SABC strategic plan & budget: discussion on postponement

Meeting report

Ms Kanyisiwe Mkonza, SABC Board Chairperson, introduced her team which included the CEO, Mr Dali Mpofu, and two board members, Ms Fadila Lagadien and Mr Andile Mbeki. Others present were: Robin Nicholson (CFO), Sipho Sithole (Head: Group Strategy and Risk Management) Ayanda Cishe (Manager: Parliamentary Liaison), Charlotte Mampane (Acting Chief Operating Officer: SABC), Ntando Simelane (Acting Company Secretary: SABC) and Kaizer Kganyago (Group Communication: SABC).

Ms L Yengeni (ANC) noted that only three members of the Board were present at the meeting, and she asked where the other Board members were.

Ms Mkonza noted that the members of the Board present today could respond to issues. Only three had been requested to be present, since strategic plan presentations were normally structured around strategy issues. Some members had other commitments. She had worked on the premise that it was usually the Chairperson who would present on strategy and budget, and for this reason she had not invited the rest of the Board to attend today.

Ms Yengeni said that there was much that the Committee was expecting to discuss, and this meeting should not be regarded as merely "business as usual". Members were not sure that the strategy being presented was indeed that approved by all board members and the Executive. Reports had appeared in the media and it was necessary to determine whether they were true. She felt that all board members should have been present, to assure the Committee that what was being presented did indeed reflect the strategy of all. She felt that the meeting should not continue until the full Board was present. She added that their absence seemed to display disrespect of Parliament. Parliament had appointed the Board and they should all be present. She suggested that until that was so, the meeting could not continue.

Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) asked who was to report: the management or the Board.

Ms D Smuts (DA) said that her understanding was that at strategic plan presentations, only a few members of the Board and management would report to the Committee. The budget hearing was on 13 May, and she felt that it would be a dereliction of duty not to hear from the Board before that meeting, as there were some difficult issues, especially relating to the transition to digital terrestrial television (DTT), which involved huge sums, not all of which may go to the SABC.

Ms S Vos (IFP) agreed and suggested that the presentation should be heard.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) said that the Committee had previously, during the interviews for the new Board, raised with Ms Christine Qunta her past absence from meetings at which SABC had presented to the Committee. She had responded that she had not been specifically invited. Given the challenge that the SABC and Board were facing, he would also like to have a fuller delegation to cover all angles.

Ms M Morutoa (ANC) said that her points had largely been covered. She noted that the full Board had not yet been present at meetings of this Committee. She felt that the issues should be set out clearly. There may well be other issues arising, and she agreed that the full Board should be present.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) agreed that it was unfortunate that only three were present. Although he agreed that at this type of meeting, Ms Smuts was correct and that only some members would attend, the nature of the issues made this somewhat different. There was some doubt whether the SABC was in crisis. This meeting had been scheduled for a long time. He noted that the Committee could receive the strategic plan presentation and pretend that there was no problem, but felt that it would not be correct to do so. He noted that the Board members who had been interviewed and appointed had never yet appeared before this Committee. It did not make sense that insufficient respect was accorded to this Committee. He wondered if this strategic plan was merely constructed by consultants, and if the Executive and Board had really thrashed out the issues together.

The Chairperson pointed out that he would like to avoid a repeat of the situation where the CEO had made a presentation, and only later did it emerge that the Board had not met to discuss the issues. He agreed that it was disappointing that so many members of the Board were absent; this presentation should have been considered by them as a team and as individuals. He said that he would want to have clarity whether what was being presented was fully endorsed by the Board, or whether the Board would later distance itself.

Ms Mkonza stressed that the strategy was that of the SABC, and both the strategy and budget had been approved by the Board. She said that those present carried the mandate of the whole Board. There had been some difficulties during discussion and preparation of the budget, but the strategy was approved already in December. Management then had to support it with a budget, which had now been done. She noted the concerns raised by the Members. Although the media seemed to suggest there were divisions around the budget and strategy, there were in fact none on these issues, and the presenters regarded themselves as being present as one team.

The Chairperson asked if the strategy and plans had been submitted to the Department of Communications.

Ms Mkonza said that it had; there had been some questions around the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) issues, and that was now completed.

Mr Khumalo noted that the strategy was allegedly approved in December. However, the Board was only appointed in December and first met on 6 March this year. He asked if this was a strategy approved by the previous Board.

Ms Mkonza said that the strategy was discussed in December. At that stage the new Board had not yet been announced. In January, when they had been appointed, there was a two-day induction meeting, during which the strategy was presented fully to the new Members.

Mr Khumalo noted that if that was so, then the strategy belonged to the old Board, and was not the strategy of the new Board.

Ms Yengeni said that these explanations in fact created more confusion as to who had come up with the strategy. It was easy for the Chairperson to say that this was a unified product of both Board and management. Last year there had been assurances that all was fine. However, media reports reflected something different. She insisted that the full Board that the Committee had appointed, and that accounted to it, should be here.

The Chairperson suggested that the Members must adjourn to discuss the way forward for a while. He agreed that there were indeed some time constraints.

Ms Mkonza noted that the fact that not all Board members were present was in no way intended to be disrespectful. She apologised if this perception had been created. She and the Board had worked on the basis that normally the full Board would not be present at this type of meeting. Should the Committee wish them all to be present, they would be happy to attend.

After the adjournment, the Chairperson asked for the views of the parties.

Ms Vos noted that the IFP had prepared for this meeting, and wished the meeting to proceed. She was disappointed that the Board members were not present, because she would have liked some of her questions relating to the Sea Point office to be answered by Ms Qunta in particular.

Ms Smuts stated that the DA agreed that the meeting should proceed. It was not the usual precedent to require the full Board when the budget was presented, and she felt it would be wasteful to cancel. The ANC could have asked all members to be present.

Mr Khumalo said the ANC was also concerned about fruitless expenditure. However, it felt that there were some very important issues to sort out. These included the recent memorandum that was circulated to the Board, and the losing of bids, and finance matters. All these issues were closely related to the strategies. The ANC proposed that the entire Board should be called to Cape Town today, and that the issues be dealt with, failing which the meeting should reconvene the following day. The ANC also suggested that in view of the time constraints, the budget debate should be moved to a later date. The SABC was a national resource, and should be providing leadership and direction to the country. It was unfortunate that the opposition parties felt that the matter should proceed, because many of the major concerns had been raised by those parties' members in the past.

Mr M Kholwane (ANC) said that if the meeting were to reconvene it should be dealing with outstanding issues, which the full Board should comment on, and only after that should the strategic plan be dealt with. Members of the ANC remained unconvinced that the strategy was that of the new Board.

The Chairperson asked if it was possible to get the majority of the SABC Board members to Cape Town today.

Ms Mkonza said she would have to check their whereabouts.

Ms Smuts suggested that Parliament should postpone the whole debate and that the ANC should put in writing what issues they wished to have dealt with. Those issues, to her mind, did not seem related directly to this presentation. She hoped that the ANC would also name precisely which Board members it wished to have present.

Mr Pieterse said that the DA and IFP should do the same.

Ms Smuts responded that she wished to deal with the strategy plan only at this meeting.

Mr Khumalo stated that the suspension issues, the recommendations of the Sisulu Commission, the loss of the PSL broadcasting rights and the responsibility for those issues must all be discussed. In addition, the problems around the financial direction of the SABC must also be addressed. Members had been assured, when conducting the recent interviews for Board members, that the new Board would be able to resolve the issues. However, the issues relating to the CEO and the Board had apparently not been resolved. He did not feel it was right to table a strategy without dealing first with those issues. The questions did not need to be put in writing. They had been raised often enough in the past. Ms Vos herself had raised the questions of political interference and the Sea Point office. He reiterated that it had been stated today by Ms Mkonza that this was the strategy of the old Board. The question was whether the new Board Members had been invited to be present today, and whether they had been made aware that they should be here. He agreed that whilst in the past this may not have been done, these issues must be dealt with, and this was not a normal situation.

Ms Mkonza said that all Board Members were aware that the meeting was taking place today. The letter from the Committee had been tabled, and last week she reported to the Board that she would be coming to Parliament. All members were aware of the invitation. Some had enquired whether they should be here but the Board responded that it was the normal practice that only the Chairperson report on behalf of the Board.

Ms Yengeni agreed with the sentiments expressed by her ANC colleagues. She noted that Ms Mkonza was speaking of "the usual practice". However, this was a new Board, so one would assume that it did not have "usual practices". The more Ms Mkonza spoke, the more confusion was created. She felt strongly that the meeting must be adjourned, and all Board Members should be required to be here either today or the following morning.

The Chairperson was sympathetic to the concerns around waste of time and expense. However, he ruled that in view of the concerns, the meeting would be adjourned until the following day. As many board members as possible from the SABC must be present. That should be the new precedent. He would accept reasonable explanations for absences, but he stressed that as full participation of the Board as possible should be made.

The Chairperson suggested that this meeting reconvene at 2pm to hear the presentation of the National Electronic Media Institute of South Africa (NEMISA).

Adv P Smuts (DA) suggested that the NEMISA presentation should continue immediately.

The Chairperson told Members that the Chairperson of the NEMISA Board had tendered his apologies in advance, as he was overseas.

Mr Pieter de Klerk, CEO, NEMISA, noted that the full Executive team was present, but none of the Board members. He said that other Members, apart from the Chairperson, had been invited but could not attend.

Mr Khumalo felt that the Committee should discuss attendance at meetings at a workshop. Parliament appointed the Boards and would be allocating resources to them. It would be unwise to proceed if there was not a single Board member to present. He pointed out that it could happen that Boards were so weak that the CEO was effectively running matters, and that there was no real accountability, and Parliament must assure itself that such a situation was not happening. He was not suggesting that this was the case here, but as a matter of principle he felt that the presentation from NEMISA also could not proceed.

Adv Swart agreed that the Board members were accountable to and must report to Parliament. He was also discomforted by the fact that not one Board member was present from NEMISA. However, he made the point that the Committees of Parliament set up meetings in order to do oversight, and should take the responsibility of making it very clear as to who should attend. The institutions should be told clearly that at least one Board Member must be available if the Chairperson was not able to be present. Sometimes, if there was not a crisis, the apology of the Chairperson would be acceptable. Whilst he would be loath to cancel meetings, he was not entirely comfortable to proceed. He felt that one option was perhaps for the Committee to hear NEMISA, but make it clear that the Board must be present in future. He realised that the programme was very tight, and that it would be difficult for other Members who also sat on other Committees to make new arrangements. He pointed out that this programme was set in January and he felt that the Chairperson of NEMISA could have made arrangements to re-schedule his diary.

The Chairperson noted that this date had been set since January. Sentech had asked for a rescheduling. Other entities could do the same. He would not like accusations of inconsistencies to be made if one institution were to be sent away and another permitted to speak.

Mr Pieterse noted that the Minister appointed the Board of NEMISA. Two years ago the Director General of the Department was told that it was only twice a year that the full complement was required to be present and that this was not too much of a burden. He agreed that entities could well ask for other dates. He felt that where there was not even one member present from the Board, then the Committee should not continue. He also pointed out that oversight was an important function, and that due weight should be accorded to it.

Mr Kholwane agreed with the comments on consistency. Any other entity still to attend must be clearly notified that if their Board members were not present, they would be sent away. Parliament could be criticised if it allowed entities to depart from the proper procedures.

Ms Smuts expressed the view that the ANC was protesting but the reality was that ANC Members might be under political pressure from some quarter. To cancel this meeting would in her view be wasteful. NEMISA was a different kind of body from SABC and she felt that there was no reason why their presentation should not be given.

Ms Vos agreed that the NEMISA presentation should be allowed to continue. If it was to be the decision of the majority of the Committee that henceforth all Board members should appear, then this should be made very clear in future in the notices to these bodies and organisations. She thought that no further time should be wasted today.

Mr Kholwane responded to Ms Smuts that the mandate of the Members of the Committee was drawn from their constituencies. The newer Members of the Committee were entitled to change the precedents set by those Committee Members who had served since 1994. The ANC was not under any pressure but was seeking to change certain issues.

Ms Yengeni was aware that the Board of NEMISA was not appointed by the Committee, but pointed out that they still had to account to this Committee, which had the right to send them back.

Mr Khumalo felt that there had been a number of challenges around NEMISA and that in the past a number of issues had been raised about multi media and the budget, and that the pressures on systems would need to be examined. It was very important to work through those issues and to try to work with them. NEMISA was set up for a specific purpose. The pressure on this Committee and on Parliament was to achieve fuller access. There should not be any political debate; Members had a common aim and genuine and valid concerns, and they must be addressed fully.

Adv Swart said that the proper way to rectify past problems was not to debate them here. Since 1994 the majority party had on occasions allowed people to appear without the accountable officers being present. He said that it was a positive step that procedure were being discussed and debated. He agreed that any past problems must be redressed. However, the way to do that was not to take the decision when the presenters were already before the Committee. He felt that the institutions should be notified as to who should attend. He asked if documentation had been received from NEMISA in time; he had not received anything from them, and had received documentation from SABC only this morning.

The Committee Secretary said that she had not received any documents in advance.

Mr de Klerk said that the full plan and slides were sent and that he was in touch with the Secretariat.

Mr Nxumalo proposed formally that NEMISA should not present today.

The Chairperson said that if any other Board member was present from NEMISA, he would have allowed it to proceed. Although the Committee accepted the apology from the Chairperson, it would have expected another Board Member to be present. He would discuss with NEMISA a suitable date for a future meeting after Mr de Klerk had contacted the Board members, but set a provisional date for the following day, at 2pm. The SABC, including as many Board members as possible, should present at 10am on the following day.

The meeting was adjourned.