NYDA Vacancies: short-listing criteria

Meeting report

Co-Chairperson Ndaba said she hoped everyone who had applied would have their curricula vitae (CVs) published. The country would have to pardon the Committee for not accurately mentioning the correct number of CVs that had been received in the media statement that was issued. In the statement, the Committee had indicated that it had received 1 000 CVs, but the accurate number was 1 117 applications. All the applications or CVs that had been received would be published, including those that had bounced back. The Committee would grant them an opportunity to resend, but with proof that they had submitted their applications within the deadline.

All queries and complaints that had been raised to the Committee had been attended to, and if there were any queries or complaints that were not, the Committee would ensure that it did. All the CVs that had been loaded had been verified to check whether all the personal information and details had been excised from them.

The Committee was still trying to determine a way to complete the short-listing properly. If it meant that it would require more time, then it would be done.

Ms Nomvula Giba, Unit Manager: Committee Section of Parliament, spoke about the work that the team had done so far and said that today the Committee had only one item on the agenda. This was to deliberate on the criteria. Legal services would present the criteria, and then Members would decide whether they agreed with the criteria, which would be used the following day for short-listing.

It had been reported that there were 1 117 CVs, but there were actually 1 116 because there was a duplicate. All the CVs had been uploaded on uVimba, which was the Parliamentary record system, and Members would be provided with a link to access them. All CVs had also been uploaded on the Parliamentary website up until today, because there were CVs that had clogged the system on the last day of the deadline for submission. The information technology (IT) unit had been asked to retrieve those CVs, and the candidates had been asked to resend their CVs within a set deadline. This was why it had taken so long to upload all of them at once on to the Parliamentary website.

There was a summary of each CV received, to assist in the short-listing process. The summaries were completed on uVimba. Previously, the staff provided Members with summaries only on the day of short-listing. By tomorrow, they would receive links to all candidate summaries, and a link to their CVs.

The short-listing extension to Wednesday at 18h00 was noted by the team.

The Committee had to adjourn shortly to resolve sound issues on the live stream on YouTube.

Much of what transpired in the Committee was to resolve technical issues regarding the distribution of documents to the Members. This took a very long time, due to the volume of the CVs that were being sent to them.

Draft selection criteria

Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Advisor: Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy, said the document he was about to present was a ‘working document’ from the previous document that had been used by the Committee last year. The team had kept on improving it, but it should be considered as a draft as Members could make inputs, as well as the legal team. The Committee had to consider corporate and company law, as well as the King Three/Four Reports. The short-listing criteria were meant to aid the Committee with the selection and recruitment process.

The selection criteria covered the legislation governing the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), the NYDA board composition, the National Youth Development Agency Act, demographical spread, geographical spread, qualifications, experience, etc.

(See document for details)

Discussion

Mr L Mphithi (DA) asked about section four in the document. This was an important section, dealing with the demographical and geographical spread, because in the previous process a lot of the objections were related to this section. Could the demographical and geographical spread be interpreted for Members to understand what it meant and what a threshold may look like? Was there dissatisfaction on the lack of demographic and geographical spread in terms of the selected candidates? At what point could the Committee agree that the selection was demographically and geographically spread?

Regarding personal integrity and credibility, in the previous process candidates did not receive a vetting process until the end. Could Members get an indication whether the candidates would receive a vetting process to determine personal integrity and credibility? Without the vetting report, it made it difficult for Members to be expected to assume that candidates had personal integrity or credibility. In what ways could this section of the criteria be tested, particularly when the candidates came forward? This may also be related to the questions that would be asked later by Members to the candidates.

Section 10 referred to the disqualification of candidates. How did one reconcile people having cases that were before the court, or people who were still in processes or procedures to determine whether they were found guilty on a variety of issues – what was the process regarding those particular candidates, because it became important when the Committee considered the final recommendation for those candidates? The same applied for sound judgment, reliability, high integrity and independence -- how was the Committee going to measure these to avoid questioning the criteria at a later stage as to what they meant and how they could be interpreted?

Ms F Masiko (ANC) commented on the criteria that were presented. A lot of work had gone into this matter, and they should suffice to guide Members in the recruitment process. From the criteria coming from the Act, the Committee would be able to look for leadership in the individuals who had presented themselves. She was satisfied with the criteria presented and that the competence, skills and qualifications had been correctly captured in the criteria. She moved to support the criteria that had been presented.

Mr M Bara (DA, Gauteng) sought clarity on the various issues that the Committee wanted to consider and the individuals that were required on the board. He made reference to people living with disabilities – how far should they go in terms of being accommodative of people living with disabilities considering the limited number of board members they were looking for? What was the target for this category of people to be considered for the position?

In reference to diversifying the board and implementing the geographical spread, how far did they have to go to cover the country in relation to the skills required for the position? Must they consider people for the sake of representativeness, or did the skills required trump that? He was also satisfied with the criteria.

Ms N Ntlangwini (EFF) commented on the discussion about the geographical spread, saying it would not be a difficult task to find the skills required for the position across the country. One could not have a board where the majority of the members came from Gauteng. The board was to serve the young people across the country. On the gender issue, she suggested that 50% of the board should be women.  

The co-Chairperson reminded Members that there were only seven positions available, and it would be difficult to achieve parity in this case. The Committee would have to decide on whether it wanted the majority to be women or men -- a four to three ratio. Members must now come up with answers in terms of the final selection criteria.

Mr E Nchabeleng (ANC, Limpopo) commented on the representation of gender, which was widely accepted in the country to mean that 50% must be women. He concurred with the 4/3 suggestion. One of the board members must be a person with financial experience. They would also need a person with a human resources (HR) background, and it would be a bonus to get a person with experience in public administration, working with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA). There should also be a person with investment knowledge and experience. There should be an executive management committee and social development skills.  There would also be a need for a person who would have skills in information communication technology (ICT).

He said the Committee needed to resolve the situation where there were people who had migrated to the big cities, but had come from areas such as the Northern Cape or Eastern Cape. This matter had come up in the previous round.  

Co-Chairperson Ndaba commented that most of the people in the big cities did not originate from those provinces. However, it would be best for the Committee to ensure that provinces were represented on the board. If they dwelt too much on this matter they would have a problem. Candidates must be scored on how they performed, besides the issues of race and gender – the last process would then depend on the discretion of the panel to decide how to ensure that the representatives were geographically spread.

The Committee had to find a way to balance the short-listing. When they provide the final short-list of candidates, they need to ensure that it is diversified so that the President is able to apply his mind on ensuring that the list of the candidates is as spread out as possible.

Ms T Mgweba (ANC) welcomed the selection criteria in the document. She thought that Dr Tembe could guide Members on the difference between diversity and demographics. In the previous process, it was clear that they had been short of demographics versus diversity.

Ms A Maleka (ANC, Mpumalanga) commented that she had no problem with the presentation but she would appreciate some guidance on the demographics. From the initial process, today's meeting was because they had not dealt with the demographics versus diversity matter. Diversity was not much of a challenge, compared to the demographics.

Ms B Mathevula (EFF, Limpopo) suggested that the Committee look into the reasons why this process had been brought back to the Committee to be redone. This would assist the panel to respond to the issues that had been overlooked in the first process.

Ms Ntlangwini suggested that the Committee should rather look into the applications that had come in and make a determination from that as to whether people from all provinces had applied and met the criteria or not.  

Co-Chairperson Gillion said that it was important that the Committee did not repeat the same mistakes as in the first process. This time around, it had to pay attention to the criteria, specifically on the issue demographics.

Co-Chairperson Ndaba said that some of the issues Members had raised were catered for in the document. They should therefore familiarise themselves now with the document. Some of the questions must not give an impression that the Committee had already made a predetermination. For now, the document had been presented, and Members needed to go through it because all the issues raised had been covered in the selection criteria document. The issues covering the disqualification of candidates were in the Act.

Dr Tembe responded that he had expected that Members would speak to the document and raise questions from the document. Some of the issues discussed involved political decisions for the Committee. The document was here to assist, and it was not prescriptive. The document could be enriched by the Committee, and adopted as it was.

All the issues that had been raised by Members were already covered in the document and the Act. Members must familiarise themselves with it. There were seven positions for nine provinces, so some of the provinces would be short changed in the process. The Committee therefore had to take a decision on how it was going to balance the issue of demographics and geographical spread.

The vetting process was an administrative matter, but the Committee normally received the screening of applicants, which normally happened before the process was concluded.

On applicants with pending court cases, the Constitution was quite clear that anyone was presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent court of law. People could not be disqualified because of allegations.

On people living with disabilities, the Committee must be alive to this. It was captured by the NYDA Act, and the outcome should cater for people with disabilities. There must be a balance with people living with disabilities.

Co-Chairperson Ndaba reiterated that the Committee was not going to do any vetting. The State Security Agency (SSA) would assist the Committee with the screening, and the vetting would be done by the employer. SSA must be brought on board to ensure that the process was not delayed. The human resources must also be brought in to ensure that the verification of qualifications was done timeously. People must not be disqualified based on the report of the SSA and HR so that Members would have the opportunity to ask the candidate directly during interviews about any issues outlined in the reports. She suggested that the percentage for people living with disabilities should be 2%.

Mr Mpithi wanted to know the difference between the verification and vetting processes, and which report would be furnished to the Committee.

Co-Chairperson Ndaba said that the Committee had been informed by the SSA that the vetting was not for the Committee, but for the employer. The verification that the SSA would conduct would provide details on criminal records. In the previous panel, the Committee allowed individuals to have an opportunity to speak for themselves and respond to any questions that Members may have arising from the report of the SSA.

Mr Mpithi sought clarity on the demographics, and whether this included political affiliation.

Co-Chairperson Ndaba responded that it did not include political affiliation, as far as she understood.

Mr Mpithi said that demographics did not only address race, but a range of other identity factors. What was the interpretation of the word in this context? In his view, demographics included political affiliation, because if someone was employed by a political party, that formed part of their demographics.

Co-Chairperson Ndaba said that if the Committee touched on that, it would be unfair because not everyone belonged to a political party. Therefore, they should take out the issue of political affiliation and look at candidates as South Africans. Everyone was allowed to apply, and it would depend on the end product.

Ms Maleka sought clarity on the issue that it was difficult to determine from a curriculum vitae (CV) that an individual was living with disabilities, especially those who have not indicated this. Hopefully, the Committee would be assisted by the staff to sift through the CVs to single out the candidates who were living with disabilities.

 Ms Giba said that the staff had tried its utmost to assist the Committee with the process as much as possible. The team would also provide a report that accounted for each and every candidate.

The selection criteria were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.