Evaluation of Heads of Department & Public Service Commissioners; Code of Conduct: briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 September 2000
EVALUATION OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS & PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONERS; CODE OF CONDUCT: BRIEFING

Documents handed out:
Notes on Framework for Evaluation of Heads of Department (Hods)
Slides on Framework for Evaluation of Heads of Departments - text outline
Slides on Framework for Evaluation of Public Service Commissioners - text outline
Slides on Code of Conduct for Public Service Commissioners - text outline

Chairperson: Mr P Nhleko

The Public Service delegation consisted of: Chairperson: Professor S Sangweni; Commissioner M Msoki; Commissioner B Wentzel; The Director-General, Mr M Sikosana; Mr I Naidoo and Mr Williamson.

SUMMARY
The Committee welcomed the drawing up of the frameworks for evaluation of the Heads of Departments as it would bring uniformity on the evaluation based on service agreements. Members were concerned that the framework does not provide for evaluation of Heads of Departments in the interim period in the event of their targets being longer than a year.

Members were not happy about the provision for consultants to be used in the evaluation saying the Public Service Commission should be able to do this itself. The Chairperson said the Committee needs to engage on the issue and even come up with a framework for use of consultants.

On the evaluation framework and code of conduct for Public Service Commissioners, members felt that the wording of the code was in some instances very slack allowing for undesirable interpretation. The members were concerned that reporting to Parliament by Commissioners was not spelt out clearly under the framework.

MINUTES
Framework for evaluation of Heads of Departments
Professor Sangweni, giving a background on the establishment of the framework, said it came up as a result of a request from Cabinet. After implementation of a system of performance agreements in 1998 for senior managers in the public service, it was found that there was no coherent process through which the agreements were assessed. Cabinet tasked the Commission with developing a framework to assist executing authorities with the evaluation of their HoDs. The Commission conducted research in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to see how they do the evaluation of HoDs in their public services. The Commission could only draw lessons from their experiences but could not adopt any one model, instead it sought to develop a system suited to South Africa because of its unique history.

Mr Williamson read their written presentation to the Committee (see document).

Discussion
Q.) The Chairperson asked the Commission to contrast the flexibility in the evaluation system with the methodology.

A.) The Commission said its involvement and chairing of the meetings ensures consistency but the executing authorities have flexibility in deciding who are other members to assist them.

Q.) Mr J Grobler (DP) asked the Commission to clarify the position regarding increases and salary bonuses.

A.) Mr Williamson said the Minister of Public Service and Administration gives a framework within which salary increases should be made in the public service. The Commission would work within this framework as well. Cash bonuses would be awarded in a cumulative manner considering the cost of living adjustments and any "to up" in terms of performance at the end of the evaluation period.

Q.) Ms C September (ANC) said an evaluation can go for more than one financial year, what happens in the interim, has the Commission looked at that? In certain circumstances it is not possible to evaluate a Head of Department (HoD) in one year. What happens in instances where a target goes beyond one year?

A.) The Commission said the framework provides for flexibility in that the defined period should be yearly evaluation. In performance agreements there must be objectives to be met in the short term and evaluation would take place for those. However, if not the period can be extended. Mr Williamson added that the performance agreements provide for reviews and the executing authority can shorten the period of evaluation if viewed necessary.

Q.) Ms September said she is not happy about the inclusion of a consultants under the heading of Secretariat.

A.) Professor Sangweni said consultants have been used all over the public service. If the Public Service Commission does not have the know-how they should be able to use consultants if it would better the object. Commissioner Msoki added that the principle of flexibility has a bearing on the commission's advisory capacity. Consultancy is not the first option; the Commission would be giving advice but if it does not have the know-how then the executive authority is entitled to seek advice of consultants.

Q.) Ms September said it is an omission in the framework that the Portfolio Committee is not included.

A.) The Commission replied that the framework provides for reporting to the Minister and not to the Committee. We are looking at a process in the public service system, and in particular the case of HoDs, legislation that came from the Committee. Since the President appoints the HoDs it is envisaged that the President would look at reporting to Parliament. The Commission agreed that reporting should be refined to include the Committee. The Commission would in any event in reporting to the Committee reflect the outcomes of the evaluation.

Q.) A member said it is well that the framework has been drawn, when would implementation take place?

A.) The Commission said it is envisaged that the framework will be implemented by the end of this year although it is not envisaged that all HoDs will be evaluated this year.

Q.) A member asked if it could happen that evaluation is done only at national level by the Minister and not in the provinces.

A.) The Commission said the scenario of HoD evaluation has to be viewed in the broader context of the Commission's constitutional imperative of monitoring performance to be undertaken in all Departments.

Q.) Mr Grobler observed that the presentation said the Secretariat would consist also of its own staff. He questioned the wisdom of including such a provision. He said he has serious doubts about the HoD's "underlings" sitting in a meeting where confidential information is discussed.

A.) The Commission said the idea was that the staff of the Ministries could be used in the evaluation but that the concern of the member is noted and would be looked at.

Q.) A member noted that "executive authority" is used in different contexts in the presentation. Does it refer to the Minister or Cabinet?

A.) The Commission said executive authority is defined to include the president, the premiers and all the MECs in the provinces.

Q) A member asked what the background is regarding the evaluation of HoDs, where does the country move from because in bringing a tool of this nature there must be another tool that a comparison is made with.

A.) Mr Msoki said the country moves from nothing except performance agreements saying that HoDs must be evaluated but do not say how. This is a new instrument designed for our own purposes in South Africa and it would have its shortcomings. It is hoped as we move along will be able to close in on the gaps. The Commission looked at countries such as Canada, Singapore, etc but could not import their systems as they would not be suited to our needs.

Q.) A member said performance agreements are only entered into in two levels of government and nothing is said about local government. Has this been looked at?

A.) Commissioner Msoki said there is no mention of local government because the Constitution makes a distinction between public service and public administration. Public service is in the national and provincial spheres of government.

Q.) Mrs L Maloney (ANC) asked for clarity on how the instrument would assist the departments to evaluate their developmental needs.

A.) The evaluation instrument especially the 360 degree evaluation is a very good tool to identify developmental needs as it focuses on interpersonal relationships in a department.

Q.) A member asked if the guidelines by the Public Service Commission would be discussed with the Committee. Would these guidelines define the composition of the panel? This is because if the panel is not objective this could throw off the purpose of the evaluation.

A.) The Commission said there would be an opportunity to share the guidelines with the Committee before the end of this year and the latter would specify on a number of issues.

The Chairperson said the Committee needs to discuss the issue of consultancy. It has to even look at coming up with a policy framework for the use of consultants in the public service. The Committee should welcome the development in the form of the framework as it introduces uniformity regarding performance agreements.

Evaluation of Public Service Commissioners and Code of Conduct
Professor Sangweni said the framework and code of conduct are useful to the Commission as they relate to its constitutional imperative. The Constitution is firm on discipline with section 196 providing for a Commissioner's removal for misconduct and incapacity. The Constitution however, does not provide mechanisms on how to go about doing the evaluation of Commissioners.

It is the President's prerogative to appoint Commissioners. The President put forward a set of conditions of service which require the individual Commissioners to provide reports to him. This is problematic since it becomes burdensome and the framework seeks to address that.

Section 195 of the Constitution provides that in public administration "a high standard of professional ethics must be promoted and maintained." The Commission itself should be subject to a code of conduct.

Mr Indran Naidoo read the presentation of the Commission.

Discussion
Q.) Ms September asked regarding dispute resolution what is the rationale of putting two people from the legislatures in mediation and how this would affect the two houses of Parliament.

A.) The Commission said they thought that having gone through the process of evaluation involving the President and the Minister a body to resolve disputes should be drawn from Parliament. It is believed that role players here would be familiar with the terrain in which Commissioners operate.

Q.) A member felt that use of words such as "polite" and "substantial gift" which were relative terms in the code could be open to various interpretations. He advised that the Commission should seek legal advice on these issues and also on the use of specifics such as referring to accepting lunch which might suggest exclusion of others.

A.) The Commission said the word "polite" relates to personnel relations and is aimed at promoting good working relations and creating an atmosphere of good rapport. What influenced the stipulations is what is already contained in the Code for Public Servants and relates to issues of tender procurement. The code is intended to aid decision-making. It is largely a guide to help make ethical decisions and there is no way that it cannot be relative or subjective. The issue of lunches is informed by experience and the purpose is that a public figure should be conscious that in accepting such invitations they would bear personal responsibility for any decision that they might take as a result thereof.

Q.) A member asked for clarification on the issue of collective reporting proposed by the framework.

A.) The Commission said this seeks to revise the Conditions of Service which provide that every Commissioner has to report to the President every six months. Service agreements require interaction between two parties the supervisor and the supervisee, that is why the framework provides for the Chairperson to sit down with the individual Commissioners and review their performance twice yearly. Since reporting tends to be cumbersome if done as individual Commissioners it is suggested that the Commission should do this as an institution.

Q.) Mr Modisenyane reiterated that the stipulation on acceptance of lunch invitations as it stands in the code is problematic and the Commission should seek another formulation. The wording should say that the Commissioners take personal responsibility for any decision taken by them. It does not have to be lunch they go to for them to make such a decision, but at the end of anything they do they should be personally responsible for their decisions.

A.) The Director-General, Mr Sikosana agreed that they need to tighten some of the formulations to remove the problem of interpretation. He added that it is the plan of the Commission in the long run to include other commissions and bodies to adopt the code.

The Chairperson said the Committee needs to start engaging on issues such as how the Constitutional Review Committee interacts with the Public Service Commission on the code of conduct. The Committee would also be interested in seeing how far the Commission had gone in taking on board the concerns and with implementation. The meeting was adjourned.