NSFAS & Council on Higher Education 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

NSFAS Annual Performance Plan

Mr Steven Zwane, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): NSFAS, reminded the Committee that the mandate of NSFAS had shifted in 2018/19 from providing loans and bursaries to eligible students, to providing bursaries to particularly poor and working-class students. He said the need for fund-raising would increase in future. He highlighted the need to overcome the challenge of NSFAS loan recoveries, which had suffered in the wake of the fee-free education pronouncement, due to a shift in public perceptions. He added that there was an opportunity to improve implementation of the bursary scheme. The policy change required a change in the processes and systems of NSFAS. The funds which needed to be distributed had increased while there were not enough resources available to execute that mandate. NSFAS was not yet able to report on the full effect that the free education policy would have on its key operations at that time.

The key targets of NSFAS were:

• Improved system of collecting funds from those funded through NSFAS to be developed, with 25% expected growth in recovery, which translated into a target of R640m for 2018/19;
• Increase in the number of eligible technical and vocational education and training (TVET) college students obtaining financial aid, from a baseline figure of 230 469 eligible students in 2017/18 to 293 925 eligible students obtaining financial assistance annually;
• Increase in the number of eligible university students obtaining financial aid, from a baseline figure of 230 068 eligible students to 290 184 eligible students obtaining financial assistance annually.

This year, NSFAS would seek improved alignment between its business model and the annual performance plan (APP). The steps that would be taken to ensure this were:

• Improving the efficiency of the application, evaluation and funding of students;

• Improving service levels to customers and stakeholders through monitoring customer satisfaction and taking corrective action where necessary in response to past criticism;
• Removing the percentage of students migrated to the new student-centred model.

Several key performance indicators (KPIs) had been added for application, evaluation and funding, as well as service levels to customers and payments to institutions, with minor amendments to existing KPIs. KPIs relating to funding raised from current funders had been removed due to the attractiveness of NSFAS bursaries, which presented a challenge for fund-raising. The KPI on the percentage of claims paid to institutions outside the student-centred model had also been removed, since all institutions had already been integrated into the model.

The goals of NSFAS in the coming year were:

Goal 1:

To implement effective and efficient processes and operations to ensure stakeholder objectives are achieved. This would require improved maintenance of financial and performance management, information technology (IT) governance and audit outcomes, as well as pursuing an improved organisational culture of high performance and high productivity by improving employee engagement.

 

Goal 2:

To increase access to funding for eligible students by raising funds, maximising loan recoveries and creating a student-centred loans and bursaries model through improved communication support for students and a central application process. This would require increased fundraising for financial aid to qualifying students, increased amounts recovered from NSFAS debtors, improved efficiency of the application, evaluation and funding process, improved efficiency of payments of tuition, residence fees and allowances to NSFAS students and institutions, improved service levels to customers and stakeholders through monitoring customer satisfaction, taking corrective action where necessary and finally undertaking research for the better utilisation of financial resources.

 

There were two components of the financial targets set by NSFAS. The first was the increase in funding raised as financial aid for qualifying students, which would be kept at the baseline of R1.1 million due to the effort required in administering the new bursary scheme. The second component was increasing the amount of money recovered from NSFAS debtors. The baseline had been set at R588 million, with a 25% increase expected annually for the next three-year period.

The percentage of all applications received by 30 November, where provisional funding decisions are communicated to applicants by 31 January each year, were expected to increase from 70% to 98% between 2017/18 and 2020/21. This timeframe was more favorable to universities than it was to TVET colleges.

The date on which registration data from institutions was due had been set to 31 December 2018.  NSFAS wanted to increase the percentage of first time entry students where the Loan Agreement Form Schedule of Particulars (LAFSOPs) are generated within 30 days of receipt of registration data from institutions, to 80% in 2019/20 and 90% in 2020/21. The percentage of returning students where the funding process is completed within 30 days of receipt of registration data was also projected to increase to 98% by 2020/21. And finally, the number of institutions where NSFAS disburses allowances directly to students was targeted to increase from 18 in 2017/18 to all 70 institutions in 2020/21.

To improve the efficiency of payments of tuition, residence fees and allowances to NSFAS students and institutions in 2018/19, NSFAS aimed to increase the percentage of students for which the first instalment of amounts due to the institution is paid to the institution within 30 days from LAFSOP acceptance date, to 70%. The percentage of students for which the first instalment of allowances due, where NSFAS disburses directly to students is paid to the student within 10 days of signing the agreement, was set to increase to 80%. The percentage of amounts due to institutions in respect of agreements accepted by 30 November which are paid to institutions by 31 December each year would remain at 98%. And finally, the percentage of allowances due to students in respect of agreements accepted by 30 November where funds are directly distributed to students and paid to students by 31 December each year, would also remain at 98%.

Mr Zwane said that in 2018/19, a framework would be developed to measure stakeholder satisfaction, and benchmarks for contact centre performance would be determined. NFSAS would continue to strive to produce four reports on usage of financial resources each year, both to measure its own work and to better advise the Minister. It would also strive to maintain a clean audit based on the audit opinion of the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA). It would work to achieve and maintain level four status in the annual Corporate Governance of Information and Communication Technology Assessment (CGICTA).

To improve its organisational culture, NSFAS would be completing an LBC 360-degree assessment for 70% of employees in levels 11 and above in 2018/19. This percentage would then increase to 90% over the next two years.

Mr Morgan Nhiwatiwa, Chairperson: NSFAS Audit Committee, said that funds received from the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) for operational expenses had been set at R293.1 million in 2018/19. This would largely be used to cater for the additional mandate of the fee-free education rollout. Transfers received from the DHET for bursaries and loans would increase from approximately R12.2 billion in 2017/18 to R20 billion in 2018/19, to account for the implementation of free education. This amount would then be divided between universities and TVET colleges, with R14.9 billion and R5.1 billion going to each sector respectively.

Though there were other funders, their additional contributions had been overshadowed by the increased funding provided by the Department. The total transfers received in 2018/19 would be R24.7 billion, an increase of 47.6% from the previous year, and set to increase to R40.1 billion in 2020/21, based on the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) of National Treasury. There would be an increase in employee compensation over the three-year period and a slight decrease in goods and services purchases.

Discussion

Ms J Kilian (ANC) congratulated NSFAS on its presentation. She recalled the previous interactions that the Committee had had with NSFAS, and said clear improvements had been made in getting its structures in order. She asked whether they had tested the assumption that the new bursary scheme was having an adverse effect on the recovery efforts. Student debt was increasing -- did NSFAS have the necessary systems in place to properly communicate the nature of the fee free education rollout, which would apply only to first time entrants? She suggested that NSFAS compile figures of debtors who had dropped out of the system to estimate the impact that a low recovery would have. She agreed that the current focus should be on the bursary rollout, but it remained important to consider the extent of non-recovery.

She said NSFAS would require a new organisational culture to manage the expansions that were being introduced into the system. The problem did not always lie with NSFAS, but often students did not sign their contacts, which required immediate attention with regular reporting to institutions. She asked why 2017/18 had been presented as a target and not a baseline, which could have given the Committee an indication of how closely the figures represented reality. If the previous year’s targets were met, this would show how feasible the remaining targets were. She asked what the research reports were meant to achieve. She commended the implementation of leadership training at NSFAS, and recommended that Parliament should consider similar programmes.

Ms H Bucwa (DA) shared the sentiments of Ms Kilian on the improvements made. She said that the NSFAS vision and mission was based on ensuring access and success. However, students should not be set up for failure due to a lack of support for those who entered from disadvantaged households. Delays in signing agreements resulted in many students returning home because they were unable to sustain themselves without the necessary resources and a failed academic record. Because many of the NSFAS students drop out, they became unable to pay back their loans on time, so recovery strategies should not end up trapping people in cycles of poverty. She asked what fundraising strategies were being employed and how NSFAS planned to approach other stakeholders in the community to assist in coming up with the necessary funds.

She asked whether NSFAS had developed a marketing strategy to engage with student representative councils (SRCs) and students at institutions to inform them about the changes which had been made, how they might be affected, and the proposed timeframe. She noted with approval the increased budget allocations for capacity that could get more people on board and develop a productive culture.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) asked what progress had been made in determining the amount of historic debt at institutions. Why had the CFO not attended the meeting? She expressed concern over protests at in several institutions caused by delays in payments of allowances by NSFAS, and asked how NSFAS was planning to deal with this issue.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said that one of NSFAS’s biggest challenges was the changing demands of students, which required a high level of IT system integration across institutions -- had NSFAS set any targets relating to that? Some of the targets were high and laudable, but even if a student were assisted within 30 days of signing the agreement, how would that student support him/herself in the interim? A system of advance payments to the institutions was in place, but there was no plan in the APP on how the gap would be overcome. He said students faced relocation and setup costs at the start of the year, which warranted a large cash injection earlier in the year, and asked what NSFAS’s plans were on that for the future.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) asked if NSFAS had short term bursaries for students doing specialised studies and developing skills relevant to what the community needed. Did colleges offer short courses focused on specific skills?

Mr R Mavunda (ANC) was concerned that the NSFAS committee was male dominated.

The Chairperson asked if NSFAS would be able to present a risk analysis to the Committee to indicate what challenges and responsibilities NSFAS would have to face. She asked what NSFAS meant when using the term ‘life cycle’ within the new value chain? This indicated forward thinking about those coming into the system, those inside and those leaving, while also taking into consideration the population of South Africa and its impact on the financing model. She echoed the sentiment that NSFAS needed to consider the choices that students would make in the process of lifelong learning. She referred to the standoff between NSFAS, students, universities and colleges, and asked how these different parties could be brought together to foster sectoral peace. What was NSFAS’s plan to strengthen the understanding between these parties and to overcome the polarisation of signing NSFAS agreements.

 

Response by NSFAS

Mr Zwane responded that NSFAS did not yet have a plan on how it could make its situation clearer to all stakeholders. One way in which NSFAS had attempted to promote harmony was by moving closer to the students to make it more accessible and approachable. He encouraged NFSAS representatives to join site visits to help align the narrative and provide clarity on some of the issues raised.

The cyclical review was economic, but was also to determine a baseline cost going into the new year, given the free education pronouncement. There were many questions being raised as to what NSFAS should be responsible for now. He said NSFAS had prioritised shortening the movement from one activity to another in the value chain.

Addressing Mr van der Westhuizen, he said there was a stand-off between NSFAS and the institutions on system integration. NSFAS had asked the institutions to integrate with its systems, but he admitted that this process had not been managed well. However it did not wish to return to a risk-based system like the one used in 2017/18. The issues being referred to had been included under “stakeholders” in circulars 3 and 4, where it had discussed the technological layer of the system. There was a need to implement targets into the plan so that NSFAS could be more intentional about its implementation. He added that NSFAS was working on a new contract outside of the loan agreement which it hoped to implement within the new year.

NSFAS was considering ways of making it easier for students to sign in and use the online portal. However, the system was not yet equipped to send out mass contracts, and only batch contracts could be distributed. Until the issue was resolved, there might even be a need to resort to manual signing until the necessary system was put in place.

On the issue of advance payment, Mr Zwane said that paying students in advance in the same way institutions were paid, had proved harder to realise than was initially thought. However it remained an aspiration of NSFAS. Relocation costs would require more thought and exploration, as this had never been an aspect NSFAS had considered.

He advised Mr Kekana that NSFAS did not cater for short courses, but would be working with the DHET to offer greater support to TVET colleges.

Addressing Ms Bucwa, he said that it was a target of NSFAS to ensure quicker signing and allocation of bursaries to students to overcome the problem that she had raised. He added that NSFAS could do more to inform stakeholders of these processes, the challenges and the work that was being done.

He told Ms Mchunu that much of the historic debt was due to be paid to NSFAS, and that his colleague would speak to the issue.

He assured the Committee that vacancies were being filled, and in the months prior to the meeting up to 40 new appointments had been made to try and improve capacity.

He apologised for not tendering an apology for the absence of the CFO. He asked to appear before the Committee again to present some of the challenges that NSFAS was facing in terms of making payments.

Delays in registration had resulted in delayed payments to the institutions. If a student’s number changed, the funds would also not be allocated correctly.

The risks that NSFAS faced were the slow rates of change within the system, human resources risks, as well as some of the standardisations of payments, where some institutions had historically become accustomed to paying R5 000 or more. This put NSFAS at risk with those students who revolted against the organization.

Addressing Mr Mavunda’s concern on gender equity, he said that in recent months diversity had been a big focus in the organisation

Mr Nhiwatiwa responded to concerns about the baselines within the APP. He said new performance indicators had to be created which did not have prior figures to draw on, given the dramatic changes within the business model. Following the fee free announcement, the recovery rate had slowed down, but this had largely been due to the confusion about whether existing debt would be absolved. The DHET had subsequently issued a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document to provide clarity and as of February, the recovery of funds had continued. He added that the repayment criteria for NSFAS debt were quite generous, in that debtors were expected to repay the funds only once it had been confirmed that they could afford it, according to the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

Comments by DHET

Dr Diane Parker, Deputy Director General: University Education, DHET, commented on the improvement in the NSFAS presentation compared to the last time the organsiation had appeared before the Committee. She asked if NSFAS had a plan for utilizing the additional R105 million which had been allocated for administration by the DHET.

From the point at which students signed the agreement to the distribution of funds, an important part of the process was making the decision to allocate funding to that specific student based on whether they were registered at an institution and if they fell within the means test. If these conclusions were not reached early on, when the student arrived at the institution the risk of hosting those who would not receive funding fell upon the institution, which would have to spend resources to support them.

She noted the importance of NSFAS being incorporated into the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) system to ensure cooperation and better communication between institutions, NSFAS and the student. A lot was being said about communication to students, but what is being done to strengthen communication within the system itself?

Finally, she said students signed an acknowledgement of debt form, after which their debt was calculated. These were now being used to measure the overall scale of debt within the system.

Comments by Chairperson

The Chairperson said the Committee had dealt at length with NSFAS on the new student model, but in future it would also like to discuss the student funding model and issues that still existed. There were still significant problems involving blame shifting, which harmed the relationship between students, institutions and NSFAS. She expressed concern over reports that some students had still not received funds since 2016. There was a need to have future engagements with all relevant stakeholders on the issue of student funding to promote harmony within the sector, and the Committee agreed with her on this point.

In future, when NSFAS attended a meeting on the APP, they would be expected to bring their entire team to report, including the CFO.

 

Council on Higher Education (CHE): APP Presentation

Prof Themba Mosia, Chairperson: CHE, provided the Committee with an overview of the mandate, vision and mission of the CHE, and outlined the contextual factors that had guided the strategic plan. The ongoing pressure to increase enrolments and to accommodate the burgeoning social demand for higher education opportunities had not been accompanied by a proportionate increase in resources. In addition, radical changes in the world of work had made many forms of employment redundant, which placed pressure on universities to undertake more regular, ongoing curriculum reform to keep their programmes relevant, and to rethink traditional notions of quality.

Many students who came from a poor socio-economic background were not always adequately prepared for the demands and rigours of university studies. This renewed the pressure for meaningful transformation in the higher education sector. There had been an explosion in collective sharing and generation of knowledge online, which in turn posed serious challenges to many of the traditional roles of universities within society. This emphasised the need for digitisation as a motive force, which placed a responsibility on universities to keep pace and to harness technology better.

Prof Mosia referred to the organisational changes that also informed the APP. A steady increase in annual accreditation and re-accreditation applications the CHE received had overloaded the process, based on its design at the time. This had called for attention to be given to streamlining the programme accreditation process. He also highlighted the commitment of the CHE to reintroducing institutional audits or reviews to fulfil the mandate of auditing the quality assurance mechanisms of higher education institutions as stipulated in the Higher Education Act, and referred to the recent audit which had been presented to the Committee on the state of the University of Kwazulu-Natal.

The CHE intended to increase the number of national reviews of programmes, as this has been reported to significantly increase the success in raising the profile of key quality assurance issues, and had led to binding actions that had positively affected the quality of higher education. Directorates needed to work closely together and move away from working in silos, as this would save resources. The CHE needed to be more responsive, which required greater human resources capacity.

Prof Narend Baijnath, CEO: CHE, set out the objectives of the Council for 2018/19.

The first objective was to improve the CHE’s role as a quality assurer, which required a refined methodology for institutional audits in 2018. Up to eight institutional audits were expected to be completed by 2020. New programmes received within the year would be accredited, and it was expected that institutions would rush to meet the 2019 deadline to get non-aligned programmes accredited. This would put stress on the CHE’s resources and capacity, which was capped at approximately 600 programmes a year. However, up to 1800 programmes were expected to come in in 2018. The CHE had approached the Department for assistance in dealing with the volume of applications. He also commented that the Quality Enhancement Project (QEP) would also be coming to an end.

The second programme -- Qualifications Management and Programme Review -- was geared towards promoting the goals of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) within the context of the post-school education and training sector. The reviews that were in the pipeline included B Com and Emergency Medical Care, as well as the LL B review process which would be done after institutions had submitted their self-improvement plans. The intention of the CHE was to develop new policies and review existing policies for the Higher Education Qualifications sub-framework. Four qualification standards would be developed within the next 18 to 24 months cycle.

The third programme -- Research, Monitoring and Advice -- sought to make the CHE a recognised centre for information, policy analysis and advice on higher education that could inform and influence the public dialogue for the transformation of the higher education system. The CHE had released an annual publication called VitalStats, which gave an overview of the higher education system and helped as a monitoring tool. It sought to host at leastone conference on higher education each year.

The fourth programme -- Administration and Support -- aimed to provide strategic direction, corporate services, enabling systems, structures and facilities in support of the core functions in compliance with statutory ICT governance prescripts. He provided figures for the human capacity at the disposal of the CHE, the risk schedule faced by the organisation and mitigation strategies.

Mr Thulaganyo Mothusi, CFO: CHE said the baseline of the loaded budget was R54 million, while the requested budget total had been R65.5 million. Both figures were reflected in the presentation to show that to achieve the objectives set out by the CHE, the organisation would require an amount closer to the requested budget than the amount usually allocated by the Department. He pointed out that the difference between the amount requested for compensation and bonuses of its 52 employees had remained the same as when it had been allocated, at R35.6 million. The goods and services budget required more funding and the presentation showed a shortfall of R11.5 million in the funds needed for this item. The total compensation of employees made up 68% of the grant allocated. The remainder needed to be used for core functions, corporate services and ICT support, and maintenance, some of which was based on contracts which had already been awarded and could not be disregarded without risking litigation. He asked that the DHET proactively give the CHE the funds requested to achieve the APP’s intended objectives. When approval of the budget occurred early in the year, the CHE could work faster to implement its plans.

In the breakdown of the programme budget, he said that administration made up the bulk of the spending due to the fixed contracts in corporate services. Institutional quality assurance made up 23%, qualifications, management and programme reviews took 17%, and research, monitoring and advice made up only 2% of the total goods and services budget. The bulk of the work done under the research programme was peer research, and travel was the primary expense.

Lastly, he presented a breakdown of a proposal to cover the shortfall in the budget. This included approximately R10 million for developing an integrated online management system. He said a meeting hade been held between the CHE and AGSA to find ways in which the AGSA could assist in funding projects. The baseline budget allocated to the CHE was not enough, and required constant reprioritisation for the Council to make do with the limited resources at its disposal. It had received the support of the AGSA in its bid for more funding to be allocated to the organisation.

Discussion

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked how the CHE was planning to improve the turnaround time at private institutions. Given the increased demand for capacity and the limited funding, the CHE needed to think of new approaches rather than relying on set models. What was the CHE planning to do to avoid the capacity challenges it faced?

Mr Mavunda started by commenting on the gender imbalance in the delegation. He asked whether the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) allowed institutions to budget for a deficit. The Council had mentioned it had eight vacant posts, and he asked why qualified young people were not being recruited. Did the CHE have plans create a database of employed graduates who had already been absorbed into industry, or was it mainly for students who were enrolled in institutions at that time?

Ms Mchunu also asked whether shortfalls could be budgeted for according to law. Since the expansion of the CHE mandate had not been accompanied by the necessary funding, would the mandate still be implemented? If so, what would be the risks involved for the post school training sector?

The Chairperson asked if the CHE was saying it was no longer able to provide the Minister with advice. How did the CHE see its role in providing a platform for consensus to be reached in the higher education sector, as per the National Development Plan? Given the CHE’s funding needs, what were the tasks or functions it would no longer be able to perform as normal? Was there still a case to be made for the relevance and existence of the CHE? How would the CHE support the country’s agenda for higher education once the issue of fees had been dealt with?

CHE’s response

At the request of Prof Mosia, other members of the CHE delegation provided responses to some of the questions posed by the Committee.

In response to the Chairperson’s comments on the existence and relevance of the CHE, a member argued that as per the NDP, the legacies of the past had not yet adequately been dealt with, partly due to the level of autonomy that universities enjoyed. She said that the CHE served a vital role in monitoring the actions and quality of these institutions. The “Fees Must Fall” was only a symptom of a larger problem in the education system. The throughput rates of the education system were very low, and the racial profile of post-graduates in the country remained a concern and reflected the legacy of the country’s past. These issues provided justification for an entity like the CHE to exist and be supported. It had continued to play the role of a mediator between institutions and the state, which was a practical way in which it promoted consensus.

Another member of the CHE delegation addressed the question on vacant posts, and said that most vacant positions required a unique set of skills. He argued that the demands of work did not correspond to the type of qualifications that graduates had. There was a great demand for informatics and ICT graduates. Research had been done into how the curriculum could be improved to equip students with relevant skills which were also in line with the NDP and the South African economy.

Prof Baijnath addressed the question of what the CHE was planning to do to avoid the capacity challenges it faced. He said the CHE had considered different approaches, such as appointing three retired academics to work fulltime to assist with capacity. The vacancies were largely in monitoring and evaluation, and standards and reviews. Secondly, he said that private institutions were required to submit data about the students enrolled and those who graduated. However, in his question, Mr Mavunda had been referring to the destination data of graduates, which was something that all stakeholders were considering compiling in future.

Mr Mothusi said the reason the deficit had been recorded in the budget was to give Members an idea of the shortfall that the CHE would face in attempting to achieve the objectives in the APP. The Department should provide financial support for tasks and projects that they had requested from the CHE.

Prof Mosia addressed the question on what functions of the CHE would not be fulfilled if funding remained lacking. He said that without proper financial support, it would be unable to perform audits in an accelerated manner. It had relied on funding on a project basis from the Department to perform the Zululand audit. Without funding, the CHE would be unable to attend and host conferences internationally to stay up to date with developments in the field of higher education and training. Resources were required to provide the Minister with proactive advice.

On the question of whether the CHE was still relevant, he said that independent institutions had a free range to act as they wished, but if they were not monitored for adherence to certain standards then the credibility of qualifications may be brought into question. However, once the CHE had developed a policy it provided a standard by which to hold institutions accountable.

DHET comments

Dr Parker acknowledged that the Department was aware of the limitations faced by the CHE and had taken steps to try support it in some of the projects it was running. It had provided grants towards joint programmes between the CHE and the DHET. The Department was also working with the CHE to try and identify funds in the system which could be used to better support the CHE in carrying out essential work. It had requested project plans from the CHE to better ensure continuity of those functions. The budget could have been presented in such a way as to avoid it appearing like the CHE was budgeting for a deficit. She recognized that the CHE played a major role in steering the higher education system, and that it was the responsibly of the DHET to capacitate the CHE to do this.

Conclusion

A member of the CHE said that the nature of the higher education system was shifting from an elite to a universal system, which required rethinking the entire post-school training framework, and considering how access and throughput could be better promoted.

The Chairperson thanked the CHE for its presentations and said that the Committee may ask more question of them later. The APP would be considered based on the NDP and policies of the higher education sector. The Committee would make recommendations to the CHE and the Minister. The Committee may request the CFO of the CHE to come to Parliament again to discuss the qualitative nature of education and training in the country. She pointed out that the issue of colleges had not been addressed, but the CFO would be allowed to submit an answer later after adequate consideration.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked the Chairperson to indicate where and when the Committee would meet again.

The Chairperson expanded on the proceedings for the following day, and said that chairperson of the Council of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) had been summoned to appear before the Committee, and that she was obliged to attend the sitting.

Mr Mavunda commented that at the previous visit that the Committee had made to CPUT, the chairperson of the Council had been absent at the meeting. Although the chairperson of the Council had convened the meeting, she had subsequently requested to be excused.

Mr Kekana also commented that when the Committee visited the university, they had felt as though their authority as representatives of Parliament had been undermined. The Council was not taking the Committee seriously. He suggested that the Committee consider getting advice on legal recourse before the meeting.

The Chairperson noted the concerns of the Members and the severity of the matter. She stressed that the Department needed to be careful when selecting Council members. She also asked the Department whether the CPUT Council was functioning properly.

The meeting was adjourned.