Durban - Some of the most shocking allegations about the financial shambles at Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife came from former human resources planning manager Mark Brassell – who resigned last year because he could no longer be party to the mess.
Here are some extracts from task team interviews.
MARK BRASSELL said he told chief executive Bandile Mkhize that there was not enough money to push ahead with the long-delayed restructuring of the conservation agency. He also warned that the exercise could cost at least R130 million, yet Mkhize ignored him and the board was told it would cost about R3.5m.
“I’m very sorry the situation has ended like this. The people in the field are the ones suffering,” he said in a task team interview transcript.
The team said Brassell had extensive financial experience spanning more than 20 years and was appointed as HR planning manager to tighten up financial controls last year. “The restructure was already finalised when I got involved. I asked many questions and the answers I was given did not make sense.”
Last August, he was asked to do a costing exercise so Mkhize could give a report to the board.
“Adrian Toms (of Phambili consultants and who has since died), Sudhir Ghoorah (Ezemvelo executive manager) and I worked long hours on an estimated costing. The figures were coming to more than R130m more than the current spend… these figures looked very bad and I knew we could not afford this exercise. Sudhir and I went to the chief executive before his meeting with the board and recommended to remove it from the agenda. We expressed our concern and urged him not to move forward.”
But Mkhize said he wanted to move ahead and asked Toms to proceed with the presentation.
“Adrian designed his presentation such that comparisons were made to the previous structure and the figures did not look so bad.”
The presentation was based on the assumption that there was funding available through about 700 frozen or unfilled vacancies.
“We have money for 2 200 people, but 3 200 permanent posts exist (excluding fixed-term contractors)… Adrian’s presentation was deceiving and misleading… the restructure was just too expensive and he (Mkhize) should not have taken it to the board… The chief executive has a very autocratic management style, which is okay, if he takes responsibility for his action.”
However, “random people” would approach the chief executive about their salaries, grades or reporting structure.
“He would merely agree and we would have to implement this and we could not question him… this was just one of the reasons for me wanting to leave. In my professional status I should not be a party to this process. I could see the organisation going in the wrong way and I needed to leave.”
Brassell said another senior HR manager was also told “not to get involved in lots of things”.
“She would approach me and express her frustrations as she could not question stuff even if she knew it was wrong.”
Asked for his opinion on why the process broke down, Brassell said: “There was a huge breakdown in the system. It was easy to be regraded. If you were friends with the chief executive and you approached him, he would approve your new grade and salary, and he would not take the HR implications into consideration.”
On the failure of the board to question the restructuring budget more closely, Brassell said: “I had expected an interrogation process regarding the figures, but the board just agreed.”
MBALI NGCOBO, Ezemvelo’s organisational design manager, said she was moved into the department without having any experience or qualification in this field.
Asked whether she challenged her move and the deployment of another woman to her old position, Ngcobo said: “HR said the directive came from the chief executive so they could not question it. Some things you just don’t challenge.”
THANDIWE NKOSI, the chief HR officer, told the team of several confrontations with Mkhize and that her department was sidelined.
“If we receive something in writing and we challenge it, it becomes a huge problem,” she said.
Questioned on claims that a general worker erroneously received a pay cheque for R2m, while other staff got payslips showing zero deductions or no salary, Nkosi said she was not aware of these particular cases, but that she had fired at least two staff for “similar stuff”.
On her relationship with Mkhize, she said: “The chief executive talks directly to my staff and when I confront him in this regard, I am merely reminded that he is the head and he is not to be questioned.”
Nkosi said she also received a letter and a verbal warning from the chief executive to “refrain from becoming involved” in certain discussions, including a staff funeral scheme.
In another case, she raised concerns about a long-standing training contract that had been renewed once again. Mkhize became “very upset” and she was told to “back off”.
COMFORT NGIDI, the board chairman, told the task team that “the serious financial implications” of the staff restructuring were not shown to the board.
“It does not seem justifiable that you only increase amounts for the executives. It’s huge increases. Some are a more than R200 000 increase. Nothing has really changed in their job functions and responsibilities.
“Our executives did something that morally cannot be justified. They increased their salaries and left everyone else out.”
BANDILE MKHIZE, the chief executive, blamed an HR staff member for misleading him about the costs of the restructuring.
Asked to comment on complaints that the executives had “taken care of themselves”, rather than the rest of the staff, Mkhize referred to a 2009 report which suggested that Ezemvelo executives were “badly paid compared to whoever they compared it to”.
Regarding the negotiation of his latest salary package, Mkhize said this was a separate process that was handled by the remuneration committee, with which he was not involved.
He said there was “no love lost” between Ezemvelo managers and the previous board (that did not approve the restructuring). “We felt the ad hoc committee (appointed by the old board) was doing the work the management were supposed to do. They were telling us what to do and what not to do,” he said.
ARMSTRONG NDLELA, a member of the new board, was asked to comment on Mkhize’s claim that he was misled about the HR department and on why executives received pay hikes before the rest of the staff.
“The chief executive has approved these salaries. He was not misled. How can we mislead him on increasing his own salary? If the payments were wrongfully done, then the executive committee would be responsible. Exco members are the people who got paid, so there is no way that they can claim they were unaware.” Asked for his opinion on who was misleading whom, Ndlela commented: “We should look at who benefited from this exercise.”
PREETHA DABIDEEN, a new board member who replaced chartered accountant Michael Fischer as the chairwoman of the Ezemvelo board finance committee, said she could not remember whether the chief financial officer made a formal presentation showing the budget for the restructuring.
Task team chairman Siphiwe Madondo said it seemed the new board had no idea what the budget was and simply took the word of executives.
“This was one of the biggest issues affecting the organisation and the board took a decision that it had to happen – but the board did not ask the right questions,” he said.
Dabideen responded: “I said we need the assurance that we must remain within budget. We did not know there was a problem until labour was ready to go on strike. No one approached us for more money or gave us an indication that there was a problem. We had the assurance that it would remain within budget, so we assumed all was going accordingly.”
Asked whether she knew the estimated cost of the restructuring, Dabideen said she thought it was about R40m. The task team remarked that the figure was closer to R71m. Asked whether she had any professional financial background, Dabideen said she was a practising attorney.
The Mercury