following officials: Mr D Liphoko (Acting Director-General); Ms P Williams (DDG Corporate Services); Mr M Currin (Acting DDG: Intergovernmental Stakeholder Engagement); Mr Z Momeka (Chief Financial Officer); and Mr D Modiba (Chief Audit Executive).
The Committee commended the leadership of both the GCIS and the Department. The staff members confirmed the harmonious working relations it had with management. The staff raised strongly the issue of funding and how it impacted on their social being. The Committee indicated that it was not common to go to a government department and find staff that was so eager to work. The Committee noted the high staff morale irrespective of the challenges. However, the Committee was concerned that performance management system was not being implemented properly.
The Executive Management indicated that it took note of the issues that were raised by staff members. It indicated that it always tried to work in unison as GCIS and the Department team. Priority would always be given to the people of South Africa. The Department was aware of government department’s tendency of assuming that information dissemination was for free.
The Executive Management reported that a lot had been done on job grading, in consultation with DPSA. The challenge was people feeling that they were overworked and under paid. The 30 per cent advertising was a GCIS initiative in 2010. Since then, a huge progress had been done. Currently 20 per cent of government advertising was allocated to community media, which also had its own challenges. GCIS had other 11 offices in the country. The Department had concluded the Community Broadcasting Support Strategy, which seek to address issues of good corporate governance and the report would be handed over to MDDA for implementation. GCIS needed assistance of the Committee to breakthrough some of the areas raised by staff.
Ms Ndabeni-Abrahams indicated that most of the issues that were raised by staff members could not be resolved immediately since they required extensive engagement with affected parties. She thanked the Committee for visiting the two Departments.
5.2 Visit to the MDDA
Upon arrival at the MDDA offices in Parktown, the Committee proceeded to meet with staff members.
5.2.1 Meeting with Staff
The Chairperson tendered the Committee’s apology for the late start of the meeting. He introduced the Committee delegation to staff members. Mr Kalako outline the purpose of the Committee meeting with staff members. He requested staff members to raise their concerns without fear of intimidation and / or victimization.
The staff members were concerned that the entity has not had a CEO for over two years. This led to those appointed as Acting CEO to introduce different approaches in running the entity. As a result of this, the staff complained of being overworked and not given time to spend with their families. Some staff members spent weekends working in Cape Town and were still expected to report for work the following Monday. For one staff member, this happened over for two months.
The staff members were also not happy with MDDA’s inadequate contribution to their medical aid. The contribution was too little. The staff members raised a serious concern about MDDA’s inadequate policies. MDDA management prioritised policy amendments on cosmetic policies which were not assisting the institution.
The Project Officers complained about their salaries which were much lower than those in other state owned entities. The led to none of the staff members from the Department and its entities wanting to work at MDDA.
Staff members raised their concern about the sustainability of community media projects. There were certain projects that were prioritised and approved without following due application processes. This was strange because there was a moratorium on the new applications of community media projects.
The staff feared that their telephones were being tapped by management.
5.2.2 Meeting with Board and Executive Management
The Committee was welcomed by the Board Chairperson, Ms P Nkomo. Mr Kalako outlined the purpose of the meeting which was to afford the Executive Management and the Board an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by staff members.
The Executive and Board were represented as follows:
Board Members: Ms Phelisa Nkomo (Chairperson); Ms Louise Vale; Mr Musa Sishange; Ms Nandipha Madiba; Ms Seipati Boulton and Mr Sandile Ndaba.
Executive Management: Ms Cheryl Langbridge; Mr Lindinkosi Ndibongo; Ms Thembelihle Sibeko; Mr Motsamai Tsotetsi; Mr Trevor Kuodza; Ms Khululwa Seyisi; and Ms Vuyelwa Mdazana.
Ms Nkomo reported to the Committee that Mr Themba Dlamini, who was introduced at Parliament as the new CEO of MDDA in February 2017 has since resigned. The MDAA has established an IT Advisory Committee to guide MDDA in IT related matters. Furthermore, MDDA has introduced a personnel development programme and staff members were encouraged to participate in the process. She Chairperson acknowledged lack in policy amendments and admitted to revising only the cell-phone and medical aid policies. In strengthening the audit and risk Committee, MDDA has three external members who sat in the Committee.
She reported that the organisation was conducting a social impact study and hoped to gain insights on how the sector had changed or how MDDA should position itself within the sector. Furthermore, the study would guide and affirm areas that required support e.g. Social Integration Project in Cape Town. The study would guide the organisation in revisiting the MDDA Act.
The MDDA funded only one digital projects as it did not have an internal digital strategy. The Board was currently in the process of filling all funded vacant positions, as such a number of these vacancies had been advertised.
The Board and Executive Management were equally concerned with the lack of funding for the entity. They requested that the Committee expedite the filling of vacancies in the Board.
In closing, Ms Nkomo admitted that most of the issues raised by staff members were genuine complaints. She indicated that there was a need for a relationship and or trust building exercise between management and staff. The Board would strengthen communication with staff members. The Board had advertised the vacant position of the Human Resources manager and would provide a regular update to the Committee.
5.2.3 Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) Board responses to issues raised by staff
The MDDA has struggled through critical challenges, namely absent executive leadership, and weak management over the past two years and internal conceptual development capacity. These institutional challenges have resulted in static sectorial intervention, sub-optimal use of resources and insufficient leveraging on strategic partnership. This is due to the historical absence of effective succession planning, poor recruitment strategy and lack of a structured personal development programme. To correct the highlighted scenario, the Board convened a joint (Board and Staff) 2015 September strategy session to reflect on the state of the organisation and media landscape and to create a responsive strategy to a changing community and media environment.
By design, the MDDA requires certain expertise for it to deliver efficiently on its key mandate. This expertise includes but is not limited to:
- Development Communication
- Community Development
- Project Management
- Knowledge of diversity issues
As such the Board approved a Coaching Programme for Management and acquirement of Academic qualifications for all staff.
To date, only nine staff members out of 25 have taken up the training programme but all staff were encouraged to present their training requests in the current year. Only 9 staff members out of 25 have taken up the training programme but all staff were encouraged to present their training requests in the current year.
The staff was taken through a concept definition exercise to gauge their understanding of media development and diversity, because the Board was inundated with complaints from projects that the officers were giving inaccurate advice to projects and they had limited knowledge of community-orientated projects.
Members of staff stated that despite ten years of unqualified audits at MDDA, the transitional period has many challenges and sadly the impact was felt by staff members. The impact on staff during the transitional period was acknowledged by the Board and Management and every effort had been made to listen to staff's grievances and, together with them, arrive at amicable solutions. The Board and Management fully appreciate the hard work by staff over the transitional period and are committed to improving the working environment.
Staff emphasised the need to fill vacant positions as a matter of urgency as this impacted on their workloads and ability to operate efficiently. The MDDA Board and Management are in agreement with the need to expedite the process. Over the past year (2016/2017 financial year), 12 positions were filled, although two of the new appointments subsequently left. Currently there are nine vacant positions (including the Executive positions) and the MDDA is expediting the process for all vacancies.
The Board had decided to delay the appointment of executives and other staff members to enable the CEO to be part of the recruitment process. The CEO subsequently resigned the Board took the decision to proceed with interviews of Executive positions and an HR and Corporate Affairs Manager has since been appointed, commencing at the MDDA on 8 May 2017.
In all engagements with the Department of Communications and its entities, the Portfolio Committee has always put across its objections to many of the senor strategic positions being filled by individuals in acting capacity for long periods. Staff members highlighted how this impacted on the operations of the MDDA. The MDDA Board acknowledges that filling Executive positions with people in an Acting capacity can impact negatively on the operations.
As discussed above, the MDDA had postponed the interviews to enable the newly appointed CEO, who joined the MDDA as of 1 January 2017, to participate in the interviews for the vacant Executive positions. An HR and Corporate Affairs Manager has since been appointed, commencing at the MDDA on 8 May 2017 and during the absence of HR Manager, the MDDA had solicited the services of a consultant to assist with the organisation's recruitment programme.
On decentralising the MDDA as it currently operated from one, central office due to resource constraints. The MDDA Board and management recognizes that this is not an ideal situation given the national spread of our operations. Establishing provincial operations is an important consideration in the MDDA’s long terms goal, given the availability of funds to implement this. In the absence of provincial offices, our current organogram has been developed to ensure that there is adequate capacity for MDDA’s project staff to cover all 9 provinces.
In order to boost compliance with corporate governance and risk management as there was an impression that it was lacking despite there being a good working relationship with the AGSA; the MDDA had filled the vacant position for Internal Audit Officer and Risk Management Specialist as of 1 February 2017. However, the MDDA did not have a commercial department and contracts are managed by the Supply Chain Management unit who adhere to National Treasury procurement regulations.
As a means to improve the lives of staff members given the hard work that they bring in the organisation the Agency had over the past 18 months; the MDDA Board and Management has reviewed staff benefits with improvements including the introduction of a subsidy for medical aid.
The Monitoring and Evaluation unit needed to be capacitated in order to strengthen the organisation. This unit has been affected by the poor recruitment policy because one of the staff members in the unit is a nutritionist with no monitoring and evaluation experience and the MDDA has spent an enormous amount of time supporting the unit, including support from the Company Secretary. However, the Board has committed to supporting individual members of staff with upskilling through financial support for further studies and a mentoring programme. It is anticipated that this will facilitate a stronger monitoring and evaluation unit.
It is recognised by MDDA Board and Management that the transitional phase has had a negative impact on staff morale and placed strain on the Board. The focus is on organizational renewal through initiatives such as increased internal communication, enhanced staff benefits and enabling staff to achieve a healthy work/life balance by fully capacitating the Agency and encouraging staff to take leave.
There should be better communication channels between Board, Executive Management and staff because currently there was none; a structured internal communications plan has been introduced with monthly staff meetings, supported by staff communiques. The Communications unit has been tasked with distributing resolutions from the staff meetings, while the Company Secretary has been allocated the responsibility for distributing Board resolutions to staff. In addition, MDDA staff who travel are being allocated tablets to enable them to have easy access to and communication with the office while they are on site.
6. DAY 2 (Wednesday, 29 March 2017)
6.1 Visit to ICASA Head Office
The Committee arrived at ICASA and was welcomed by Councillor Nomvuyo Batyi. She apologised for Mr P Pongwana (CEO), Mr Peter Zimri (Council member), and the acting Council Chairperson, Mr Mohlaloga as they were attending PRASA Annual General Meeting in Durban.
Mr Maxegwana outlined the purpose of the visit and explained that the Committee was mandated by the Constitution to conduct oversight in order to ensure that government departments and entities are accountable to SA citizens. The Committee proceeded the meeting with staff members of ICASA.
6.1.1 Meeting with staff
The Chairperson welcomed staff members into the meeting. He introduced the Committee delegation and informed staff that the Committee had come to meet with them as operational staff and to listen to their challenges. He reminded staff that the Committee had visited ICASA before and that it never addressed some of the challenges that were raised in those previous engagements. The Chairperson apologised to staff members on behalf of the Committee for not attending to issues that were raised previously. He read through the issues that were raised by staff members during the 2014 oversight visit. He pleaded with staff to raise their current challenges and give the Committee a timeframe to provide a response, which would include new issues raised during the meeting.
The Committee clarified that staff issues were raised with the ICASA management during their visits to Parliament. The Committee would seek answers from the Department on what action was taken in addressing staff issued raised during the 2014 oversight visit. The Committee relied on the information provided by the Department and the Ministry in response to oversight issues. The Committee undertook to communicate with staff regularly.
The staff members informed the Committee that they were scared to raise matters of concerns because they will face the consequences from management, particularly the Human Resources’ Manager.
The Chairperson assured staff members that none of them would be victimised for issues raised in their meeting with the Committee. Should that happened, staff members should report the matter to the Committee.
The staff members, through their union, NATU raised the following matters:
The staff members were concerned that the institution was using disciplinary processes to suppress staff views and their members were being victimised. Staff members complained about the Human Resources Executive who was victimising them and they felt that there was no democracy at ICASA and pleaded with the Committee to intervene.
The management had failed to adhere to the strike settlement agreement and the staff had taken the matter to CCMA. ICASA was wasting a lot of money on consultants and disciplinary processes and disciplinary hearings were held with the intention to dismiss staff members and not to resolve differences. If management does not win the case, they should be made to pay from their own pockets. The organisation had spent R66 000 on disciplinary hearings of staff following the strike.
The staff members complained of excessive salary deductions following the strike. As a result, staff members had no salaries in July 2016 and August 2016 due to double deductions for medical aid and pension funds. This was done by Executive Management even though it was in contravention of the Pension Fund Act and Medical Aid Scheme Act.
The staff members were of the view that the ICASA Council was dysfunctional and could not resolve any matters of concern.
The staff members were concerned about the future of their colleagues who were not part of the recently approved organogram. Instead of accommodating staff members, the new organogram increased the number of executives to 11 and their salaries was at the level of Director-General’s (DGs). The staff requested the Committee to ensure that the COO to revise the ICASA organogram.
The staff members suggested that the Electronic Communications Act (ECA) be amended so that ICASA can have a Council that is non-executive in order to have a clear delegation of authority.
ICASA should be well-funded in order to retain talent. The HR was battling with attracting ideal candidates to fill vacancies.
6.1.2 Meeting with Executive Management and Council
The Committee concluded its meeting with staff members and proceeded to meet with Council and Executive Management which was represented as follows:
Councillors: Ms N Batyi, Mr P Mashile; Ms B Mokhele; Mr K Modimoeng; and Ms K Pillay.
Executive Management: Mr W Ngwepe (Chief Operations Officer); Mr T Matabana (Chief Financial Officer); Mr A Sookharan (Chief Audit Executtive); Mr N Gidi (GM: Licensing); Ms B Mtsweni (Executive HR); Mr R Seeber (GM: Engineering and Technology); Mr J Khumalo (GM: Policy Research and Analysis); Ms A Nomtshongwana (GM: Regions); Ms E van der Walt (GM: Complaints and Consumer Affairs); Mr B Makola (Acting Executive: Legal, Risk & CCC); and Mr V Masombuka (Acting Executive: Corporate Services).
Apologies: Mr R Mohlaloga (Acting Council Chairperson); Mr P Zimzi (Council member); Mr P Pongwana (CEO); and Ms P Mngomezulu (Corporate Services).
The Chairperson informed Council and Executive Management that the PA system which was to be used for staff meeting arrived 30 minutes before the end of the meeting and the Committee viewed that as wasteful and fruitless wasteful expenditure. He raised staff issues with the Council and Executive Management and requested them to respond to all matters.
6.1.3 Responses to issues raised by staff members
During the oversight visit the Committee held separate meetings with the staff of ICASA as well as management and Council.
Issues were raised with regard to the status of the ICASA Council, particularly if it should whether it should be executive or non-executive. The ICASA Council is established in terms of section 5 of the Independent Communications Authority Act No. 13 of 2000 (“the ICASA Act”).
A councillor serves in a full-time capacity to the exclusion of any other remunerative employment, occupation or office.”
The ICASA Act sets out the powers, functions and duties of Council and to this end section 4(4) specifically states that:
- Council may in writing delegate any power, function or duty of the Authority in terms of this Act or the underlying statutes …
- The power to make regulations may not be delegated in terms paragraph (a) … “
The term of office of a chairperson and a councillor is five and four years respectively
In a response to whether or not Council was dysfunctional, ICASA stated that the Authority raised its level of organisational performance from 29 percent during the 2014-15FY to 76 percent and has managed to maintain the performance level of the organisation above 70 percent for the 2016-17FY (despite the industrial action which occurred during the 2016-17FY).
On matters related to the funding model of ICASA, the Authority is funded in terms of section 15(1) of the ICASA Act, the Authority is financed from money appropriated by Parliament. Furthermore, section 15(3) provides that all revenue received by the Authority in a manner other than in accordance with subsection (1) must be paid into the National Revenue Fund within 30 days after receipt of such revenue. It is the Authority's submission that this model of funding is not optimal for a regulator such as ICASA. The challenges with the funding model have great implications on the Authority’s ability to retain skilled and experienced staff who are often poached by the private sector. ICASA noted that as a National Regulatory Authority for a highly innovative sector (ICT sector) ICASA is a service orientated organisation.
The execution of the Authority’s mandate is highly dependent on highly skilled personnel (for which there is increased competition amongst private and public entities). ICASA’s current wage bill amounts to 62 percent of the money appropriated by parliament for ICASA’s activities. The actual ZAR amount of the salary bill was R217 million for 2016-17FY, vis-à-vis R212 million in the 201516FY. The wage bill amounts to approximately 17 percent of the total revenue collected by ICASA for the national fiscus.
In the past few years the Authority has recruited a variety of skills (particularly in the IT and engineering and technology space) only to lose those skills to industry as the latter is able to offer much more attractive packages that the Authority could not match.
Members of staff stated that ICASA's realignment of its organisational structure resulted in people being retrenched, some rendered redundant and thereby being pushed of out of employment. The Authority had implemented an organisational realignment with effect from 1 April 2015. The realigned structure sought to inter alia improve coordination between different divisions in the execution of ICASA's mandate and expand ICASA's footprint to all provinces in line with its mandate for consumer protection. The Authority noted that that no employees were retrenched pursuant to the realignment.
There are currently about 52 employees whose positions are not in the approved organisational structure. This situation arose as a result of the fact that, post the realignment, there were more people than positions / jobs in particular functions. The affected employees were placed in divisions ‘where additional resources were required’.
With regard to the strike and double deductions from salaries. The effect of the duration of the industrial action in the context of remuneration meant that the Authority had to manage compulsory contributions for employees' medical aid and pension fund which are paid by the employer on their behalf. ICASA currently has two different funds, the Government Employee Pension Fund and Alexander Forbes retirement fund.
The employees who were on strike were not paid any salary for the month of July 2016 as a result of application of the ‘no-work-no pay’ principle. As such their compulsory contributions for the month of July 2016 were deducted from their salaries for the month of August 2016. Though double deductions were effected during the month of August 2016 (i.e. covering contributions for both July and August) to recoup the employee portion of contributions to the funds, on 7 October 2016 Council resolved that affected employees be refunded the amounts that were double deducted and be afforded the option to enter into payment arrangements to settle their debts over a period of time (i.e. through reasonable minimal amount repaid over a period of six months). This Council decision was implemented with effect from the payroll run for October 2016.
Equally, the union has been involved in various employee relations committees within ICASA such as the Employment Equity & Training Committee and the Head Office Relocation Committee. Since the end of the 2016 strike, there has been efforts on the part of Council, management and employees in general to normalise industrial relations within the organisation.
Staff also raised issues around the CEO’s contract of employment and remuneration. In terms of section 14(1)(a) of the ICASA Act, the power to appoint the CEO vests with Council. In this regard, the ICASA Act is not prescriptive as to the duration of the CEO’s term of employment.
Historically, the CEO was appointed for a period of 3 years. During October 2016 Council resolved – after considering all the legal and related organisational implications – that all Executives (including the CEO) shall be appointed for a period of five years. The rationale for the decision was to align all executives contract and to afford the executive team adequate time to see through the execution of the organisational strategic plan (three years is simply not enough for any executive team to learn about the organisation, formulate a strategic plan and implement same).
7. Visit to Films and Publications Board – 29 March 2017
Ms Mpumlwana welcomed the Committee delegation. She expressed her words of appreciation for the Committee visit which would help reflect on oversight delivery issues. Since it was almost the end of the financial year, there were lots of activities happening at the FPB. Ms Mpumlwana assured the Committee that the FPB was meeting all its obligations as per its mandate.
She indicated that the Committee was visiting during the time FPB had difficulties in terms of good corporate governance. She reported that both the CEO and COO had been suspended and the Minister of Communications was informed of the suspensions. FPB had an acting CEO and COO.
Ms Mpumlwana informed the Committee that she was proud of FPB staff members on the professional manner in which they handled the suspensions of CEO and COO. There had not been any media reports regarding the suspensions. She undertook to provide the Committee with progress reports on the suspensions.
She reported that the Minister had appointed a new Tribunals Committee. However, due to changes in the oversight visit programme, members of the Tribunal could not be part of the oversight visit. She assured the Committee that Council would appraise them of the discussions that took place.
Mr Kalako outlined the purpose of the visit. He explained that the Committee would first meet with staff members. Thereafter, the Committee would meet with the Council and the Executive management for responses on issues that had been raised by staff members. Mr Kalako indicated that if there were issues raised by staff and the Council and Executive Committee could not provide immediate responses, written responses would have to be forwarded to the Committee Secretary on or before 2 May 2017.
7.1 Meeting with staff members
The Chairperson outlined the purpose for the visit and provided a response to matters that were raised by staff previously with the Committee. Having provided the response, he requested staff to raise any other matters of concern.
During the previous oversight visit, one of the issues that was raised by staff was related to benchmarking of FPB salaries with other Departments. However, this remained a concern for staff. The management report which indicated that staff were happy with their salaries was confusing and of great concern as it focused on the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) which had nothing to do with staff salaries. FPB staff were not paid adequately and that impacted on their morale. The staff had raised their concerns with the Acting Chief Operations Officer as they felt that their matters can be resolved without speaking to the Committee. However, the meeting bared no results.
On employment equity, management seem to be focusing on senior management and not ordinary staff. E.g. all white staff members are at senior management and no white staff members at junior level and this sends a wrong message.
The staff members complained that there was no self-development at the organisation as it often employed internal people to fill vacancies instead of promoting its existing and deserving staff members.
During the meeting, it arose that staff members were fearful of raising their matters of concern as they feared victimisation. The Human Resources was also defensive and did not pay attention to staff matters.
The staff members complained that management ignores labour related matters raised by unions and issues do not get resolved. In other instances, staff members were dismissed, arrested and reinstated after being accused of stealing R1.2 million. This matter was never addressed by management and Council and they did not provide any form of support to the affected staff members.
Another serious concern raised by staff was that they were forced to drive marked vehicle when doing inspection. This was apart from staff having informed management that they had been followed on several occasions by the distributors of illegal video material.
The staff reported to the Committee that HR did not attend to staff grievances instead it defended management. They made an example of a staff member who was accused of sleeping with the COO and when a grievance was launched, management did not do anything and the staff member concerned had to find her own ways of dealing with the accusations.
The staff complained that the HR executive was racist and had no respect for staff. Furthermore, there was serious lack of communication by Council and Executive Management. For instance, staff were not aware of the reasons for the suspension of the CEO and COO and were not were not informed of the interim arrangements whilst the two were on suspension.
Lastly, staff members were reported to the Committee that the submission of movies for classification has declined, there was no consultation with staff when amendments to policies were made or new policies drafted.
7.2 Meeting with Executive Management and Council
The Committee met with the Executive Management and Council. They provided the following responses to issues raised by staff members.
A public sector comparison report was done and shared with HR/Remco and Council. It transpired that there are disparities between FPB and other entities, especially SABC, ICASA and BSA. Public service comparison was also done and it demonstrated that there was a case to adjust FPB salaries to bring them on par with the public service. However, there were no resources to match the other entities’ or public sector scales at the moment. A structure review process, which included whether incumbents required additional capacity and or skills, was also done. These followed issues raised in the previous grading exercise, and was followed with re-grading and salary reviews. Benchmarking exercise would continue to be implemented and the Executive Management would continuously consult with Council on how to ensure remuneration parity was aligned with the public service.
The public sector comparison report done by the FPB refers to the comparison with the annual pay scales advised in the relevant DPSA circulars for Senior Management Services (Level 13 to 16) and for salary levels 1 to 12. The FPB income generation streams are limited in terms of the current tariff structure and this had a definite impact on FPB ability to increase the current organisational remuneration levels. In December 2016 the FPB conducted a Paterson Job Grade Verification Exercise and the results of this exercise are under review by Exco. A full review/re-grading will be done together with a work study during the 2nd quarter of the current financial year and a decision on how to move forward would be taken, based on new grades. The current pay practice would immediately be communicated to staff, highlight different scales/notches and their rationale. The job evaluation report will be shared with staff.
The FPB employed five white staff members, two out of eleven incumbents at SMS level, two out of twelve incumbents at Assistant Manager/Specialist level and one at Operation level. One white male had just resigned at Executive level. The FPB had an Employment Equity comprising staff-elected members and coordinated by the HR unit.
7.3 Responses of issues raised by FPB staff
During a meeting with staff at the FPB; concerns were raised around various issues which had impacted on staff morale. Amongst the key issues was the disparities between the (low) salaries FPB staff were receiving and those of entities within the Department of Communications, and the discrepancies in the job grading. In its response, Council and Senior Management stated that it had carried out benchmarking of salaries with other entities of the Department - public sector comparison report was completed and shared with HR/Remco and Council. It transpired that there are disparities between FPB and other entities, especially SABC, ICASA and Brand SA. Resolution Benchmarking exercises will continue to be implemented and Exco will consult Council on how to ensure remuneration parity with the public service.
In relation to the discrepancies in job grading of FPB employees; the public sector comparison report done by the FPB refers to the comparison with the annual pay scales advised in the relevant DPSA Circulars for Senior Management Services (Levels 13 to 16) and for Salary Levels 1 to 12. The FPB income generation streams are limited in terms of the current tariff structure and this has a definite impact on our ability to increase the current organisational remuneration levels. In December 2016 the FPB conducted a Paterson Job Grade Verification exercise and the results of this exercise are under review by EXCO.
In relation to allegations of not implementing employment equity, particularly the claim that black employees were being overlooked for senior management positions; the FPB stated in its response that it employed five white staff members two out of eleven incumbents at Senior Management Level, two out of twelve incumbents at Assistant Manager/Specialist Level and one at Operation Level (Compliance Monitor Cape Town Office). If further put forward that there is an organisational Employment Equity Plan which is informed by the FPB Equity Profile that is reviewed quarterly by the Forum and the HREMCO.
Concerns around long-term contracts for critical positions related to the 4 positions of Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, General Assistant, Corporate Services Specialist and Applications Support Assistant (IT). A Council resolution approving establishment of the four positions as permanent, and how they should be filled, will be communicated to staff; organisational policies (new and reviewed) will be communicated to staff for input prior to submission to Council.
In order to upskill its current staff, compliment an annual skills development and training programme was in place, through which all staff identify their plans and career growth path. For the 2016/17, reporting period the FPB invested a total of R560 705 in employee skills training and development (short training courses). The succession plan would be communicated to staff.
Three positions were proposed for review (Operations) the union. These positions were ICT Security Officer, Junior Legal Officer and Legal Administration Officer. The proposal was that where possible, the two positions in Legal be merged into one and internal candidates be up-skilled to be placed in that position, and the same be done (internal placement) be considered for the IT position.
In response to the proposal an organisation-wide job review exercise will be undertaken and a business case for possible upgrading of specific positions in line with revised job content will be considered. However, any upgrading can only be implemented in the next financial year subject to inclusion in the APP and budget.
Concern was noted around the lack of promotion opportunities for staff. In its response FPB noted that the relative small size of the organisation made it difficult for all staff to be promoted however, there are examples of staff members who grew from interns into permanent positions and a colleague who worked her up from being a General Assistant to a Client Support Officer. Succession planning was also used, which includes certain individuals earmarked for targeted development in preparation for growth opportunities. An annual career development schedule also assisted managers in determining appropriate development strategies for operational staff and is linked to the succession plan of the units.
There would be more regular staff feedback on FPB succession planning and skills development initiatives, and Management would be trained on Human Resources including interpersonal relations.
It was noted that there were a number of instances where staff were not satisfied with the manner in which they had been treated by HR, especially when they raised certain issues relating to pay discrepancies. The matter had been discussed with the HR Manager, who indicated that he was hurt by the allegations because he was hard-wording and always went an extra mile in addressing staff concerns. He had indicated that he was willing to explore all avenues to clear the alleged racism issue. In its response the FPB stated that Interpersonal and Customer Service Skills Training would be implemented for HR staff. Equally management will improve the implementation of culture and change management workshops for all staff during the 1st Quarter (April - June) through team building, diversity workshops and value workshops.
In 2011-2012, FPB adopted a Turnaround (TA) structure to ensure alignment between the mandate imperatives and operational requirements. The TA structure was intended to improve organisational efficiencies. However, over the last 3 years, a number of new functions were established based on business requirements, resulting in some functions being enhanced and certain new positions being established. Some of the new positions were established on a temporary basis to ensure that an informed decision was taken regarding whether they could become independent permanent positions or whether the functions could be included in existing jobs. As a result, the organisation undergoes continuous changes in function and staff configuration. However, the core of the TA structure remains unchanged. The FPB further submits that a full organisational structure review is not envisaged in the medium term.
Staff will be fully consulted and engaged to ensure that all changes to the organisational configuration are clearly understood by everyone.
Day 3: (Thursday, 30 March 2017)
8. Visit to the SABC
Interim SABC Board: Ms K Kweyama (Chairperson); Mr M Tsedu (Deputy Chairperson); Ms F Potgieter-Gqubule; and Mr J Matisson and Mr K Naidoo.
The Committee delegation was welcomed by the interim Board Deputy Chairperson. He indicated that the task given to the interim Board was immense as the SABC was in a state it should not be in. The interim Board had accepted the task with both hands and would do its best to fulfil the wishes of the nation. The interim Board had been in office for three days and had already met and had a fruitful meeting with Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). Mr Tsedu indicated that the Committee oversight visit forms part of the information gathering for the interim Board as it was still new.
Mr Maxegwana explained that the Committee took a decision in October 2016 to institute an inquiry after a number of consultations and heated boardroom discussions. The decision the Committee took was a correct one because of the number of issues that were happening at the SABC. The Committee further agreed unanimously on the candidates for the interim SABC Board. The Committee would have a session with the interim Board to discuss amongst other things the recommendations of the SABC Board Inquiry Report during constituency period.
The Chairperson reminded the interim SABC Board that it had a responsibility not to disappoint South Africans even though they only had 6 months to turn things around at the SABC. The Chairperson introduced members of the Committee. He indicated that other Committee members, Mr Ndlozi, Ms van Damme and Mr Tseli were unable to be part of the oversight visit.
Mr Matisonn indicated that the interim Board would need support of the Committee on many issues. He indicated that they had attended the SCOPA and Committee meeting even though they had not received appointment letters from the Minister of Communications. This made it difficult for SABC staff to provide them with the necessary support. The interim Board had not met with the Minister of Communications yet.
The Committee and the interim SABC Board proceeded to meet with the staff at M1 Studios.
8.1 Meeting with SABC staff
The Committee and the interim Board had a meeting with staff members. The meeting was attended by all members of staff of the SABC, including staff from Bisho, Mahikeng, Polokwane, Nelspruit, Durban, Bloemfontein, Kimberly, and Cape Town. The Chairperson gave a brief background on the oversight work of Parliament. The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would not leave the SABC without having met with each and every employee of the organisation.
The staff raised a serious concern that ANN7 was the only media house invited to the meeting. They accused the interim Board Chairperson of having invited ANN7. The interim Board Chairperson clarified that she was also an invitee of the Committee and everyone who was in attendance was invited by the Committee Chairperson. The staff agreed that everyone should sit in the staff meeting irrespective of their position as long as they were assured that they would not be victimised.
Whilst the Chairperson was introducing members of the Board to staff, Mr Mattison indicated that he had just received a letter from the Minister of Communications indicating that she had not co-signed the appointment of the interim Board pending security checks by the State Security Agency (SSA) and therefore were not eligible to attend the meeting as Board members. Mr Maxegwana clarified that Parliament had recommended that the five members be appointed to the interim SABC Board and Parliament approved had adopted the Committee recommendation. Subsequently, the President had announced the appointment of interim SABC Board members on Monday, 27 March 2017. The Committee agreed that the interim SABC Board members should be part of the staff meeting.
The staff members raised the following concerns:
Middle managers indicated that the SABC continued to be functional because of them. They requested that the Committee ensured that they worked in a conducive environment and that they were allowed to execute their mandates freely and without fear or favour. They wanted to work in a harmonious and friendly environment. They indicated that they had a case against SABC before the court and that was not in the interest of the SABC to resolve matters in court. However, the situation at the SABC warranted that they take the organisation to court.
The staff from commercial enterprises complained about the challenges they were encountering with the Landmark system. The system was implemented without being tested. There was not a single radio station in the country that used the Landmark system except SABC radio. As a result, the SABC lost millions of Rands as a result of the Landmark system.
SAFM – staff members complained about their contracts still not being signed. The contracts are due to expire on Friday, 31 March 2017. The staff was not being informed whether the contracts will be renewed or not and this was against fair labour practices.
Channel Africa – Staff members raised a serious concern that in the last 17 years, four General Manager have come and gone. The staff of Channel Africa was treated differently as compared to other staff members of the SABC. To date, Channel Africa has been overtaken by eNCA and SABC cannot fight that. The staff fell like abandoned children by SABC. The Human Resources was failing the Channel Africa producers. The staff has been told by HR that if they want to be happy at SABC they must do what management tells them to do. The HR has over the years failed the producers and presenters of Channel Africa. Most of the staff are on contract and have been working for over 20 years on a year to year contract.
TV Licence Unit – The TV licence permanent staff members were sitting without work due to Lorna Vision staff doing their work. The non-permanent staff were being passed on from agency to agency for years until recently. They only received contracts after threatening to strike. The contracts have no benefits such as annual increase, bonus or medical aid. Workers in call centre suffer due to Lorna Vision mistakes. Contract does not guarantee employment once it has ended. Managers instil fear in workers. Permanent employment is repeatedly promised but not delivered. The staff has been on contract for more than 8 years and this issue was raised with Mr Aguma and Mr Motsoeneng who promised to attend to it but nothing had happened. The TV licence call centre operators are contractors and no permanent. The staff requests the Interim Board to investigate who Lorna Vision is and the rumour that permanent staff will be retrenched. Staff has former COO on record promising permanent employment of TV licence contractors and temporary staff but the next day they were given three year contracts.
Bursaries – There are serious problems with the manner in which bursaries are awarded. Bursaries are granted provided staff enrol themselves in public institutions and not public institution. However, senior managers are given bursaries to study in private institutions.
Growth - Junior employees have best qualifications but are not given opportunities for growth instead people from outside come and occupy senior positions with no broadcasting experience.
Radio Education and TV Production – The staff raised a serious concern about the structure of the radio education unit. TV production staff was still working on tapes whereas other organisations were working on digital.
90/10 Policy – An amount of R2 million was approved to pay music legends R50 000 each. Not too sure who approved this and what process was followed that led to approval of such. Already 60 legends have been paid.
Organisational structure – Staff raised serious concerns about the organisational structure of the SABC. They are scared to question the structure as those that have done so have been dismissed and others promised to be retrenched.
Consultants - SABC filled with consultants who are duplicating the work of staff members.
Information Technology – A new company was contracted to develop 7 websites for SABC. The permanent staff was not sure whether they still have their jobs as the company has been contracted for 5 years and has been doing their work.
Financial health – Staff raised concerns about enormous financial decisions which were made during the Ad Hoc Committee inquiry. The SABC funding model needs to change, if not SABC will continue experiencing the problems they are experiencing now. SABC has people that can make it a better institution. The worst victimisation was to spend sleepless night concerned whether staff will get paid at the end of the month due to the unhealthy financial status. Staff were also concerned that the Audit Committee / Internal Auditors did not know that SABC was in a dire financial situation.
Multichoice Contract – staff felt strongly the Multichoice contract was improper, illegal and must be nullified and all archives returned to the SABC. The contract also impeded on the implementation of Broadcasting Digital Migration (BDM).
Supply Chain Management and Human Resources - Staff raised the serious flouting of procurement process as one major concern. SABC does not follow SCM processes at all. In some instances, Commissioning Editors are tasked with procuring services without the involvement of SCM.
A strong HR is needed at the SABC. The SABC was in need of strong unions. Skills Audit be seriously considered. People get suspended for raising issues. Retired personnel were being called back to come and run the SABC, such as the labour relations officer and get fat cheques. No retention plan for internships – interns are left to do paperwork all year instead of being groomed and absorbed to the SABC. No skills transfer at the institution. People are being investigated for no apparent reasons. Staff from all SABC offices (regional and provincial) raised issues of low salaries, which do not match the skills. GCEO signing documents without consultation with employees. Provinces are under-capacitated due to freezing of positions. Recent appointments of senior positions were never advertised. All senior managers at SABC are in acting capacity.
Television Content Acquisition – issue of public service mandate and the funding model of serious concern. Get less than 5 per cent from the state but there are programmes that SABC is supposed to make which have a negative return on investment because of a mandate issue that is overseen by ICASA. E.g. Whole day covering of the funeral. SABC got nothing from broadcasting the funeral live. People expect to watch soccer, rugby, and cricket but there is no money coming from the state to cover that.
SABC Sport– If Sports Department does not have sports rights, then it should not be considered a department. Staff pleaded with interim Board to visit their Department.
Channel 404 – There was no head for Channel 404. The Channel was driven by freelancers. No executive producers and anchors for the channel. The Channel was being neglected and staff always told that there were moratoriums. The Channel was used for rallies and funerals. There is a need for SABC to have regional channels. Currently there are no studious in Bisho, people have to drive to PE for live interviews. Provincial Legislatures hardly get any coverage as a result on non-existent of regional channels.
8.2 Meeting with Executive Management
The Committee met with the Executive Management. The Committee Secretary read out all issues that were raised by staff members. The Committee requested that the Executive Management respond to all issues raised by staff by 2 May 2017.
8.3 Responses to issues raised by SABC staff
It was noted with great concern by the Portfolio Committee on Communications that staff at the SABC were very demoralised, unappreciated and at times victimised. Staff members that were in Middle Management positions felt that the SABC continued to be functional because of their contribution. However, working conditions were not conducive and they could not execute their duties without fear or favour. Middle managers had a case against the SABC before the court and this is not in best interest of SABC to resolve matters in court as there was a general feeling that matters should be resolved internally.
In its response the SABC stated that Middle Management did contribute to the success of the Corporation. They are, however, currently feeling that the SABC is not treating them fairly and have lodged a CCMA case as well as a case in the High Court. These two cases are currently sub-judice. There are internal and external processes that an employee/group of employees can follow if they are unhappy with the organisation. The SABC always endeavours to resolve any employee issues to the benefit of all parties involved.
Staff members complained about the challenges they were encountering with the Landmark system. One of the many issues they had with the system was that it was implemented without being tested. In its response the SABC stated that Landmark was implemented in April 2016 and although the processes were tested and confirmed with the limited project team, the main issue which caused revenue loss during the months of April and May was due to the Integration with the SABC Radio Play-out Systems which Project Team got confirmation from the Project Leads responsible that the testing between Landmark and the Play-out Systems was successful.
Another major factor was the impact on the users with regards to the change from Team Radio to Landmark which effected staff's moral and output and resulted in unaffected staff doing the majority of the work for the Department, this was a big learning as when the project was implemented. All enhancements for the major broadcaster who use Landmark are available for the SABC to use if relevant so the systems allow the SABC to keep up with the trends.
Staff at Channel Africa raised a serious concern that in the last 17 years, four General Manager have come and gone. The staff of Channel Africa was treated differently as compared to other staff members of the SABC. The staff of Channel Africa was treated differently as compared to other staff members of the SABC. The staff fell like abandoned children by SABC.
In its response the SABC stated that Channel Africa was currently funded by the Department of Communications and administrated by the SABC subject to funding received. Channel Africa employees do, however, receive all benefits offered to SABC employees. There are currently 60 employees within Channel Africa of which only 8 are fixed term contract employees, the remainder are all permanent employees. The Head of Channel Africa is also a fixed term contractor in line with SABC policy whereby all General Managers are on fixed term contracts. The Head of Channel Africa is also a fixed term contractor in line with SABC policy whereby all General Managers are on fixed term contracts.
Permanent staff members working in the TV License Department were sitting without work due to Lorna Vision staff doing their work. The staff has been on contract for more than 8 years and this issue was raised with Mr Aguma and Mr Motsoeneng who promised to attend to it but nothing had happened. The staff requested the Interim Board to investigate who Lorna Vision is and the rumour that permanent staff would be retrenched. Staff had former COO on record promising permanent employment of TV licence contractors and temporary staff but the next day they were given three-year contracts.
Staff at ASD was previously employed through employment agencies and a decision was taken to do away with agencies and give the employees fixed term contracts for the period they would have been employed by the agencies. This decision was taken to secure employment for these individuals. Management in the meantime will investigate how to proceed with evaluation of the roles, costing and determining whether the roles and therefore the individuals occupying the roles should be permanent. Communication in this regard will be shared with all affected individuals on an ongoing basis.
The issue of managers instilling fear in staff was addressed and dealt with by Executive Directors, no new incidents or allegations have been reported to senior management or HR. It is not always feasible to release and permit customer facing staff in a revenue generating environment to attend all SABC functions and meetings.
It is not always feasible to release and permit customer facing staff in a revenue generating environment to attend all SABC functions and meetings.
Staff raised a serious concern about the structure of the radio education unit, as well as the organisational structure of the SABC. In its response, the SABC stated that management was not aware of dismissals or threats of retrenchments which related to people that questioned the organisational structure. It further stated that On the 31st March, a session was held with all Content staff in which an appeal was made to all the Commissioning Editors to provide any information at their disposal to substantiate the allegation One response was received from the head of genre: children confirming that no such instruction was ever received by her or any of her team members .The request was followed up again and to date no further detail has been received to support the allegation or provide a basis for further investigation.
SABC filled with consultants who are duplicating the work of staff members. The use of consultants was to mitigate the risk of SABC not addressing audit qualifications. The AGSA raised concerns in their audit report of 2013 and 2014 that highlighted the problem of lack of skills especially in the finance division. For example, Par 60 of the 2014 audit report states that “The SABC has not established an effective organisation structure that places people with appropriate skills in appropriate positions.” The consultants who were mostly Chartered Accountants have assisted the SABC in reducing several of the audit qualifications and their task is completed. Currently the only consultants being used are assisting with compiling the note for irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The SABC funding model needs to change, if not SABC will continue experiencing the problems they are experiencing Staff were also concerned that the Audit Committee / Internal Auditors did not know that SABC was in a dire financial situation.
Staff felt strongly the Multichoice contract was improper, illegal and must be nullified and all archives returned to the SABC. The SABC and Multichoice should be ordered to notify the Competition Commission of the acquisition of control arising from the Commercial and Master Channel Distribution Agreement (Multichoice Agreement) concluded between the SABC and Multichoice in July 2013; further and/or alternative relief that the SABC and Multichoice within 14 days of the Tribunal hearing to produce all documentation (minutes, internal memorandums etc.) concerning the Multichoice Agreement negotiations and also that the Tribunal should direct the Competition Commission within 30 days from the date upon which the SABC and Multichoice produce the said documentation for the Commission to consider such and file a report with the Tribunal recommending whether or not the Multichoice Agreement gives rise to notifiable change of control.
Caxton therefore argued that the Multichoice Agreement alters the control structure of the SABC business because it confers to Multichoice control over SABC archived programmes (Encore Channel), archives which constitute a fundamental part of SABC's broadcast television business and assets.
The court ruled that the Multichoice Agreement did not give Multichoice the ability to control the SABC's television broadcast strategy or policy in terms of section 12(2)(g) of the Competition Act. Multichoice did not have the ability to materially influence the policy of a SABC in a manner comparable to a person who, in ordinary commercial practice, can exercise an element of control referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 12(2) of the Competition Act. Therefore, the Multichoice Agreement between the SABC and Multichoice does not constitute control by Multichoice over the business of the SABC as demanded under section 12(2)(g) of the Competition Act.
The Competition Appeal Court therefore ordered the SABC and Multichoice to provide the Competition Commission within 21 days of its judgment of 24 June 2016, all documentation including but not limited to correspondence, board minutes, internal memoranda pertaining to the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of the agreement of 3 July 2013 to enable the Competition Commission to recommend whether the Multichoice Agreement amounts to a notifiable merger or not in terms of the Competition Act.
The process was at the stage where the SABC is awaiting the recommendation by the Competition Commission as to whether the Multichoice Agreement amounts to a notifiable merger in terms of the Competition Act.
Day 4 – 31 March 2017
9. Visit to Brand South Africa – 31 March 2017
The Committee delegation was welcomed by Ms Kweyama, Board Chairperson. She reminded member to play their part to ensure that South Africa inspires in new ways.
Mr Gungubele outlined the purpose of the Committee oversight visit. The Committee then proceeded to meet with staff members.
9.1 Meeting with staff members
The Chairperson explained to staff members that the Committee would listen to their issues, then raise them with the Executive management. He requested staff to raise issues without fear of intimidation or victimisation. The Committee will provide a response to staff issues before the end of June 2017.
The staff complained that due to nature of their work, a lot of commitment is needed from staff after hours and during weekends – policy is silent on working arrangement that can be accepted – especially for non-bargaining council staff.
9.2 Meeting with Executive and Board
In response to the one issue raised by staff, the CEO indicated that the organisation does have flexible working hours. When staff has informed their immediate managers that they will be working after hours or over weekends, they get compensated.
9.2 Closing Remarks
The Committee thanked the Board, Executive and all members of staff for the work they are doing at the BSA. The Committee encouraged the Board to continue providing direction at BSA.
10. Observations and recommendations
10.1 Observations
In relation to GCIS:
The Committee commended the dedication displayed by staff of both the GCIS and the Department. The Committee noted that all issues raised by staff members were genuine concerns. The Committee thanked staff for continuing with their work irrespective of the challenges. The Committee informed staff it was aware that the Department was underfunded and committed to assisting the Department with its funding challenges.
In relation to MDDA:
The Committee noted with great concern that over the past year, MDDA had only revised two “cosmetic” policies; MDDA Board had not dealt with employee component before developing a new strategy.
The Committee had a serious concern with the reporting of MDDA as it strongly felt that matters raised by staff were contradictory to what had been report to Parliament. The staff had made serious allegation on serious matters that talked to the limited budget of the entity, such as approval of projects without following due processes.
The Committee was concerned that staff were scared to raise their concerns for fear of victimisation.
The Committee condemned the Board and Executive Management failure to communicate properly the funding challenges with staff members and the allegation by staff members that their telephone was tapped.
The Committee instructed the Board and Executive Management to refrain from such unacceptable behaviour.
The Committee warned the Executive Management and Board that no staff member should be victimised for raising concerns whether with the Committee, the Board or with Executive Management.
The Committee express its dissatisfaction with Board and Management responses and resolved that MDDA should provide a comprehensive report in response to all matters raised by staff members by 2 May 2017.
In relation to ICASA:
The Committee was concerned that staff members had to go on strike in order to be listened to by Council and Executive Management.
The Committee appreciated the manner in which staff engaged with the Committee and ensured staff that the Committee would intervene and no staff would be victimised as a result of what was said in the meeting.
The Committee noted with concern the arrogant responses by Council. The Committee was concerned that the Council and Executive Management had not met with staff members following the strike although they were swift in deducting “no work, no pay” and that no effort was made to call staff and take them through the details of the settlement agreement.
In relation to FPB:
The Committee noted with great concern that some of the matters raised by staff during the 2014 oversight visit had not been resolved.
In relation to the SABC:
The Committee noted with concern: (i) that staff members, almost in all departments were very unhappy; (ii) there was a lack of communication, particularly from the management side; (iii) staff were subject to victimisation when they raise issues with management; and (iv) management has an arrogant attitude does not assist in taking the SABC forward.
The Committee commended the commitment expressed by interim SABC Board. The Committee undertook to provide all the necessary support to the interim SABC Board in order for it to implement its mandate.
10.2 Recommendations
The Committee recommends that the Minister should provide a detailed report on all concerns raised by staff members and the responses received from the Executive Management of the above mentioned entities within a month after the adoption of this report.
Report to be considered.
[1] Gutto S et al. (2007) Study commissioned by Parliament, A study on enhancing the status, role, image and positioning of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.
Documents
No related documents