The SAOU Comments As Follows On The Education Laws Amendment Bill , 2001 , As Published In Government Gazette 22218 Of 9 April 2001 :

Ad the Amendment of section 11 of SASA :
Comment :
- It is unclear what the intention of the lawmaker is in this regard .

- The explanatory memorandum to the proposed amendments is also quiet in this regard.

- It is not clear from the wording who would recognize the body in any event – Is it perhaps intended to indicated that the Sate or employer will only in future recognize this body ? If so one is constrained to ask ; to what end ?

- The use of the term " student body " is also at odds with the normal use in the Act of the word ‘ learner ‘ .

- The amendment refers only to learners in grade eight and further , and it is consequently accepted that the intended amendment will only apply to secondary schools.

Ad the Amendment of section 15 of SASA :
Comment :
- This is an unwarranted limitation of the ability of the school to function in an unfettered manner as a legal persona , in the community it is part of .

Ad the Amendment of Section 20 of SASA :
Comment :
- The amendment is of a technical nature and is accepted .

Ad the Amendment of Section 25 of SASA :
Comment :
- The proposed amendment lacks a subsection balancing the rights of the possibly affected Governing Body or members of a Governing Body .

- In the normal cause it would be expected that such a sweeping limitation would be offset by a section allowing for notice to the possibly affected Governing Body , and the creation of a mechanism for interaction by the affected parties with the Head of Department , if they disagree with the determination of the Head of Department .

- The Constitutional requirement of fair administrative procedure towards affected parties, will require the Head of Department to devise a procedure for a person(s) that disagree with the opinion formed by the Head of Department , and for a manner for these disagreements to be dealt with .

Ad the Substitution of section 36 of SASA :
Comment :
- It is understood and even supported , that the lawmaker cannot accept schools incurring financial debt in a uncontrolled or uncontrollable manner .

- A blanket ban on the raising of short term finance however practically places severe limitations on the ability of some ‘Section 21 ‘ schools to operate their finances year on year ; as they may have a budget in place anticipating periods of frequent and infrequent payments , with bridging finance in-between

- The ban also negates the possibility of a school , in case of a true emergency , obtaining short term finance .

- We would support a system whereby the ability or entitlement to obtain short term finance be phased out or be limited by a procedure of getting Departmental consent for the specific transaction , a matter dealt with in the later Portfolio Committee draft bill .

Ad the Amendment of Section 37 ;
Comment :
- We have no principled objection to the state acting to eradicate unwanted and even unlawful actions related to the application of school funds .

- The style of the Department to simply take an approach accepting that all trusts registered in the context of support to schools , are up to untoward or undesirable actions with ‘ public money ‘ is simply incorrect and unhelpful .

- The Department should if the same is such an insurmountable problem , simply scrutinize the financial statements of individual schools and take them to task if it is decided that , what and how they are operating is unlawful ?

- The approach of the lawmaker to make the amendments retrospective , is simply unheard of .

The practical application and execution of ‘policing’ some sort of reversal of funds , due to the retrospectivity is equally impossible .

- A simple question that arises , is , what would happen is such a trust has indeed since inception applied all , or most of the monies received towards projects in the school in a bona fide manner ?

- Is it now expected to repay an equal amount into the school account ? We would suggest that such an approach is oppressive and would in itself fail administrative and Constitutional scrutiny .

Ad the Amendment of section 38 of SASA :
Comment :

- The change from ‘guidelines’ to " prescriptions " illustrates the drifting of the attitude of the lawmaker from a persuasive approach to one of coercion . This cannot hail better relations between state and the broader parent community .

Ad the Amendments to the relevant sections of the Educators Employment Act , 1998 :
Comment :
The SAOU is not opposed to any of the suggested amendments .