| 2. |
The actions of the moderating committees are important for the credibility of the SPMDS and are based on the following guiding principles: honesty, objectivity, fairness, justice and balance/level-headedness. The moderating committees ensure consistency, equity, procedural fairness, correctness and administrative justice in the implementation of the SPMDS. |
| 3. |
The centralised moderation committee for the SPMDS cycle 2007-2008 was established and saddled with the challenging responsibility of recommending deserving public service staff for performance bonuses based on their ratings, as agreed upon between them and their supervisor, which were received on or before 28 November 2008. |
| 4. |
The committee's deliberations were complicated by line managers or principals who did not adhere to the requirements of the Internal Human Capital Management Minute 8/2008, i.e. to nominate only the top 20% of performers per directorate or educational institution. The criteria mentioned below were therefore applied consistently to moderate the 1432 nominees and recommend a total of 1074 beneficiaries for performance bonuses: |
| 4.1 |
Schools were clustered per circuit within the education district, while FET college staff and education district office staff were clustered. Head Office staff were clustered per directorate within the new WCED redesign structure, and staff outside of directorates were clustered under the DDGs, SG or MEC. |
| 4.2 |
The nominations had to comply fully in terms of submission of documentation Annexures A - E, including motivation (note 2 X Annexure Cs) |
| 4.3 |
The motivation had to be present, but was not looked at for quality of content. |
| 4.4 |
Nominations were further grouped on salary bands 1 - 2, 3 - 6, and 7 - 8, 9 - 10 and 11 - 12 in the case of education institutions, directorates or components for reporting purposes. |
| 4.5 |
If the nominations received were within the normal distribution curve (NDC) of 20% per school or directorate, the nominations were ratified by the committee. |
| 4.6 |
If the nominations received per school or directorate exceeded the NDC of 20%, then the committee intervened and made recommendations based on the following: |
| 4.6.1 |
A bottom-up approach per salary level group was taken to recommending bonuses, with preference given to lower level staff. |
| 4.6.2 |
Preference was given to staff who did not receive bonuses in the previous cycle, above those who had consistently been awarded performance bonuses when the NDC was applied per salary group. |
| 4.6.3 |
As a last resort, the motivations were scrutinised for quality to effect a decision between equally rated individuals per salary level, where only one could be recommended in accordance with the NDC. |
| 5. |
The table below reflects the performance bonus beneficiaries per salary level:
| Salary level |
Staff numbers |
Beneficiaries |
| SL 1 |
1555 |
116 |
| SL 2 |
1605 |
170 |
| SL 3 |
2475 |
321 |
| SL 4 |
1097 |
109 |
| SL5 |
111 |
20 |
| SL 6 |
1148 |
241 |
| SL 7 |
222 |
54 |
| SL 8 |
128 |
31 |
| SL 9 |
83 |
11 |
| SL10 |
31 |
1 |
|
| 6. |
The moderation process for nominees on salary levels 11-12 received on or before 28 November 2008 will be finalised in due course. |
| 7. |
Please bring the content of this minute to the attention of all staff under your control. |
SIGNED: S CYSTER
HEAD: EDUCATION
DATE: 2009:02:10
|