DPSA on Batho Pele Gateway call centre; PSC on National Anti-Corruption Hotline; DPME on Presidential Hotline

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed the Committee members and delegates from the departments. She read an apology from the Deputy Minister of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, and apologies from Ms V Mente-Nqweniso (EFF), Mr M Galo(AIC), Mr M Hlengwa(IFP) and Mr J McGluwa (DA), who left before the meeting started.

Briefing by Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA)
Dr Alex Mahapa, Deputy Director General (DDG), Service Delivery: DPSA, briefed the Committee on the performance of the Batho Pele Gateway (BPGW) call centre since its launch in 2013. The BPGW falls under the DPSA strategic objective (2013/14) and annual performance plan APP on citizen participation and effective management of complaints. It was a response to the President’s State of the Nation Address (SoNA) of 2013, which committed the DPSA to lead the public service in ensuring that government departments worked closely with communities.

The annual target for the 2013/14 financial year (FY) was to develop a citizen complaints and compliments management framework approved by the Minister. The framework was approved in June 2013 and communicated to all Heads of Departments (HoDs).

Two national workshops were held to capacitate both national and provincial departments in August 2013. Officials designated by the Offices of the Premiers (OTPs) were registered by the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) on the system of the BPGW call centre. An orientation training centre was arranged through SITA. A special workshop was held on August 28, 2013 with designated officials who operated/managed call centres from the OTPs in preparation for the launch. The launch was held on 29 August 2013 in Gauteng.

Monthly reports were received from SITA, as per the Service Level Agreement (SLA).The SLA had since lapsed and a new one was being finalized and would include a mechanism to deal with identified limitations. The limitation experienced was that the SLA allowed reporting and analysis only on call answering in the various (five) languages, and excluded actual issues raised and the number of calls logged.

The reports by SITA focused on the SLA standard, which was to answer 80% of calls received per month, the number of calls answered within 20 seconds, and emails and faxes handled within 30 minutes.The call centres met these requirements.

All OPTs’ nominated officials were registered on the BPGW call centre system to coordinate complaints received by their provinces. The percentage of calls received and resolved averaged 95% and above, and in most cases excluded the emails and faxes. Calls responded to were internal (within South Africa) and external (outside South Africa).The percentage was consistently higher for internal calls. Between June and October 2014 the number of calls received had declined from a maximum of 4 000 to 2 500 per month.

The SITA report focused more on meeting the conditions of the SLA and less on improving service delivery. The revised SLA would include a much more robust report on issues raised by the public. The new SLA would include services to the Community Development Workers Programme (CDWP) -- accommodating calls and reporting from CDWs directly -- and ease their reporting, while affording speedy and accurate information on key interventions through the programme.

A new SLA was being developed, aimed at addressing the limitations and weak points. It would include much more robust reporting on issues raised by the public and would include services to the CDWP by accommodating calls and reports from active CDWs directly. In this way, national government would be enabled to ensure speedy responsiveness to community issues.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented on the link between the BPGW hotlines and the Batho Pele principle, and asked for the cost implications for running this division. She asked if there was value for money, as the call centre did not have a link to local government. Such a centre should have access to all municipalities. Why should such a call centre exist since there had been a decline in callers? She asked for the Department’s targets on the conferences conducted -- if the conference was annual and the benefit of the workshops to those who attended. She asked for the breakdown of the staff strength and the cost implications.

Dr Mahapa replied that DPSA had signed a Public Service Charter, which was an agreement between the DPSA and Department of Labour. Both departments were committed to work together in order to service their communities. When the Public Service Charter was launched, the BPGW had also been launched to deal with, and address, problems. It was to get Labour to work together to resolve service problems. The BPGW was a direct line between the communities and the departments across the public service, not only within one department in case of any complaints. It was an improvement of service delivery, as people could use the hotline to complain to the Public Service Association of South Africa (PSA) and the PSA could refer the calls to the right department for solutions.
 
The cost implication was a budgeted amount of R5 million within the department per annum on running the call centres.

The decline could be due to a shortcoming, where the report back mechanism did not come back to the PSA for it to analyze how the problems were dealt with. In the new SLA, SITA would provide reports on issues dealt with, how they were resolved and if feedbacks had been sent to the complainants. There was a need to go back to look at the strategies of improving on the identified shortcoming on BPGW.
Two national workshops had been held to capacitate both the National and Provincial departments in 2013/14 to popularize BPGW call centres .

Mr Mashwahle Diphota, Director General: DPSA commented that the introduction of this hotline in 2013 had been linked to two other initiatives that the Department was working on, one of which was the Service Charter launched in August 2013.The hotline was established so that if members of the public had concerns in terms of the Charter, they could call BPGW for a response. A further mechanism linked was the complaint management strategy that the Department was finalizing at that time.

Last year had been a pilot year; hence the budget was for setting up infrastructure. In subsequent years, the cost would be reduced. The focus now was to strengthen implementation through enhancing the SLA and improving awareness-raising mechanism. The call centre had been running for one year and an impact assessment had not been done. Going forward, it had moved from the pilot phase during 2013/14. Call centre operator staff were employed by SITA, and PSA dealt only in terms of the SLA on the cost implication for staff.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) suggested there would be a value for money if there was a reporting back mechanism which monitored the turnaround of issues such as the provision of water, housing and service delivery, in order to major in on issues and measure customer satisfaction. There should also be a dashboard to measure areas of improvement via local or provincial government in order to know whether communities were happy or complaining. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) would help to measure the turnaround time at various levels. She asked for the core issues that had been raised at the call centre level, instead of just reporting the perceived corruption-related issues. The number of walk-in issues raised, aside from phone-in issues, should be considered too, and how they were responded to. This would help to improve the centre’s performance and ICT performance.

Mr Mahapa replied that the assessment period would indicate the amount spent, service rendered, whether the community benefited from the services and areas of improvement for value for money.

Mr S Motau (DA) commented that the new SLA was being revised to 80% of the original calls received per month, while dropping 20% of the calls. He asked why it should be 80%, rather than 100% of the calls received. Was the idea was conceived by the Department or the service provider? He added that there had been a decline in the number of calls received, and the decline could be seen as a success or a failure on the part of the call centre. He asked if an assessment had been done to establish whether the decline was a result of the failure to meet the people’s needs or whether it was a success on the part of the call centre. He asked what the Department meant by a “robust revised SLA.”

Mr Mahapa replied that the 80% target was set by the Department to deal with the identified problems and if there was an improvement, then the targets could be increased from 80%.

The robust SLA would be able to cover all the shortcomings identified during the assessment period with regard to the call centres, such as number of calls handled and the number of complaints referred to the departments. The report back did not have a system within the SLA to indicate the number of resolved cases. The robust SLA would address those answers.
Three to five seconds was enough for the phone to ring for an operator to answer. There was an answering machine which was tape recorded which gave options of numbers to use for specific problems.

Dr M Cardo (DA) asked for the average waiting period for picking up calls. Was the decline in calls due to shortage of service delivery, and was it worth allocating money to this division? What was the difference between BPGW call centres and the presidential hotlines? Did both attend to the same or different complaints? What were their clearly defined different mandates?

Mr Diphota replied that when the Presidential hotline was launched, the President said the hotline would not replace the complaints management hotlines existing in government. The expectation was that departments and municipalities would continue to handle complaints, but there would be a system which was a last resort. If people’s complaints were not resolved, the Presidential hotline would serve as an appeal mechanism. Because of the weaknesses in the existing complaint management mechanism in the departments, members of the public had resolved to go straight to the Presidential hotline, hence the last resort had become the first resort. Only issues that were not adequately dealt with were directed to the Presidential hotline.

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) asked when last did the SLA lapse, how long it would take to be finalized and what would happen in the interim. He added that communication was done through five languages, and asked if the Zulu language was included in the five. He asked for the reason for the decline in calls, and which province had the most active call centre. How could one ensure that these call centres were spread across the municipalities? He asked for the number of workshops held between 2013 and 2014 as a way of informing the public, as that could have contributed to the decline in calls.

Mr Mahapa replied that the SLA had lapsed in September and the PSA had tried to finalise it in October. In two weeks’ time, the new SLA would be finalised and this would help to address the identified problems.

Mr Diphota said that the BPGW call centre was centralized, as there were no branches in provinces.

Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) asked what the usual concerns raised by callers from outside South Africa were. Were callers updated on the progress of their concerns? How long did it take to finalise their matters?

Mr Diphota replied that the callers from outside South Africa called only to make enquires.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) commented that he had waited for seven minutes on the presidential hotlines before it was answered. He asked for the link between the presidential hotline and the BPGW call centres .

Mr Mncwabe asked how these initiatives were being marketed to the communities, as they should be well marketed.

Mr M Dirks (ANC) expressed his displeasure at the comments passed by Mr Van der Westhuizen on the presidential hotline, as it was not a joking matter.

Mr Ntombela requested for an apology from Mr Van der Westhuizen in order for the meeting to proceed.

The Chairperson commented that this Committee had maintained a good relationship since it was constituted. She said it was unacceptable to bring a phone into the meeting and asked that Mr Van der Westhuizen withdraw his statement about the presidential hotline, as Members had not taken it kindly.

Mr Van der Westhuizen apologized if his comments offended the Members and urged them to accept his apology as he would like to continue the culture of working together as one.

Mr Ntombela appreciated the effort to help people with their problems and commented that there should be more coordinated effort between municipalities and departments, as this would help with the time response to the problem which had resulted in the decline in calls received. He added that the municipalities should be involved as much as possible, and an awareness campaign should be implemented for people to know what the government was offering, from the municipalities upward.
 
The Chairperson commented that the Department would be given enough time to implement the programme, and the Committee would visit the call centre. She had never heard about their publicity, hence the need to improve. She thanked the Department for their presentation.

Public Service Commission (PSC) on National Anti-Corruption Hotline
Ms Sellinah Nkosi, Commissioner: PSC briefed the Committee on the successes and challenges of the National Anti-Corruption Hotline (NACH).

261 788 calls had been registered on the NACH as at 30 October 2014 in relation to cases of alleged corruption, and of these calls, the PSC had generated 21 397 reports for possible investigation. From the 21 397 reports, the PSC had referred 14 992 cases to national and provincial departments and public entities for investigation. Feedback from both national and provincial departments and public entities had been received on 10 802 (72%) cases. 8 119 (54%) cases had been finalized and closed. Currently there were 6 873 outstanding cases. The number included 841 cases reported during the 2014/2015 financial year, while some of the cases dated back to 2005. There was a huge volume of new cases reported to the NACH on a daily basis which had an impact on the closure of cases on the Case Management System (CMS) of the NACH.

A total of 6 136 cases had been reported to national departments for investigation. The largest number of cases involved Home Affairs (1 288), Correctional Services (1 100), SAPS (794), and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)(543).

A total of 5 983 cases had been referred to provincial departments for investigation -- Western Cape (476), Northern Cape (110), North West (433), Mpumalanga (1 075), Limpopo (456), KZN (678),Gauteng (1 748), Free State (312) and Eastern Cape (695).

Disciplinary processes concluded and sanctions implemented as at 31 March 2014 involved a total of 3 439 employees who had been found guilty of misconduct related to corrupt activities since 01 September 2004 to 31 March 2014. 1 694 had been dismissed from the public service, 438 employees had been fined, 63 had been demoted, 913 had been given final written warnings, and 331 employees were prosecuted. The successful investigation of cases of alleged corruption reported through the NACH had resulted in the recovery of R333 million from perpetrators since the inception of the NACH.

Current guidelines in terms of provision of feedback were that departments are afforded an opportunity to provide feedback to the PSC on progress made with the investigations within 40 days on the following information:
- Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint/investigation initiated (currently 72%);
- Investigation completed (currently 54%);
- Other milestones, indicating levels of progress.

The PSC had closed 6 671 cases which lacked evidence or substance. Once the PSC was satisfied with the nature of feedback provided, the relevant information was uploaded on to the case management system of the NACH to provide necessary feedback to callers. Where there was no substance to allegations of alleged corruption, investigation reports should be provided to the PSC within 40days.
Where departments have to conduct full investigations into the allegations, the full investigation reports should be provided to the PSC within 90days. When a disciplinary hearing is conducted, the full investigation report, the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, letters of confirmation of the recovery of money and/or the implementation of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing should be submitted to the PSC within 30days after completion of the disciplinary hearing.

Challenges experienced through the management of the NACH include:
- Lack of sufficient information supplied by callers;
- Protection of whistleblowers and investigators; and
- Finalisation of cases by departments.

Possible solutions include addressing fraud and bribery and management of corruption risks.

Ms Nkosi said approximately 120 cases of alleged corruption are referred to departments for investigation on a monthly basis. Therefore, departments should improve their responsiveness by having adequate and appropriate capacity to investigate cases of alleged corruption reported to the NACH. HODs should ensure that cases referred to them are part of the audit scope of their departments. Internal auditors within departments should conduct annual performance assessments on all cases of alleged corruption referred to the departments for investigation. The PSC would engage the Auditor General to facilitate the inclusion of the cases of alleged corruption referred to the departments in its audit scope. The PSC would engage the Portfolio Committee to strengthen its oversight and provide it with information to hold departments accountable on cases of alleged corruption referred to them.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that if she were in the position of the Commissioner, she would rather invest the R5 million into training the public servants instead of operating the hotlines. She urged the Commission to see the best solution to the whole situation, and commented that it was not doing well in the provinces. She required clarity on the 40-90 days of resolving cases, with or without substance. She expressed happiness that the Commission was doing well at the national level. She asked about the state of readiness in terms of cascading the NACH programme down to the local government level. She commented that whistleblowers would want to remain anonymous, hence the protection of whistleblowers should be discussed. She asked about the Commission’s working relationship with the Public Protector and how the Portfolio Committee could enhance the work of the NACH.

Dr Dovhani Mamphiswana, Deputy Director General: PSC replied that NACH was for the entire government. Both members of the public and public servants used this hotline to report any case of suspected corruption. Cases that had to do with local municipalities were also reported to the NACH and the PSC would refer those cases to the respective departments of local governments through the Directors General of the Office of the Premiers. This ensured that NACH was for the entire country and everyone could report cases of corruption through the hotline. Cases that had to do with the Public Protector were referred to the Public Protector for investigation.

The PSC was of the view that when information was brought to the Portfolio Committee, the Committee could begin to hold those departments that did not provide adequate feedback to the PSC consistently accountable, in order for them to provide the feedback to the PSC quickly. If these feedbacks were not provided by the departments or investigated by the departments, whistleblowers could lose confidence in the system and could be discouraged to report more cases, but if actions and investigations were taken on reported cases, people would have confidence in the government. Currently, the PSC gives a department 40 days to provide feedback to the PSC in the absence of evidence or substance, but when there was evidences or substance to investigate a case, the departments were given a 90-day time frame to provide PSC with the feedback.

Mr Mike Seloane, Commissioner: PSC replied that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with the Public Protector was currently being reviewed, as there was an overlap in terms of mandate. When there were cases that related to the Executive Authorities and Members of Parliament, they were referred to the Public Protector for investigation. When the Public Protector received cases regarding the senior managers within departments, they were referred to the PSC. The MoU would be reviewed to avoid duplications.

Prof Richard Levin, Director General: PSC replied that the NDP had not said that the Commission must be given an enforcement power, but that the enforcement of the Commission’s recommendations must be strengthened. This could be achieved in terms of the mandate legislation, by requiring Ministers or Executive Authorities to report to the Commission on particular queries regarding various aspects of the Minister’s work. The Portfolio Committee could come in on the amendment of legislation to ensure that the recommendation of the Commission was enforced. The Commission was not designed as an enforcement agency, but there was need to strengthen the recommendations of the Commission.

Ms Lesoma appreciated the presentation and added that before 1994 this entity had not existed -- it was this government that had come up with NACH. She commented on the relationship of the PSC with the provinces, through the Department of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), to reach municipalities. She asked how long the PSC had been handling the call centres, and if there was information in terms of categorising the reported cases and their conclusions. She asked for the names of departments or provinces that failed perpetually to comply with all the standards of good practice of public service. She asked for the turnaround time/pace taken to finalise disciplinary cases and if there were SLAs to ensure those cases were swiftly concluded. She hoped other actions and programmes to improve this programme within their timeframes would be implemented, in order to do proper oversight.

Prof Levin said that the major complaint during 2013/14 was social grant fraud. A number of other allegations related to abuse of power by government, irregular appointments, allocation of RDP housing, procurement irregularities, and identity document fraud. There had been general allegations around unethical behavior, fraud and bribery, and mismanagement of government funds. There had been referrals of corruption allegations made against municipal officials, but the number was relatively low.

Mr Motau asked why some of the outstanding cases dating back to 2005 had taken so long to resolve. He asked for the current time frame for providing investigation reports to the PSC on cases of alleged corruption with no substance. He asked about the possible solutions and conclusions as the PSA complained that it did not have enforcement powers. What could be done to make sure that people in management ensured risk management was in place, and what could be done to ensure that the department played its part in preventing corruption?

Mr Seloane said that as long as a case had been registered on the central Case Management System, it would remain there until the department provided feedback to the PSC. Cases sent to the PSC would be referred to the department, and if the department had not finalised the cases, they would remain on the system. The PSC would follow up with that department to ensure that the case was resolved. Sometimes, some of the departments would deal with the case, finalise the case and not report to the PSC. Only when they were communicated to the PSC were they removed from the Case Management System. Each department was expected to develop a minimum anti-corruption capability so that when cases were referred to the departments, they dealt with them. A number of departments, when they got cases, asked service providers to investigate them and had not developed these capabilities. One of the issues that the Portfolio Committee should take up with the Ministers was to check whether the departments had established the minimum anti-corruption capability to be able to deal with the cases, as these cases sometimes sat for a long period with the department. The Portfolio Committee should check whether departments budgeted for the establishment of the minimum anti-corruption capability.

Mr Van der Westhuizen commented that whistleblowers were often ostracised. This should be addressed within the public service, as it should be good practice to protect whistleblowers by moving them to other government departments with forensic units. He asked to what extent the performance agreement of a senior manager covered the senior manager’s support of anti-corruption measures and the speed at which the measures were pursued. Some cases had dragged on for years. To what extent had the Commission developed best practices on investigation, as people had been on suspension for years while they got paid for sitting at home, instead of transferring them to other units? How far were such practices developed and promoted within the public service?

Dr Cardo asked for the figures for 2013/14 on the cost of corruption to the state based, on the allegations made to the hotlines. He also asked for the total figures for 2013/14 of officials found guilty of misconduct related to corrupt activities reported to the hotlines. He required figures for 2012/13 and 2013/14 on Investigations by the hotline resulting in the dismissal or suspension of officials. Was the trend in the number of employees found guilty of misconduct increasing or decreasing? He required information on cases outside the PSC mandate reported to the hotline. He asked about the establishment of an anti corruption bureau to investigate corruption-related cases in the three spheres of government and the establishment of a central database to register and blacklist the offenders found guilty in the public service. It was important to view the anti-corruption hotline as an anti corruption measure which included an accountability framework and the protection of whistleblowers.

Prof Levin replied that the total amount in 2013/14 involved in the allegation of corruption was R258.3 million, of which R191 million emanated from allegations at the provincial level and R65.3 million originated from allegations at the national level. Other figures would be provided in writing.

Mr Ntombela asked how long cases stayed unresolved in the register of alleged cases for them to be moved if there was not enough substance. He also asked if a Member of the Committee on oversight had the right to know the details of a particular case.

Mr Mamphiswana replied that according to protocol, the PSC could receive a request from Parliament, the Legislature and the Executive to investigate any case. If any Member of the Legislature was aware of any possible case, he could tell the Commission to investigate such a case.

Mr Mnwabe expressed his view that the BPGW hotline and the NACH hotlines should be merged, and wondered why there were two similar structures on separate budgets. This was a wasteful expenditure as the hotlines could be on one structure with separate units to deal with particular cases to avoid duplication.

Prof Levin said that NACH had a coordinated relationship with the Presidential hotline. For instance, last year 383 cases of alleged corruption were referred by the Presidential hotlines to the PSC, and these were referred to relevant departments or institutions subscribed to NACH. He agreed that there was duplication between BPGW hotlines and NACH, and there was a need to talk with senior officials on how to minimize it.

The Chairperson commented that when people called the hotlines, they expected to get feedback. NACH should be a powerful hotline that would link all three spheres of government, irrespective of the area. It was important to build the structure to be able to monitor and give feedback. The reason for the emergence of other hotlines or the call centre was because people did not feel the impact of NACH, hence the need for government to introduce other hotlines. Other hotlines were unnecessary if NACH had been effective. Since 2004 till date, NACH should have been a big institution if it had been well managed over the years.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) apologized for coming late. She commented that it was the task of the PSC to inform the public that the ANC-led government was working on charges of corruption, as the government was perceived as not doing anything about corruption. The Commissioner should tell the world that the ANC was doing something, and asked that the issue of not handling cases be dealt with.

The Chairperson commented that there were always complaints about the lack of capacity in terms of research and public consultation. She asked how information received from the public was processed.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana commented that a press conference could be held to announce the anti-corruption work done by the government.

The Chairperson commented that for an institution like NACH, which had been in existence since 2004, should be able to use enhanced technologies such as Twitter and Facebook to reach the younger generation. The hotline was a powerful instrument that should be brought to life, rather than allow other hotlines compete with it. There was room for improvement, and she advised NACH to run in a way that no one could duplicate its role. Intergovernmental relations should result in coordination and synergy, and should complement each other. There was an opportunity to turn things around.

Department of Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) on the Presidential Hotline
Dr Sean Phillips, Director General: DPME briefed the Committee on the Presidential Hotline.
In the SoNA of 3 June 2009, President Zuma had stressed the importance of promoting a government that was responsive, interactive and effective. The Presidential Hotline was officially launched on 6 October 2009, to provide a mechanism for citizens to talk to government. The management of the Hotline was transferred to the DPME in October 2011.

Role of DPME was to manage the Hotline on behalf of the Presidency. It monitors the responsiveness of the government to calls, supports departments to improve their complaints management and complaints resolution, and uses the Hotline to demonstrate good responsiveness, interaction and communication and effective complaints management. It analyses the data arising from the Hotline and presents reports on the service delivery trends emanating from the Hotline to Cabinet.

Dr Phillips explained how the hotline works. Cases received via email, letters and other sources are received and logged on the case management system by the hotline office located at the Union Buildings.
Phone calls are routed to call agents located at SITA. Most calls are referred by the call agents to national and provincial departments, municipalities and public entities for resolution and response. Each national department and province has access to the case management system and they are able to view their cases and record progress online. Departments are expected to have systems and processes in place to analyse these cases, investigate, respond to the citizens and update progress on the reporting system.

The resolution rate as at 31 August 2014 indicated that national departments and agencies had resolved 92.77%; Presidency (enquiries) had resolved 99.8%; Provinces had resolved 87.16%. This made up a total of 94.8% of cases resolved.

In order to increase access to the hotline by citizens, the number of call agents had been increased from ten per shift to 15 per shift. Callers were now encouraged to send complaints via email or letter if they could not get through on the phone line. A satisfaction survey had been started in 2012, and to date 18 495 users of the hotline had participated in the surveys. Outcomes of the survey showed that 29% of users rated the presidential hotline service as poor, 21% as fair and 51% as good. The lowest ratings from citizens were for ‘communication’-- some citizens complained that there was insufficient communication during the investigation process.

The Department had produced a publication on the “four years of the presidential hotline,” and a video depicting field stories from a number of citizens who had used the hotline.

A number of challenges had been identified:
- Capturing errors, such as insufficient case descriptions, incomprehensive case records, spelling and grammatical mistakes and duplication of information;
- Misclassification of cases and citizen location;
- Difficulties in capturing complex and multi-themed complaints;
- Weaknesses in the quality of case resolution, limited quality assurance and inadequate oversight over the quality and speed of responses.

Improvements going forward were restructuring the case classification system, strengthening case capturing processes, additional training for call centre operators, improving quality assurance processes, enhancing the quality of case resolution, strengthening monitoring and oversight, and publicising the hotline more.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for a breakdown on the money spent on telephone bills by the three departments. She asked about the future of the Presidential Hotline, as it had been introduced during the administration of President Zuma -- was it sustainable after the President’s administration? She asked if case studies were used to improve service delivery. She did not understand the need for documenting the hotline experience by way of producing publications and videos, as this was not cost effective. She asked why only a few coloured and white men had been captured on the cover page of the publication, as more black faces had been captured. She asked if there was a rapid response unit in all provinces in order to protect the Presidential image. She added that duplication should be avoided by the three hotlines.

Ms Lesoma commented that the Committee would ensure that the Presidential image was protected. She asked how the Department intended to integrate the ‘hotlines’ before they became ‘warmlines’. She asked how the Department would ensure that costs were cut and duplication was minimised. She asked about the relationship with the school of government in terms of training hotline operators or call centre personnel on how to handle the limitation of not being able to assist someone. She asked if the universal coverage of telecom services had been considered, as it did not cater for the elderly living in rural areas who had no access to landlines or cell phones. How did communities take advantage of these hotlines? She asked if responses and turnaround times on cases raised by callers were monitored.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana said each agent answered about 66.2 calls out of the 200,000 calls received, which was little for a population of above 50 million. Instead of faxes, hunting lines would have been much better and call centres should reroute these response units and get feedback from them. She suggested the decentralization of the call centre, so that each complaint went straight to the relevant unit for immediate response and feedback. Whatever was within the framework of the integrated model should be decentralized, as the DPME could not monitor and implement at the same time.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked if a satisfaction survey had been done by an independent organization. He asked for the current budget of the Presidential Hotline. What were the waiting periods to resolve issues and for calls to be answered? The call centres would create opportunities for people with disabilities to be employed, and asked if people with such limitations were employed. What were the multilingual options employed by the hotlines for communication?

Dr Cardo commented that in 2010 the presidency had received about 485 000 calls through the hotlines. 675 000 calls had been dropped, meaning 70% had not reached the operators. He asked for the proportion of calls that had been dropped and for a clear breakdown on the number of total calls, complaints and queries resolved in every calendar year since inception. What constituted the resolution of calls -- when did a call become resolved? He added that if the Presidential Hotline could be of any value, since it was under DPME; whatever information came from those calls should fit into policy planning and implementation.

Mr Ntombela commented that the Director General was aware of the significance and importance of this service and appealed that the Department should try its best to make the initiative work in order not to make the hotline a subject of ridicule for the President, as it was his initiative.

The Chairperson asked the Department to provide responses in writing. This initiative was aimed towards the professionalization of the public service. She asked about the possibility of developing a billboard with relevant numbers, so that people would know the numbers to phone for specific issues. She asked for the rationale behind the pictures used on the cover page of the publication produced by the Department, as there were no pictures of white people on it.

Dr Phillips replied that he was not personally involved in the design of the project.

Ms P Makanku, Deputy Director: DPME replied that the art work of the project and the DVD were approved by the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS). It was a suggestion from GCIS which was adopted and used.

The Chairperson requested a response in writing, and thanked all the delegates present.

The meeting was adjourned.