Cape Town - A row looms in the DA after allegations that key MPs were “marked down” in party political performance assessments ahead of next year’s elections.
Several DA members say they have lodged complaints with federal chairman James Selfe after having been judged to have failed in constituency and party work during the annual performance reviews.
The rift is largely limited to DA members in the Western Cape, the heartland of the party, and prominent DA MPs have been marked down - and even failed - by the evaluators, who included powerful Western Cape party figures Theuns Botha, Anton Bredell and Erik Marais.
The DA uses a system called the performance determination and management system to conduct the reviews.
The scores are a crucial part of determining who is included on the party’s electoral list as nobody can be listed as a DA candidate in next year’s elections without going through the process.
Weekend Argus spoke to some MPs who indicated they had received low, and in their view unfair, marks for their constituency or party work amid talk in some circles of factionalism in the party.
While there is speculation within party circles that the low assessment marks were a way for Western Cape party barons to warn off the young Turks who have come to the fore in the DA at Parliament, the MPs themselves did not want to discuss this.
None of them wanted to be named, saying it was an “internal party matter” and to speak out would be “career limiting”.
An MP said he had received an excellent mark for his work in Parliament, but was failed for his constituency work.
He had spoken to some colleagues who had the same experience.
“They’re sending a strong message to anyone even thinking of wanting to be involved in the Western Cape next year,” he said.
Another MP indicated that he had similar problems.
“I don’t know for sure what’s behind it. Part of the problem is that there are no clear criteria set out. I don’t know if there is an agenda, or if it is a problem with the process.”
He believed some people had submitted appeals to federal chairman Selfe.
Another MP said the main problem was that there had been no clear targets set for performance in these areas, which led to people scoring low.
The MP said that, with no proper targets set, the process was “open to abuse for political purposes”.
Contacted for comment, Selfe said he had not received any appeals from the Western Cape over the system.
The only appeal he had received and dealt with had come from the North West.
Selfe, a member from the Western Cape, admitted that the process was usually best done by a panel, allowing all the members to discuss various aspects of a member’s performance and evaluate it as a whole, rather than in parts.
“It works best when it’s done as a panel, which is not what happened in the Western Cape.”
Selfe said it was up to each province to decide how the assessments were done but in the absence of a panel discussing the issues together there could be a “distortion” of the scores.
“People with responsibilities in other areas of the party could maybe score low because they weren’t able to do all the work in some areas.
“So for example, I am the chair of the federal council and I might spend 40 hours per week dealing with that work, which means I might not be able to attend all the party debates or branch meetings,” he said.
Selfe said “if and when” he received any appeals, he would interact with the evaluators, who would then be asked to produce the reasons for the low scores.
He said the system, which has been in use in some areas of the party since 2006, was fairly new in
the Western Cape, having been used for about two-and-a-half years.
Approached for comment at the DA’s launch of its national voter registration drive in Mitchells Plain yesterday, Western Cape party leader Ivan Meyer confirmed that some people had requested adjustments to the assessments.
He could not be drawn on how many had requested adjustments, saying he had not received any formal complaints.
He also said he did not believe the low marks were a result of any internal factionalism in the party.
“I’m not aware of any factions, but some people have asked for adjustments.
“There is a moderating process and the PDMS system has a built-in appeals process,” said Meyer.
Meyer said he had asked the evaluators to look at the marks again.
However, he added that the process was done through self-assessment and that in order to achieve high scores, evidence of work needed to be shown.
“So you might say you attended all the party meetings, but the attendance register says you only attended 50 percent,” said Meyer.
“If you can’t produce the evidence, then your mark reflects that,” he said.
“I believe they did a thorough job. I think they were lenient and reasonable.”
Weekend Argus