Meeting on Finalisation of Department of Public Works & Department of Correctional Service Leve Agreement

Meeting report

Department of Correctional Services response to the Judicial Inspectorate Annual Report
Ms Jenny Shreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management Services, told the Portfolio Committees that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) Annual Report would henceforth be taken as a guide to service delivery. It represented an input on service delivery from outside the Department.

Ms Schreiner set out an action plan to be adopted by the DCS. Issues to be addressed were linked to responsible components in the DCS. The time frame for developing an action plan for each issue was stated as well as the time frame for addressing each issue (see DCS Action Plan document).

Ms Schreiner described it as being a high-level action plan. Among the issues to be addressed were:
▪ Disregard by the Department of Judicial Inspectorate reports. Complaints registered with JICS Independent Visitors (IVs) would be taken more seriously.
▪ Migration of staff to centre to strengthen coal face capacity.
▪ Concern about Heads of Centres reports on natural / unnatural deaths, and the reluctance of management to deal with officials implicated in inmate deaths.
▪ Research into the effect of long sentences on costs, overcrowding and gang activity.
▪ Discrepancies in staffing levels between centres.
▪ The efficiency of parole boards.
▪ Lack of briefing to officials on high risk inmates.
▪ The persistence of solitary confinement, in spite of the fact that the Correctional Services Amendment Act had done away with that.
▪ The majority of complaints by inmates remained unresolved, with transfers away from families as punishment, ranking as the most common complaint.
▪ Infrastructure challenges that compromised human dignity during incarceration.
▪ Improved utilisation of workshops.
▪ The provision of rehabilitation programmes.
▪ Attention to conditions of incarceration for Remand Detainees.
▪ The increased use of plea bargaining to avoid incarceration for minor offences.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that the action plan failed to move beyond what the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) intended to do. The Portfolio Committee had hoped to be provided with some answers as to what the DCS was actually doing. He referred to the situation described in the findings of the Inspecting Judge, as set out in the Annual Report of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS). Unsentenced girls, aged 18 to 21, had been kept in a converted storeroom with a corrugated iron roof at Thohoyandou. Because of the extreme heat, girls removed their clothing, with curious males looking on. He asked what progress had been made with that matter, seeing that the Inspecting Judge had applied for the release of those with bail and the finding of more suitable accommodation.

Mr Modise replied that it had been resolved to move the girls to Tzaneen.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked at what stage that had occurred.

Mr Modise replied that he would have to confer with Mr Robert van Anraad, Deputy Commissioner, Facilities, who was also in the meeting.

The Chairperson again asked if the girls had been removed from the converted storeroom.

Mr Modise answered that he had returned from Bloemfontein the day before, and was unsure of the situation.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that it was a simple question.

The Chairperson instructed the DCS to make phone calls, if necessary, to get clarity about the situation before the end of the meeting.

The Chairperson referred to two homicides committed by officials who assaulted inmates. In one instance, there had been a mass assault of inmates by officials. The deceased had been denied medical treatment and segregated. Batons and teargas were used in the assault. Yet the DCS merely dismissed one official. In the second case, officials had subjected the deceased to continual assault even when he no longer posed a threat. Inmates were killed by abusive force, and officials were only dismissed. The question was why there had been no criminal proceedings as this continual assault was tantamount to torture.

Mr Modise responded that if someone died in a fight, an inquest was opened. If it was an unnatural death, it was taken to the police for criminal investigation. Cases where the cause of death was unknown, were reported as natural deaths.

The Chairperson told Mr Modise to be specific. In the case of a mass assault by officials, the question was what the individual had been guilty of. The homicides were committed by DCS officials, and the question was why the police had to deal with it. At issue was what the DCS was doing about its members who had killed someone. The DCS itself had found the official guilty, in the first case, and was under obligation to charge him.

Mr Modise replied that the procedure followed was for the Head of Centre to lay a charge, after which the police took over.

Mr J Smallberger, DCS Regional Commissioner, Western Cape, added that a criminal case had been lodged with the police, who opened a case. The DCS did an internal investigation. Action had been taken against an Area Commissioner, a Head of Centre, and 35 officials. The official dismissed had been the one who had not responded to the complaints of the injured inmate. The Head of Centre was dismissed, and that was not the only penalty. Criminal proceedings continued. The attack had been provoked when an inmate stabbed an official.

The Chairperson noted that various officials had been involved in the continual assault on an inmate.

Mr Modise responded that a status report could not be provided at that moment. The DCS would update the Portfolio Committee. Criminal cases had been instituted. There were cases in progress.

The Chairperson again asked if the second homicide could be classified as torture.

Ms Schreiner responded that the death of inmates at the hands of officials, was unacceptable. The use of such force was abhorrent. The DCS took it seriously and this was borne out by the fact that it had been classified as homicide.

The Chairperson remarked that to deny a seriously injured person medical treatment, appeared almost premeditated. There had been a refusal to help the inmate survive, in the one case. The official might have been quite aware that his refusal would lead to the death of the inmate.

Mr C Kekana, ANC Public Works Portfolio Committee member, referred to training of inmates. He noted that many inmates were outlaws, as he phrased it, from poverty stricken backgrounds. They could benefit from training as artisans, plumbers and the like. There was not enough training to stabilise the situation.

Ms Subashini Moodley, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Development and Care, replied that skills enhancement needed more emphasis. Training opportunities had to be utilised. Artisan training was hampered by budget constraints. There had to be assessment of skill levels among inmates. Minimum education was a precondition to training. The Minister had called for compulsory education up to the age of 25. Currently it was only up to 15 years of age.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about communication between the Department and the Inspecting Judge. She asked how long it had taken to respond to the report of the Judicial Inspectorate.

Ms Schreiner admitted that the DCS had thus far not been effective in providing feedback about the Judicial Inspectorate report. Issues would be addressed, however.

Ms Ngwenya asked about communication between the Independent Visitors (IVs) attached to the Judicial Inspectorate, and the Department. Independent Visitors had told the Committee the previous week that the DCS did not inform them when the Committee arrived for oversight visitors. IVs had complained that they were ignored at centres, and not taken seriously. DCS officials apparently felt harassed by them, and suspected that they were there to monitor them.

Mr Modise conceded that the relationship between officials and IVs was not so good, as he put it. Managers saw IVs as a threat. In other cases there was a cordial relationship, and IVs were indeed taken seriously. There had to be efforts to inculcate a culture of working together. Six monthly workshops with Heads of Centre were envisaged, to deal with IVs and the use of force.

The Chairperson asked what happened when inmates were injured in police vehicles on the way back from court. It appeared that they were not taken to hospitals.

Mr Modise replied that if an inmate arrived injured, the injuries had to be noted, and a doctor and nurse had to be on hand to attend to them. If that did not happen, it was seen as dereliction. He was aware that inmates had complained of lack of medical treatment. But properly there had to be a doctor and qualified nurse at admission centres.

Mr Ndlovu argued that it was futile to continue asking questions. He contended that the questions of Mr Kekana and Ms Ngwenya had not been properly answered. He asked about the Department’s view about the 12 hour shift system, and inquests to be conducted for every death that occurred.

Ms Schreiner replied that the 2x12 hour shift system had caused concern since the beginning of the year. Area commissioners and regional commissioners could reconsider the system and institute other systems, if necessary. Different systems would be evaluated. The 12 hour shift system was effective in some areas.

Ms Moodley responded that post mortems were not conducted in every case. The cause of deaths classified as natural, was only viewed as important when there was reason to suspect underlying causes. The matter was being explored.

Ms Nyanda referred to Head of Centre reports. It seemed that the DCS management was reluctant to deal with officials. There was not enough interrogation. More deaths were occurring, and it was all too easily classified as a natural death.

Ms Schreiner responded that the recording of deaths were taken up with Heads of Centres. The DCS took note of the expressed need to interrogate the nature of the death.

Mr J Selfe (DA) told Ms Schreiner that the high level response plan by the DCS to the Judicial Inspectorate report, was not appropriate. A detailed response would have been better, especially where conduct by DCS members had been irregular or illegal. There was defensiveness on the part of the DCS to the report. He drew attention to page 64 of the Judicial Inspectorate Annual Report. An inmate had hanged himself on a gate in a passage during the recreation period. A shortage of weekend staff was blamed. Action taken was described as “none”. Death number 23, on page 66, referred to a known psychiatric patient found hung in a cell during morning unlock. Monitoring had been inadequate. No action had been taken. On page 70 there was reference to an inmate found hanged in a single cell at 17h30 by an official. No action had been taken. Death number 41, on page 72, referred to a cell shared by three inmates set alight. One died, and the two survivors blamed one another. No officials had been on duty at the section. Action taken had again been described as “none”. He asked what was being done about staff shortages.

Ms Schreiner replied that inadequate supervision due to staff shortages, would be attended to. The shift system would be looked into. She noted that “none” in the Schedule of Unnatural Deaths only had a bearing on DCS corrective or disciplinary decisions taken. It did not mean that no action had been taken. Usually it meant that cases had been turned over to the police. The DCS would report.

The Chairperson remarked that as Mr Abram had noted in previous meetings, DCS reports were public documents. Meanings of terms had to be made clear. As it stood, the four incidents Mr Selfe had highlighted, created a very bad impression.

Mr Modise responded with regard to the findings of the Inspecting Judge, that the DCS had had no chance to respond. Issues dealt with by the Judge, were being addressed in full. Communication between the DCS and the Judge could improve.

The Chairperson noted that the Judge had told the Committee the previous week, that the Unnatural Death Schedule had been recorded from the DCS investigation report. It was the DCS that had produced a document that used the term “none”. The DCS would do well to provide better information in future.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that the Judicial Inspectorate had produced a 58 page report, with a detailed Schedule of Unnatural Deaths attached. Great effort had gone into making it comprehensive. The DCS response had done little more than provide the excuse that there had to be better communication with the Inspecting Judge. The DCS had come up with a seven page response, not strong in content. There was no meat in it, not even bones. Lethargy was rampant in the DCS. There was an attitude of laat Gods water oor Gods akker loop – let things take their course. It was a dangerous trend. The DCS had to respect the Judicial Inspectorate document, and provide comprehensive responses. The DCS response had been niksseggend – nothing of substance was said. He asked what kind of message the DCS was sending out, also to the international community. During oversight visits, inmates had complained of high prices at tuckshops. Inmates were not wage earners. Some issues could turn out to be simple to address, but centres had to be visited. If there was not substantial improvement, the country would have a Third World pariah correctional system.

The Chairperson urged the DCS to take note of sentiments expressed. Detailed responses were required. The high level approach was not desirable. The DCS had to come back with detailed responses. It was not necessary to justify the past. The question was what corrective steps had been taken.

Ms Schreiner responded that the DCS would return with more detail after 17 December. There would be an update on incidents in the DCS report. The DCS would report regularly, and develop an action plan.

The Chairperson asked if that was acceptable to the Committee.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that the Portfolio Committee would wait and see.

The Chairperson reminded the DPW that it had been decided at a previous meeting with the DCS and DPW to have another meeting within three months.

Department of Public Works (DPW) briefing on the Kimberley Correctional Centre
The briefing was set against the background of a previous meeting with the DCS and DPW Portfolio Committees on 18 August 2010. At that meeting, matters observed during the Committees’ joint oversight visit to the Kimberley Centre earlier that month, had been discussed. It had been agreed that certain matters would be resolved and reported on by mid-November 2010.

Mr Rachard Samuels, DPW Deputy Director General, said that the briefing was a response to the matters listed in a Corrections Portfolio Committee reminder notice. These matters had been divided into the categories of construction/infrastructure-related matters pertaining to the Kimberley Centre, and management-related matters. Cost escalation and management restructuring at the centre, were key issues.

Mr Samuels reported on remedial work on fire damage; addition of toilets to hospital wards, and Facilities Management (FM) contracts pertaining to surveillance equipment, and electrical and mechanical matters (see document).

With regard to cost escalation, Mr Samuels noted that the entire contract had to be re-measured after the initial estimate in 2004. Additions had to be offset against savings. The project cost at final account amounted to R824 million.

Mr Samuels noted that a blueprint tailored to South African conditions had emerged from the construction of the Kimberley Centre. The blueprint could be applied in the building of new centres in future.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the DPW had mentioned on 18 August that some cells at the Kimberley Centre lacked ablution facilities. The Portfolio Committee had raised the issue because after lockup hospital patients did not have access to ablutions facilities. He asked how the DCS proposed to deal with that. Hospital patients at the centre would need a guard to go to the toilet. With regard to cost escalation, he noted that the initial estimation had been R300 million, which had escalated to R900 million. He asked what lessons had been learnt.

Mr Samuels responded that the DPW had gained knowledge of construction and property. The DPW had taken a position on toilets, and had awaited comments.

Mr van Anraad added that the option of communal toilets had been on the table. Consultant proposals had been examined. Security camera surveillance had been increased, as had personnel to take people to toilets. The Department of Health had insisted on certain requirements. A value for money exercise had been done. It had been decided to see if it was possible to get along without toilets in cells. Toilets would cost R150 000 each.

Ms T Molatedi, DCS Acting Regional Commissioner, Free State and Northern Cape, said that the situation had been monitored and it had turned out toilets were needed in isolation cells, to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.

The Chairperson asked about lessons learnt about cost escalations.

Mr Samuels replied that the question arose if escalation was inevitable. An estimate of conceptualisation was by its nature tentative. Lessons had been learnt about communication. It should have been stated early on that the initial estimate did not include bulk earthworks and personnel consultant fees. A blueprint design had been developed. Certain costs would not have to be incurred again. The blueprint could be adapted to conditions at Thohoyandou and other centres. Scope management could improve. Additional elements like a guardhouse and textile factory, could be anticipated better.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said that she was worried about escalated costs. She did not understand the design. Lessons pertaining to surveillance cameras had been expensive. R150 000 for a single toilet was unacceptable. Further alterations would involve electricity, with implications for the DCS capital budget. There was no rehabilitation and funds were disappearing. There had to be security to guard people at night.

The Chairperson asked about security after lockup.

Ms Molatedi replied that there was 24 hour security. Hospital admittance had been minimised, and advertisements placed for nurses. Full capacity was not yet utilised.

The Chairperson asked if minimising hospital admittance meant that people would not get sick. He referred to the practicalities of toilet use for 25 inmates. He asked what the worst case scenario could be. Once full capacity had been reached, someone would have to act as escort all day. He asked if there was a plan.

Mr van Anraad replied that the capacity of hospital cells was not restricted. Six beds per hospital cell could be used.

The Chairperson noted that there would then be 42 inmates to escort to toilets. He asked how that would be managed.

Ms Molatedi replied that patients could be taken to external hospitals if need be. Communal toilets were still within the confines of the hospital. It was not necessary to move to other wards to reach ablutions. At that point the situation was manageable.

The Chairperson remarked that the Committee had visited the hospital. Leaving the ward was a security risk in itself.

Mr Samuel responded that R150 000 per toilet excluded provision for an extractor. That cost could escalate further.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) remarked that the toilets were the price of a house. American style toilets could not be afforded. A different cost analysis could be waited for, but damage had been done already. Costs were run up at the expense of taxpayers, which was disgraceful and embarrassing. She suggested that those responsible for tenders come and answer. A R150 000 toilet would have wings and wheels. The next thing would be door frames costing R50 000.

Mr Selfe noted that questions about under-performing contractors had been asked on 18 August. Contractors had under-performed on matters such as cabling for IT. He asked if the DPW would provide a report on underperformance. If so, it would have to state who had under-performed, and if monies had been recovered. With regard to security in the hospital section, he noted that there had been two incidents where the security of nurses had been compromised.

Ms Molatedi replied that the security of service providers like nurses could be guaranteed.

Mr Modise added that new management had been appointed after the incidents with nurses at Kimberley. There had been a lapse in vigilance. Nurses had to have escorts. Nurses with prison experience would henceforth be employed. The security of the facility had been taken to a higher level. There were officials who could deal with security challenges.

Mr Samuels replied that there had been no other contractor underperformance besides that of cabling contractors, since the meeting on 18 August.

Mr van Anraad responded that IT installation had been the responsibility of the IT Chief Director in the DCS. SIZWE, the contractor for monitors and cabling, had been instructed to repair deficient work. Telkom had erred with electricity colour codes, but that had been rectified.

Mr Selfe asked about the amount that had been paid to SIZWE. He asked if repair work had been completed, and if further costs could still be incurred.

The Chairperson asked if IT cabling had been fully completed.

Mr van Anraad answered that Telkom was still busy.

The Chairperson asked about a completion date. Payment had been made up front.

Mr van Anraad added that cameras had been added to the hospital.

The Chairperson noted that the surveillance cameras initially installed, could not identify individuals, which made it easier to reach an intended victim.

Ms Catherine Mabuza (ANC), Public Works Portfolio Committee Chairperson, asked Mr Samuels to assure the Portfolio Committees that there were no issues that would have to be raised 3 or 4 years down the line.

The Chairperson advised that the DPW discuss technicalities of cost escalation among themselves.

Mr L Gaehler, UDM member of the Public Works Portfolio Committee, referred to slide 3, which dealt with remedial work on fire damage. He noted that the site had been handed over on 4 October 2010. He asked if the project cost of R4,569,352 was the final cost. The percentage work completion stood at 44%, against a time lapse of 54%. He asked why value of payments had been verified by 7.8%

Mr Van den Berg, DPW, said that progress against time lapse, where progress lagged behind, raised questions of when the contractor would require payment. A second payment would be made before the annual builders holiday.

The Chairperson remarked that the Portfolio Committee had difficulty with the DPW ending up with huge amounts of unspent money at the end of March. Monies for the current finance year had to be spent, to prevent fiscal dumping.

Mr Van den Berg replied that there had been a meeting with the contractor the previous week, and that concerns had been raised.

Ms N Madlala, ANC member of the Public Works Portfolio Committee, asked how much money had been spent on the initial cameras that had to be replaced, and who the tender was. She opined that the relationship between the DCS and the DPW was not good, in spite of the Service Level Agreement (SLA). She asked about progress with the SLA.

Ms Sasa Subban, DPW Deputy Director General, replied that the DPW engaged with the DCS bilaterally on a monthly basis about the SLA. Relationships, roles and responsibilities were discussed. The SLA had not yet been brought down to the level of individual projects. There were maintenance budget limitations.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS National Commissioner had had the SLA looked at by advisers. He asked if that process had been concluded.

Mr van Anraad responded that the Commissioner had revised and amended the agreement, and had sent it back to the DPW. DCS concerns had been addressed. It had been submitted to the DPW Director General, and would be finalised in the current year.

The Chairperson said that until the SLA had been signed, there could be no real discussion. The Portfolio Committee insisted that it be signed before the end of the year.

Mr van Anraad responded with regard to surveillance cameras, that replacement of the initial cameras had pushed costs up by R3 million. Kimberley was a medium security centre, there had been efficient installation at other facilities. Security systems had high maintenance costs. It was paid for from the DCS capital budget. The DPW was no longer responsible for camera maintenance.

The Chairperson remarked that if an amount of R20 million had been paid, and cameras had to be replaced, it amounted to fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

Mr Van den Berg responded that it was not only the cost of the cameras as such.

The Chairperson insisted that it was the initial cost that was the problem. When 5 other centres were to built, there had to be clarity about what was required. He asked why it had been that no one had seen irregularities taking place at Kimberley Centre. It seemed that the cameras could not provide sufficient information. It was the duty of the DCS to insist on minimum standards for surveillance technology. It would not do to blame the DPW. If the DCS was not happy with quality, the DPW had to be told.

Ms Schreiner replied that the kind of technology required, would be raised with the DCS National Commissioner.

Mr Abram drew attention to the DPW report on cost escalation at the Kimberley Centre. He asked what the initial contract period had been, and why it had been extended. There had to be a written response on that. There had been discrepancies in the Generic Bill of Quantities that had led to the extension. Shortages of metal and strikes in the industry had led to price increases. He asked which strikes were these, and what the increases amounted to. The Generic Bill of Quantities had increased from R33 million to 46 million due to scope changes. He asked why the security walkways had to be changed. He referred to additional preliminaries, and asked what the “conditions” related to that meant. Costs had escalated to nearly a billion. Consultant fees had been set at 12%. There was not currently a boom in the building industry, the DPW could have shopped around for a better deal. There had been no attention to value for money. R100 million had gone towards VAT. He asked why the tender had not been VAT inclusive. There had been only two tenders for a massive government job. He asked how advertisements had been placed. Burnt down facilities had cost R4 million. Toilet costs would amount to R150 000 multiplied by ten. He asked how many square metres had burnt down. Oversight visits had revealed that the walls were still standing. He called on all concerned to work better and smarter for best value for money.

Mr Samuels replied that there were two tender processes, not two entities who tendered. There were in fact 15 tenders.

Mr Ashraf Adam, DPW Chief Operations Officer, replied that it had been a boom period in the construction industry during the greater part of construction.

Mr Van den Berg responded that a pre tender estimate could be formed once a bill of quantities had been completed.

Mr van Anraad answered that the Kimberley Centre had been constructed during a boom period. Building was currently cheaper. With reference to slide 7, expected rainfall that could interrupt construction, had to be incorporated in future. The final contract value of R815 million had been exceeded by 1% in 2006 to R824 million. Regarding lessons learnt, he said that the new Brandvlei Centre was a success story, in which lessons learnt had been applied.

Ms Nyanda noted that the Portfolio Committee had visited Block A, K level, and had found a door missing. When officials were asked how an inmate had managed to do that, and where he had found tools, they replied that the inmate was strong. She asked who had broken the door. She said that mattresses had been burnt. Inmates had complained about transfers, others about bread. She said that there was no damage cost estimate. Both departments had to sit down about that.

Mr Ndlovu asked about value for money, and how escalation of money had been taken into account.

The Chairperson remarked that the DPW experts had to pronounce on that. He advised them not to give the Portfolio Committees what they thought the committees wanted to hear.

Mr Gaehler referred to collapsed sewers and ceilings at Ebongweni Correctional Centre. The DPW had been instructed to come back about that. Delays where caused by lack of communication among officials.

Ms Phaliso referred to the alleged loss of the Kimberley Centre master key, in the Portfolio Committee Reminder Notice. She had conducted an individual visit to the centre in September, and found out that it was an overriding key that had gone missing. A new overriding key had been ordered, but was still awaited. She would conduct another visit to look into the matter. The overriding key could not be duplicated.

The Chairperson asked about inmate access to telephones, and kitchen laundry appliances.

Mr van Anraad replied that public telephones had been installed in all units. All damages to kitchen laundry appliances had been repaired.

The Chairperson asked if lessons learnt at Kimberley would be implemented at the Tzaneen Centre.

Mr Samuels replied that there would be a DPW response to the day’s proceedings, in the form of a letter. A copy of the final account and bills of quantity, were available.

The Chairperson advised that it be provided to Public Works Portfolio Committee, and that the DPW spend a day with Mr Gaehler, to discuss technicalities.

Mr Adam confessed that he was quite shocked about implications that the DPW was lying. There was no intention to lie to the Portfolio Committees. There would be an analytical report on the Kimberley project. The DPW now had a better idea what the portfolio committees wanted to know. It would meet with the DCS in that regard.

Ms Subban responded that work on the Tzaneen Centre had just started, but lessons learnt were already applied during the transfer. She noted that the Kimberley Centre had been the first of its kind, and that mistakes made there need not be repeated.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Modise had found out yet about the unsentenced girls detained in a converted storeroom at Thohoyandou.

Mr Modise replied that the Area Commissioner had informed him that some of the girls had been taken back to police cells, after the Inspecting Judge’s visit. Yet others were still being held there. He had requested that they be taken out. He would report to the Chairperson on that day or the day after, about their status.

The Chairperson instructed Mr Modise to telephone him, the sooner the better. If he had to intervene at the Ministerial level, he would do that. Women had been forced to take their clothes off because of the heat. Women’s rights were a priority, and yet women had been treated worse than cattle. It amounted to torture.

Mr Modise responded that the DCS would inform on matters of non-compliance.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mabuza to conclude the meeting.

Ms Mabuza appealed to the DCS to take good care of offenders over Christmas. Some were in corrective custody because they had made silly mistakes. They had to be treated with respect nonetheless. She urged the DPW to respond further on questions of infrastructure. Taxpayer’s money had to be saved wherever possible.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.