Short listing of candidates to serve in the Media Development and Diversity Agency Board; Interviews for the SABC Board

Meeting report

Opening Remarks and Apologies
The Chairperson opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to short list 5 candidates that would be interviewed to serve on the MDDA Board and also to interview candidates to serve as member of the SABC Board.

The Chairperson read apologies from Mr G Scheemann (ANC) who was attending a strategy meeting and would join the Committee as soon as he was done. There was also an apology from Mr A Steyn (DA) who was not well.

Matters Arising
The Chairperson informed the Committee that he had received a letter from Ms J Killian (COPE). In that letter, she had requested that the Committee call the SABC Board to come before the Committee to explain the processes it was going to follow to appoint a permanent CFO, COO, and Group CEO. The letter further stated that in the same session the Committee would also deal with the Public Protector’s report recommendations concerning the SABC. She had proposed that these issues be discussed the next Tuesday, 11 March 2014.

Ms M Shinn (DA) asked whether the SABC Board had responded to her request that the Board appear before the Committee, which the Chairperson had sent last week, and if so, what that response was.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee’s request had been sent to the Parliamentary Legal Services and then forwarded to the SABC. This was done to make sure that the letter was correct and that the Committee would not encounter problems later. The SABC Board had not responded as yet and this would be followed up with the relevant persons.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) said that she did not know what had influenced Ms Killian to write that letter but thismatter had already been discussed and agreed to by the Committee last week.

Ms Killian explained that her concern was that there was lot of speculation about what was happening at the SABC, in particular the speculation that one of the Board Members would take over as Acting CEO. She thought that it would be inappropriate for the Committee not to engage with the SABC Board and enquire about the speculation. Furthermore, she failed to understand why the Committee, as the oversight body, did not engage with the Board on a one on one basis because ultimately the Board was accountable to the Parliament. Yes, the Minister was representing the shareholder and the Department of Communications (DOC) had a function to support the SABC, but the SABC Board was accountable to Parliament. Ms Muthambi had said last week the Committee had a programme and could not deviate from this but this programme was never “cast in stone”. The programme was supposed to be flexible enough to accommodate matters of concern to Members of the Committee and it would be a sad day if the Committee concluded its activities for the next two weeks and did not invite the SABC Board to deal with some of the pressing issues that Members of the Committee had placed on the agenda. Therefore, that was the reason that she had motivated for a specific date for the Committee, either next Tuesday or Wednesday, so as to engage with the Board. The Committee could then say when it compiled the legacy report that it had conducted its work as it should have done as an oversight Committee to the SABC.

Ms Morutoa said that what Ms Killian had said was good and profound. It was exactly what the Committee wanted to do when the SABC Board appeared before it after receiving the letter from the Chairperson. However, she argued that Members could not deal with speculations. The Committee would hear from the Board what processes it was going to do, and not waste time on speculations from the press, which was something that was not on.

Ms Shinn said that some of the Members of the Committee should understand that their concerns about the SABC were not based on press releases. Everyone was aware of the two very serious reports, one by the Public Protector and the other by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC), pinpointing serious shortfalls at the SABC. Those were not media reports but considered reports and needed to be taken seriously by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee needed to engage with the SABC Board which it appointed. The Committee was repeatedly failing the SABC because the Board needed to know that it was accountable to Parliament. The Committee needed to be serious and show the Board that it was accountable to the Committee and should appear to explain their actions.

Ms Killian said that she respected Ms Morutoa’s statement and respected her as a long time Member of the Committee. She reminded the Committee about how fearless it was in its approach in 2009 in relation to a Board that was not performing. The Committee held that board to account and it was closely managed. Individual Board Members were compelled to attend meetings during the 2009/2010 period.  In contrast, the Committee had lost that close management and interaction and the Interim Board had not once reported to the Committee. Currently, there was a Board that was appointed last year and there were serious issues that needed to be discussed. It was not rumour or speculation, they were public representative and they received information they were compel to share in their parliamentary work. Therefore, the Committee should call the SABC Board to come in next week and it should receive confirmation that it would be there next week.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had addressed the matter raised by Ms Shinn last week and agreed to write a letter to the SABC. Ms Shinn’s letter was attached to the letter sent to the SABC. The Board was asked how it as going to respond to the Public Protector’s Report. Following that decision, Ms Kilian was also requesting that the Committee call the SABC to appear before it. Amongst issues that Ms Killian was raising was about the Public Protector’s report, which was mentioned in the letter that was already sent.  The only new issue raise by Ms Killian was around the appointment of executives of the SABC which was prerogative of the Board and the Minister. The Committee did not deal with the appointment of executives.

The Chairperson advised that Members should deal with issues at a principled level and not to pretend that they were new or not happening because there was no indication from the Board in terms of how it wanted to fill the vacancies of the executives.

Short listing of MDDA Board Candidates
The Chairperson said that he was sure that all political parties were ready to make their nominations and as already indicated they were going to shortlist 5 candidates.

Ms Shinn said that there 2 nominations for the Democratic Alliance, namely, No.3 Dr Adele Moodley and No.17 Ms Nokuzola Ehrens.

Ms Killian said that for COPE she had nominated No. 3 Dr Adele Moodley, No. 4 Zolelwa Molaphisi, No. 17 Ms Nokuzola Ehrens and No. 18 Ms Xoliswa Daku.

Ms Muthambi said that for ANC she had nominated No. 2 Mr Tenamde Pinyana, No. 3 Dr Adele Moodley, No. 5 Ratha Ramathlape, No.17 Ms Nokuzola Ehrens and No. 19 Mr Jimmy Manyi.

The Chairperson said that the outright commonality between parties was around candidates No. 3 and No. 17.

Ms Shinn asked why a Member of the MDDA was seeking appointment because she knew that he was the President’s appointment to the Board. Was his term due to expire as a Member of the Board?

Ms Muthambi responded that his term was about to expire, and it should be remembered that that he had represented Government in the MDDA Board. He had left Government and it was his constitutional right to apply to any Board in the country.

The Chairperson said that in simple terms if they were to appoint him to the Board Government should replace him as a representative of Government on the MDDA Board.

Ms Killian asked for clarity in terms of when that expiry was coming up if he was a government appointee, and technically there should be clarity from legal advisers of whether he had to resign from that position before he could be formally nominate.

The Chairperson said that the legal services would look into that. The Chairperson repeated that there was agreement between all parties with respect to candidates’ No. 3 and No. 17 for all parties.

Ms Shinn said that she was particularly concerned about candidate No. 2 and if he was chosen then the Committee would have to interrogate. He was currently employed by the Department that oversaw the MDDA. She asked whether he could be on the Board and also an employee.

Ms Killian said that the Committee needed to establish the composition of the MDDA Board because it was filling one position and if so it needed to consider the gender balance and the outgoing Member of the Board was a female Member.

Ms Killian indicated that she was in favour of including candidate No. 18.

Ms Muthambi said that as already been stated by the Chairperson the commonalities was No. 3 and No. 17, and as the ANC they were bringing in candidates 2, 5 and 19 to complete the 5 candidates.

Ms Shinn reiterated her concern about candidate No. 2, who was an employee of the Government Communication Information Services (GCIS) and would be serving on the Board that was an entity of the GCIS. In her view, this was a huge conflict of interest.

Ms Muthambi said that she agreed with Ms Shinn concerning candidate No. 2. The candidate could not be a referee and player at the same time, unless it was a previous employment. However, it was problematic if the candidate was currently employed by GCIS.

The Chairpeson said that Ms Killian was amendable with candidate No. 18 and if that was the case it meant that the Committee had completed its shortlist. Therefore, the final version of the shortlist would be candidates Nos. 3, 5, 17, 18, and 19. He requested that the ANC should clarify the issue of candidates 4 and 18.

Ms Muthambi said that they still needed to check the CVs of candidates 4 and 18 so as to come up with one candidate and would require the assistance of Ms Killian in that regard.

Ms Morutoa said that Ms Killian should explain why she had chosen candidate 18 and as the ANC they had never said they would take both candidates 4 and 18, but rather they would choose one of the two.

Ms Killian said that the reason for choosing candidate 18 was that she had a legal background which was crucial in assisting companies which wanted to establish themselves in community radio or community businesses, etc. It was also a good nomination because it was made by the National Community Radio Forum. In the case of candidate 4, she pointed out that the candidate had good design background that would help community radios at training, etc. Also candidate 4 was nominated by Reverend Malusi Pongwana.

Mis Killian said that candidate 18 was her favourite and as already stated above was nominated by the National Community Radio Forum which was a national body and for that reason she would be more in favour of candidate 18.

The Chairperson that the ANC if they did not differ with Ms Killian they would have their candidates as 3, 5, 17, 18 and 19.

Ms Muthambi said that that was in order they could move along those lines.

Committee Report on filling of vacancy at the MDDA
The Chairperson read out the progress report on MDDA on filling of the vacancy as follows: “The Committee after it had received and considered the request from the Minister in the Presidency Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as Administration to the National Assembly to recommending candidate in terms of section 4 of the MDDA Act of 2002, to fill a vacancy that has arose due to expiry of the term of Ms Nothando Gogo as a Member of the MDDA Board on the 31 December 2013, referred to it for consideration report.

The Committee invited the public to nominate a person for consideration and recommendation to the President for appointment to the Board by means of advertisement in the print media.

The Committee had received 19 nominations and subsequently shortlisted the following 5 candidates: Dr Adele Moodley, Mr Ratha Ramatlhape, Ms Nokuzola Ehrens, Ms Xoliswa Daku, and Mr Jimmy Manyi”.

Ms Morutoa moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms Shinn seconded the motion.

The Committee adopted the report.

The Committee agreed that it would conduct the interviews for the MDDA Board on Thursday afternoon. It would interview only 4 candidates on Thursday and the final candidate on Friday morning.

Interviews for the SABC Board

The candidates were asked the following questions:

Ms Ntombenhle Khathwane

●Ms Ntombenhle Khathwane was asked why she wanted to be involved in the broadcasting industry and what value would she add to the SABC Board.

●She was asked what the difference was between the Executive Board Director and the Non-Executive Board Director of the SABC Board.

●She was asked what the reason was for the steady decline of audience at the SABC, and how she would encourage increase in the viewership.

●She was asked how the Board would rectify the shortage of skill in the management level of the SABC.

●She was asked what her understanding was of the digital migration, and how it could benefit SABC and the people of South Africa.

●She was asked what her understanding was of the mandate of the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1999.

●She was asked what about the funding model for the SABC.

●She was asked what should be the role of the SABC during the election time and if it was biased towards certain political parties.
 
●She was asked how she would expose the abuse of power by the SABC Board and the management of the SABC.

●She was asked how she would handle the relationship between the Executive and the Board.

●She was asked to explain her qualifications in terms of her CV since there was no indication for the Master’s degree, whether she had already qualified for it or she was still busy with it because the academic record on her CV indicated no results.

●She was asked what her understanding was of corporate governance in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, Companies Act and the lll Codes on Good Governance. In addition, she was asked whether these policies were observed by the previous Boards and the current Board.

●She was asked which areas of the SABC she would like to improve if she considered as a Board Member.

●She was asked what her view was of the SABC 24 hour news channel that was on the DSTV pay channel.

●She was asked whether she was paying her television licence.

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Chose Choeu

●Mr Chose Choeu was asked what it was that attracted him to the SABC Board, what motivated him to seek a position on the Board.

●He was asked whether he had a particular affection for broadcasting, why he wanted to get involved with broadcasting.

●He was asked what he would do to correct the current crisis that the SABC was in with regard to the Public Protector’s report on shortage of skills in senior management.

●He was asked what role and how active non-executive directors should be in putting back the SABC on a good level.

●He was asked whether he, his spouse or family members hold an office at the SABC or had a direct financial interest in the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act.

●He was asked whether the current funding model of the SABC was feasible and what he would do differently to ensure the financial sustainability of the SABC.

●He was asked who should finance public broadcasting and how, what should be the state’s role in this regard.

●He was asked what purpose broadcasting should serve.

●He was asked whether he would be available as a Board Member considering that he was very busy because he had a fulltime job that would take up to 14 hours a day and was also involved with other organisations.

●He was asked about the skills audit and the mandate of the SABC.

●He was asked how he would enhance the performance of the SABC channels generally which had saw a decline in audience, and what strategy would he employ to increase the audience and increase revenue collection.

●He was asked what Eskom’s position was on him serving in other Boards since he was currently employed fulltime by Eskom.

●With regards to his experience, he was asked how he would ensure that the SABC complied with the PFMA, the Constitution, Companies Act and the King ll Codes on Good Governance.

●He was asked what his opinion was of the SABC 24 hour news channel that was on the DSTV pay channel.

●He was asked whether he paid his television licence.


Refer to audio for responses.


Ms Vuyelwa Qinga-Vika

●Ms Vuyelwa Qinga-Vika was asked why the Committee should select her as the Member of the SABC Board and what she was bringing into the SABC.

●She was asked how she would ensure that the SABC complied with the PFMA, the Constitution, Companies Act and the King lll Code on Good Governance.

●She was asked whether the current funding model of the SABC was feasible and what she would do differently to ensure the financial sustainability of the SABC.

●She was asked who should finance the public broadcaster what should the state’s role be in this regard.

●She was asked what purpose broadcasting should serve.

●She was asked whether reliance on commercial sources of financing was acceptable for a public broadcaster.

●She was asked what the difference was between the Executive Board Director and the Non-Executive Board Director of the SABC Board.

●She was asked what the reason was for the steady decline of audience in the SABC, and how she would encourage an increase in the viewership.

●She was asked how the Board would rectify the shortage of skill at the management level of the SABC.

●She was asked what her understanding was of digital migration and how it could benefit the SABC and the people of South Africa.

●She was asked what her understanding was of the mandate of the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1999.

●She was asked how she would expose the abuse of power by the SABC Board and the management of the SABC.

●She was asked how she would handle the relationship between the Executive and the Board.

●She was asked which areas of the SABC she would like to improve if she became a Board Member.

●She was asked what her view was on the SABC 24 hour news channel that was on the DSTV pay channel.

●She was asked whether she was paying her television licence.


Refer to audio for responses.

Ms Leah Khumalo

●Ms Leah Khumalo was asked why the Committee should select her as the Member of the SABC Board and what she was bringing into the SABC.

●She was asked what the difference was between the Executive Board Director and the Non-Executive Board Director of the SABC Board.

●She was asked what the reason was for the steady decline of audience in the SABC, and how she would encourage increase in the viewership.

●She was asked how the Board would rectify the shortage of skill in the management level of the SABC.

●She was asked what her understanding was of digital migration, and how it could benefit SABC and the people of South Africa.

●She was asked what her understanding was of the mandate of the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1999.

●She was asked to share her view on the funding model for the SABC.

●She was asked what should be the role of the SABC during the election time and whether it was bias towards certain political parties.
 
●She was asked how she would expose the abuse of power by the SABC Board and the management of the SABC.

●She was asked how she would handle the relationship between the Executive and the Board.

●She was asked what her understanding was of corporate governance in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, Companies Act and the King lll Codes on Good governance.

●She was asked which areas in the SABC she would like to improve if she considered as a Board Member.

●She was asked what her view was of the SABC 24 hour news channel that was on the DSTV pay channel.

●She was asked whether she was paying her television licence.

Refer to audio for responses.


Mr Rammutlana Sekgala

●Mr Rammutlana Sekgale was asked what it was that attracted him to the SABC Board, what motivated him to seek a position on the Board.

●He was asked whether he had a particular affection for broadcasting and why he wanted to get involved with broadcasting.

●He was asked what he would do to correct the current crisis that the SABC was in with regard to the Public Protector’s report on shortage of skills in senior management.

●He was asked whether he, his spouse or family members held an office at the SABC or had a direct financial interest in the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act.

●He was asked whether the current funding model of the SABC was feasible, what he would do differently to ensure the financial sustainability of the SABC.

●He was asked who should finance public broadcasting and how; what should be the state’s role in this regard.

●He was asked what purpose broadcasting should serve.

●He was asked whether reliance on commercial sources of financing was acceptable for a public broadcaster.

●He was asked how he would ensure that the skills audit and the mandate of the SABC would give positive results to the performance of the institution at the end of the financial year.

●He was asked how he would enhance the performance of the SABC channel generally which had saw a decline in audience, and what strategy would he employ to increase the audience and increase revenue collection.

●He was asked how he would ensure that the SABC complied with the PFMA, the Constitution, Companies Act and the King lll Codes on Good Governance.

●He was asked what his opinion was of the SABC 24 hour news channel that was on the DSTV pay channel.

●He was asked whether he paid his television licence.


Refer to audio for responses.

The Chairperson thanked Members for availing themselves for the interviews.

The meeting was adjourned.