PSC Commissioner vacancy: criteria & process for shortlisting of candidates

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and submitted the agenda. He then requested the Committee Staff to guide Members through the process that will unfold. 

Briefing on the short-listing of candidates
Mr Julius Ngoepe, Committee Content Advisor, spoke to the Draft Document for shortlisting of candidates and indicated that the Portfolio Committee received 172 numbers of applicants who responded to the advert to serve as a Commissioner on the Public Service Commission (PSC). The Committee Support staff went through a rigorous process of capturing and analysing the curriculum Vitae’s (CVs) of all the candidates.

The Committee was guided by Section 196 (10) of the Constitution, which stipulates that a Commissioner must be someone who is a fit and proper person with knowledge of, or experience in, administration, management or the provision of public services. Parliament’s Legal Service was consulted to provide legal opinion in this regard on the interpretation of section 196 (10). The Committee adhered to the legal opinion and section 196 (10) of the Constitution at its initial stage of advertising the vacancies to the members of the public. Having received the legal opinion, the Committee can still develop criteria to justify, during shortlisting process, how a candidate deemed to be fit and proper will be identified for shortlisting. The Committee has to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the entire process.

The criterion was determined as follows:
-Be knowledgeable and skilled pertaining to government system as the post requiring a candidate to conduct oversight responsibility for the Public Service. Members have to be reminded that the “Public Service Commission is custodian of good governance”. 
-Possess relevant qualifications in relation to the core mandate of the PSC. Members can motivate to the sub-committee through the Chairperson why qualifications of a candidate to be shortlisted is relevant to the position. 
-Have appropriate/extensive experience in senior management level in either public or private sector. Middle management level can also be considered if a candidate meets other qualities mentioned. 
-Have an understanding and previous experience with the PSC. This will serve as an added advantage for a candidate and for maintaining institutional memory.  Demonstrate high levels of integrity.
-Have experience in terms of the key performance areas in line with Commission’s mandate. Candidate could have acquired these capabilities and experience in his/her previous employment.

Discussion
Ms C Motsepe (EFF) wanted to know, if a candidate possessed the necessary qualifications but lacked adequate experience and if a candidate had sufficient experience required but lacked the qualifications, what direction would the Committee take in those instances.

Mr C Sibisi (NFP) sought clarity on the relevant qualifications that would be required from a candidate and how the Committee would determine which qualification would be relevant.

Mr L Schreiber (DA) wanted to know which law would apply during the process of finalising the names and submitting the names to the President. He also wanted to know whether the Committee would need to submit five or less names to the President for appointment once the parliamentary process is finalised. 

Ms M Ntuli (ANC) welcomed the criteria and noted that it was not clear which qualifications would be required from the candidates. That would help Members because they would not be confined to a specific qualification when determining the right candidate. However, the guideline or the criteria was clear that experience was required. She asked which relevant qualifications the Committee would consider.

Mr Ngoepe said that the Constitution was clear in terms of who should be appointed as a Commissioner in Section 196(10). It makes emphasis on administration and management – these can be broad in terms of qualifications. Perhaps the Committee could focus more on the experience side because the position requires the person to be the custodian of governance; the qualification would be an added advantage.

The Committee will only recommend one candidate to the House to adopt and for the President to appoint. Only one candidate must be recommended to the President.

Ms M Kibi (ANC) said that in light of the explanation the criteria is clear on what the Committee should consider. Experience is the satisfying qualification.

Mr Schreiber agreed and emphasised that the sentence clearly says “with knowledge of administration of public service” – the knowledge side and experience side is clearly stated and it is the Committee’s decision to strike the balance taking into consideration the qualifications as well.

Ms Kibi suggested that it would be best for the Committee to decide on the number of the candidates that will be considered for shortlisting and subsequently for the interviews.

She then proposed that out of 172 candidates that applied for the position, perhaps the Committee could, after perusing the applications call only seven or maybe ten candidates for shortlisting. Members have not yet had the time to go through the applications so the shortlisting could be postponed for a later date once Members have gone through the applications. 

Ms Ntuli echoed what Ms Kibi suggestion.

Mr Schreiber said that the information was indeed a lot to go through and he was happy with the proposal.

Mr Sibisi also agreed to the proposal regarding postponing the shortlisting day. He suggested that the Committee should not go with the proposed seven candidates that each Member would produce during the deliberation on the shortlisting. He thought that it would be best if each Member would rather come with ten candidates in order to avoid missing out on the best candidates.

Ms Motsepe was interested to know how Members would consolidate their proposed candidates after sifting through the applications. 

Mr Schreiber agreed with Mr Sibisi’s suggestion and if Members would want to be cautious ten was at least a good number. In principle, he would not be opposed to either seven or ten. He added that Members would then need to be aware of how the process would unfold when they come with their proposed candidates.

Ms Motsepe said that she was still confused about how the names would be consolidated if Members proposed different names.

The Chairperson explained that this would be deliberated during the meeting.

Mr Ngoepe explained that from previous engagements of this nature, each Member would come with their names and the Committee would start zooming into the same names that are proposed by all or the majority of the Members. Members would then deliberate where there are differences until a consensus was reached.

All Members agreed that late submissions should not be entertained.

Short listing and Interviews
The Chairperson suggested that the Committee meet next Tuesday (21 October) for the shortlisting.

Members took a resolution that the short listing would be done next week Tuesday. The Department would meet with the Members on 23 October instead of the initial planned meeting of 30 October. So the interviews will then be conducted on the 30th of October.

The meeting was adjourned.