SETA board appointments under fire over vetting failures - IOL
Fresh concerns over the appointment of boards responsible for South Africa’s skills development authorities have emerged following reported Auditor-General of South Africa findings of irregularities at 15 Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs).
The Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) says reported deficiencies included incomplete vetting, unverified qualifications, outstanding or outdated criminal-record checks and late or missing declarations of interest.
IoDSA CEO Parmi Natesan says the findings raise questions about the integrity of public-sector board appointment processes. “Good governance starts before a board ever meets,” she says.
“Who gets onto a board, whether they are suitably qualified and experienced, whether proper background checks have been performed and whether conflicts have been identified are not procedural niceties.”
IoDSA points to wider governance problems at CETA, Services SETA and LGSETA, including repeated qualified audits, weak financial controls, irregular appointments and failures to hold officials accountable.
In April, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training raised concerns over the Education, Training and Development Practices SETA’s failure to provide adequate documents supporting expenditure on discretionary grants.
The SETA disputed reports that it could not account for R637 million, saying the Auditor-General’s finding related to a limitation of scope rather than missing funds. However, the Auditor-General said it had not received supporting documents for 179 transactions worth R116 million.
The committee also heard that R42 million earmarked for student stipends had not been paid, while almost R9 million was paid over 13 months for office space that staff had been instructed not to use because the building was considered unsafe.
Natesan says there should be greater scrutiny on the replacement process. “Once confidence in an appointment process has been damaged, the replacement process needs to be beyond reproach.”
The reported shortcomings also run counter to King V, which calls for governing bodies to have the competencies, diversity and independence necessary to fulfil their responsibilities, and recommends background checks and independent verification of qualifications,” Natesan said.
“A name on a CV and a completed nomination form are not due diligence,” Natesan noted. “Verification needs to happen before appointment, and conflicts need to be identified and appropriately managed.”
