Consideration of Procedures for motions without notice; guidelines and determinations for the implementation of the rules: meeting postponed

Meeting report

Mr J Steenhuisen (DA) arrived at the meeting not impressed with the fact that he had no knowledge of the meeting taking place today and said he had just found out from a certain member of the IFP that the subcommittee was meeting today. This was unprofessional and not the correct way to conduct things. No notice confirming the meeting was sent to his office hence the other members of his party were not present at the meeting. He had to cancel two of his other appointments to come to this meeting.

The Chairperson said that it was the opposition parties that had requested the meeting. In fact the meeting was meant to take place two weeks ago but had been rescheduled due to the request by the opposition parties.

The subcommittee’s secretary apologised to Mr Steenhuisen for not sending proper notice and promised to make proper notice next time.

Mr Steenhuisen said he was willing to have the meeting even after hours as long as there was proper notice. He was available to meet at any other time but now it would be a waste as he was not fully prepared. He said the subcommittee could continue with the meeting, but he was leaving.

The Chairperson convinced him otherwise and sought another available date to reschedule the meeting to.

It was agreed that the meeting will be rescheduled to Wednesday 12 October at 2pm and provisionally for Friday, 14 October should there be a need to meet again after Wednesday’s meeting.

Mr Steenhuisen apologised for his grumpiness earlier.

The meeting was adjourned.