Engineering Council of SA cancellation

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DTIC), Council for the Built Environment (CBE) and Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA).

She highlighted the importance of the Portfolio Committee which is seized with the responsibility of ensuring that the departments and their respective entities are held accountable for their activities. Since 2019, the Committee has been seized with issues that sometimes require the Committee to invite the entire board and executive, as well as employee representatives. In the past, after the Committee has followed these procedures, it has been able to resolve issues through investigation and dealing with the results.

Today is not the first time the Committee has invited the entire council to deal with issues that had been brought to the Committee’s attention. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Committee, she convened the management committee (MANCO) of this Portfolio Committee to ensure this matter was deserving to be placed in front of Committee. That is why this meeting was convened. Several strides had been made to talk to the CBE CEO on the matter tabled to try and find the root of the complaint and thus make recommendations on what can be done.

Shortly thereafter the Chairperson brought to the attention of the Portfolio Committee that an email had just been received from the ECSA president which excused herself from this meeting. The president was expected to be present at the meeting. She asked Committee members if the email should be entertained and the Committee should continue with the meeting. She asked Members to keep in mind the time constraints of the Committee programme and the lack of another date in order to postpone this meeting.

Discussion
Mr I Seitlholo (DA) said that the email from the ECSA president to excuse herself, was incredibly problematic. Committee members had received notifications, agenda item and the link to the current meeting from the previous week already. He would imagine the Committee secretary would have done her due diligence and informed the council of the meeting and its content. He registered his dissatisfaction. If the meeting should continue or not should be based on the merit of whether the Committee would be able to get the best out of the meeting outside of the people that were meant to attend the meeting.

Mr Seitholo said that he was wholly disappointed with the situation and suggested that the Committee may need to find a way to hold someone accountable in this respect.

Ms A Siwisa (EFF) voiced her dissatisfaction with the email sent by the ECSA president. She described the email as a ‘bombshell’, stating that it is very unprofessional and unacceptable.

Considering the tight time schedule of the Committee, it was especially disappointing. She noted the history of the Committee with the councils in the CBE where one of the councils has not attended a meeting to put forward their explanation to the Portfolio Committee.
It is concerning that the Committee does not even know the reason for the absence the president. She questioned if it was sabotage? If it was intentional? If it was a way of not being held accountable for certain things? She highlighted the lack of professionalism of her absence without a clear explanation. Being in ICU or physically ill or similar would be a justifiable explanation to excuse oneself from a meeting. As the apology letter was sent only just prior to the meeting commencing, it showed a clear lack of professionalism as this prevented the Committee from coming up with a possible solution ignoring the strict timeline the Committee is on.

Ms Siwisa wondered if the Committee is being taken seriously. She made this point because if the Ministry of Public Works and Infrastructure does the same, how can the Committee expect the councils to act differently? This practice has escalated to councils as they have seen what the Ministry does. The councils take advantage and send an excuse email just minutes prior to the Committee meeting commencing because the Department has set the precedent.

Ms L Mjobo (ANC) stated her unhappiness with situation. She believed that it would be unwise for the Committee to continue with the presentation as the ECSA president had sent an unprofessional and unacceptable email excusing herself. She did not think the Committee will get answers or have their expectations met. She suggested the meeting be postponed.

The Chairperson used the example of a council member that had previously come to her, after going to the council CEO to report alleged non-compliance within that council. After receiving this information, she had taken it to MANCO which decided that the information needed to be brought to the Committee.

The Chairperson noted that yesterday when a roll call was made of who was going to be present at the current meeting, the invitation had been clear that the Committee expected a full council. This was because the allegations and counter allegations are about the council so they wanted all council members in the meeting. The Chairperson was informed that only the president, deputy president, CEO and legal person of the council would be coming. She had to enquire why the other council members would not be attending.

The Chairperson indicated that when she spoke of this to the ECSA president, she was told by her that the other council members would not be attending. She had reminded the president that all the members were invited. The president, however, still stated that the other members would not be attending.

The Chairperson said the email they received that morning, just before nine and just after opening remarks, stated that the ECSA president and CEO would not be attending the meeting, but there was not anything about the other members that were invited to attend the Committee meeting.

However, the other council members were in fact in attendance, contrary to what the ECSA president had stated. She credited the help of the Committee Secretary in ensuring the council members were reminded of their invitation,

The Chairperson proposed that they continue with the meeting, as the CBE CEO and Chairperson and DTIC were all in attendance. If they feel that the president has to answer on issues, another special meeting will be convened on 27 March. She suggested that if they postpone the meeting completely until March, more questions will arise without time for answers, due to the tight time constraints caused by it being an election year.

The Chairperson appealed to the Committee to continue with the meeting as they all have the presentation and the other council members are present at the meeting.

The Chairperson said that this is not the first time the Committee has had challenges with CBE councils of CBE, and that even with all the success of CBE, when it comes to its councils, the portfolio Committee has challenges. And that the ECSA president’s excuse for nonattendance is indicative of that.

However, the Chairperson, requested that the members continue with the meeting and that if there are issues that they cannot address in that sitting, that they are noted and addressed at another meeting on 27 March.

Ms Siwisa noted that in the email the president speaks for herself and the CEO, but in paragraph seven she states that the ECSA delegation will accordingly not be able to attend the scheduled meeting and that they will be able to engage the Committee at a later stage.

She questioned what they expected was going to happen at the meeting today. The meeting is a public record and suggested the ECSA delegation may be able to refer back to the current meeting’s discussion at a future meeting and use this in their favour when responding. She asked why they are not willing to come to this meeting but are willing to engage the Committee at a later stage? What are they expecting to be said today? Why are they fearful to come today to be held to account and assist with any problem at the ECSA.

The president and the CEO cannot speak for themselves and at the bottom state they speak for the entire ECSA delegation, suggesting the president and CEO are defining themselves outside the body of ECSA.

This indicates that they are not willing to engage the Committee today, but they are willing to at a later stage, and that they want to make a delegation on behalf of everybody else, so that everybody else must not attend because they state they are not willing to attend. This indicates an act of sabotage. They may proceed with the meeting but what is going on in ECSA needs to be looked at thoroughly so that the Committee can meet its mandate.

The Chairperson said that they are talking about a president, someone occupying an executive position and the CEO of ECSA. As people who convene meetings themselves, they would not accept such late apologies for absence. This not only shows disrespect to the Portfolio Committee but to Parliament that appointed the Portfolio Committee.

She recognised the attendance of the CBE Chairperson and CEO and DTIC representatives. This further showed how the ECSA president dismissed the Committee, indicating a possibility of sabotage which she would take very seriously.

Mr Seitholo agreed with Ms Siwisa and the Chairperson. He questioned if the issues raised would be answered by CBE satisfactorily. If they cannot, the meeting will become meritless and meaningless. If the ECSA president and CEO are not in attendance, what would the Committee anticipate getting out of the meeting? He would concede to postpone the meeting to 27 March on condition that the meeting is in person so that those absent could be held accountable in person.

He suggested the CBE Chair and CEO could give the Committee guidance on whether they will be able to give responses to the issues raised and if they take full responsibility and accountability for ECSA without their presence in this meeting.

The Chairperson said that the parliamentary programme must be checked and the 27 March date confirmed. She stated again, for the record, her dissatisfaction with the ECSA president for disrespecting and undermining both the Portfolio Committee and Parliament itself. The Chairperson invited the CBE Chairperson to respond.

CBE response
Ms Holovisa Mtshali, CBE Chairperson, said that the letter discussed had been received by CBE. The agenda item they had received in preparation for the meeting was a report by CBE, with the ECSA full board, on matters of governance, compliance and transformation. They had prepared the submission based on the agenda item provided.

Ms Mtshali noted that the previous day they had received a briefing note, indicating that the submission had not aligned with the particular matters the Committee wanted to discuss. On the basis of yesterday's briefing note, CBE is not convinced it is prepared. The generic agenda item they received was that CBE, alongside ECSA, prepare a submission on governance, compliance and transformation matters.

With the load of issues that have been raised in yesterday's briefing note, CBE is not in a position to respond, especially because of the absence of the president and CEO of the relevant council that need to respond to these issues.

She said that they do take note that for the current meeting, for what CBE submitted, it needed to align to the submission to be made by the council that was invited to the meeting that day. They will take guidance from the Chairperson and Committee on how to proceed.

She wanted to highlight that CBE had received the briefing note but that it was not part of the previous pack they had received prior to prepare answers for this meeting.

Lastly she wanted to note that the briefing note CBE had received did not allow them enough time prepare to respond to the issues highlighted as their submission was of a generic nature.

The Chairperson asked if the original Portfolio Committee invitation invited the entire ECSA board. The president is saying that she and the CEO comprised the entire ECSA delegation.

Ms Mtshali replied that the original invitation did clearly highlight who needed to attend the current meeting. She had touched mostly on the agenda item that had needed to be dealt with. CBE had taken note of what needed to be addressed with the ECSA so it can move forward on the submission and ensure who needs to be in the Committee meeting.

The Chairperson called on the CBE CEO to comment.

Dr Msizi Myeza, CBE CEO, said that the Chairperson had discovered the CBE position.

Conclusion
The Chairperson submitted that the Committee must succumb to the pressure put on the Portfolio Committee by the ECSA president and postpone the meeting. It had been on the Committee’s calendar since last year December, with a programme the Committee adopted at their first meeting in February. This had been sent to the Department so it could share it with the entities which would be invited to the Committee.

The Chairperson again said that the ECSA president disrespected the Portfolio Committee, Parliament as well as the CBE itself. The question of disrespect will be the first issue raised at the postponed meeting as the president has made it clear she answers to no one.

The Chairperson reiterated that the president, as someone who convenes meetings, would not accept the apology she gave the Committee. Instead she dictated to the Committee what it must do due to her unforeseen absence. This is unacceptable behaviour and shows serious disrespect.

The Chairperson said they will postpone dealing with ECSA and CBE until 27 March.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) said that after listening carefully, he clearly believes that as a Committee they have a responsibility, as individual MPs, to hold the executive to account. Portfolio Committees have a mandated and constitutional obligation to hold the entities to account. In turn these entities have an obligation to present themselves to this Committee on request. He agreed that the ECSA president has treated the Committee unacceptably and with complete disrespect. He hopes that consequence management and the rules of engagement will be applied.

The Chairperson thanked those present for attending and invited them to the postponed meeting on 27 March which the Committee will follow up with DPWI. She reminded CBE that the Committee legacy report is in preparation and it will be fully transparent.

The Chairperson released the ECSA council members, CBE members and department representatives.

Committee matters
The Committee Secretary, Ms Nola Matinise, said the minutes of the 21 February 2024 meeting were ready for consideration by the Committee. In that meeting the Committee Report on the Waterloo Green Petition Report was considered and adopted by the Committee.

The minutes were adopted without amendment.

In reference to the minutes, Ms Van Schalkwyk asked if the proposed media statement had been issued after the 21 February meeting.

The response was that the statement has been drafted and sent to the parliamentary communication services. It may be currently being edited and it will be issued.

The Chairperson said that she would have hoped the statement had been issued already. The communications team must be addressed and the timing improved.

The meeting adjourned.