22nd March 2014. The Public Protector For the personal attention of Advocate Thuli Madonsela. Cc. The Public Services Commission Sir/ Me, Reference: Sub Rosa modus operandi Johannesburg Medium B Correctional Centre. I am addressing this letter to you in the hope and anticipation that you would be able to initiate an investigation into the sub rosa modus operandi that is being followed in reference to the appointment of personnel within the circumambient ambit of the Johannesburg Medium B Correctional centre, situated with the Johannesburg Management Area. The problem aggravating on a daily basis and therefore needs expeditious investigation as to its highly questionable manner that is being applied in the appointment of staff/ employees. Appointments are being made for ‘specific candidates’ and other suitably qualified and experienced staff, that in some cases had been acting in the said position for a length of time, overlooked and discriminated against. Typical examples of the two most recent incidents being the following: 1. Mr. VI Magwa, a current Deputy Director within the Johannesburg Medium B Correctional Centre, was acting in the capacity of Head of the Centre (Director) for more than 24 months. Yet at the time when applicants were being considered to fill the vacancy he was overlooked, despite an unblemished tenure in his acting capacity, with no questionability on his efficiency and effectiveness to have been appointed to the position, and a complete ‘outsider’ appointed to the position vacant. Ironically the incumbent appointed to the vacant position, had to be paid relocation costs, whereas the local ‘acting employee’ would not have been required to be paid such relocation costs. What is of further concern is that the incumbent came from a management area and was in charge of a centre with less than 1000 offenders, and having 2 escapes during his tenure, yet his credentials were considered to be sufficient to be the head of a centre that houses more than 4000 offenders, of which a great deal is classified as maximum security risk offenders. 2. A vacancy within the Personnel Division at Johannesburg Medium B (Assistant Director) had become vacant and a Senior Correctional Officer, with many years of experience and loyal service to the department, acted in the position for two months. A logical step in his career path would have been ‘a priori’ that he would be the first candidate of preference and qualification to have been appointed to the position. He however applying for the position but not even shortlisted for interview as a candidate to possibly fill the position. Amazingly a Correctional Officer Grade 2, from ‘outside’ of the Johannesburg Management Area was appointed to the position of Assistant Director Personnel, and from information available it appears that the appointment weighed heavy in her favour on the basis of a romantic relationship and a child that she has with a Director in the Regional Office, without any relevant experience and or qualifications in the level of appointment. The perception being that the relevant appointment would augment (supplement, expand, enhance, increase, boost, extend, amplify, strengthen, intensify) the remuneration of the said applicant and indirectly lessen the liability of the father in contributing to the maintenance of the child born out of wedlock which he in terms of law is legally obliged to do. It therefore appears that positions are filled, and promotions made, to address the financial obligations of another in the situation instead of being qualified, experienced and having the relevant acumen (insight, penetration, intelligence, wisdom, expertise, and perspicacity, and perspicuity, sharpness) to actually be able to be performing at optimum levels. 3. What is indeed a serious concern in the fact that the perception seems to be that within the carceral environment and ambit of the Johannesburg Medium B Correctional Centre, there appears to be no qualified, educated and or experienced candidates that can apply for promotions, be shortlisted and evaluated against other applicants for the position and or eventually promoted and appointed. 4. What needs immediate and urgent investigation is: 4.1. How applicants are considered for vacant promotional vacancies? 4.2. What criteria are used in the shortlisting of applicants? 4.3. What the relevant scores of shortlisted candidates were during and after the interviews? 4.4. The cost involved in the appointment (i.e. relocation expenses etc.)? 4.5. Relevant qualifications, experience in relation to the minimum required for any applicant to be considered as suitably qualified to be appointed and hold down the position so advertised? 4.6. A forensic audit on all promotions within the Johannesburg Medium B correctional centre, to authenticate that relevant promotions were made in terms of minimum requirements, qualifications and experience relevant for the position? These appointment are but two that were filled in a sub rosa manner, and is indicative of preference being given to ‘chosen and previously considered candidates;’ for appointment to the vacant positions with loyal, dedicated, qualified and experienced employees with the Johannesburg Medium B Correction Centre being over sighted and overlooked. For your immediate investigation into the matter at hand as nepotism, factionalism, family and friends, seem to have become the norm on which vacancies are filled instead of being filled by suitably qualified and experienced employees from within the centre. Sincerely. …………………………………… Disgruntled employees.
Posted on: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:05:42 +0000