But that doesn't mean that they need to be fascists. I'm quite sure that the verification agency in question is expecting this blog post, I won't give them the satisfaction of naming them, needless to say I won't recommend them and will most certainly never use them again.
Like most consultants I tend to use a certain verification agency for a variety of reasons; proximity being the primary consideration in seeking them out. But I do expect that in time we will find ourselves being able to work together. Working together is really a certainty that your interpretations that you have sold to your clients are acceptable. The verification agency I work with - who I would highly recommend, are a good company. I fight with them all the time, because the truth is that an interpretation you had last year suddenly doesn't work any more. I'm up for that fight, I know the people well enough to call them so that they can placate me and bring me off my high horse. As to whether they are willing to work with me - that is a bit of an unknown.
I got a client recently, one that I really wanted. In the process I inherited a deposit paid to another rating agency, we'll call the agency Benito. I did request that the client bring their file across to my people in Rosebank, but they had paid the deposit. I've known about Benito for years but never used them because I figured that it would be difficult. I did have a connection at Benito, but he has since exited. So we start the verification process - and it's bog standard. Their checklist is anally thorough, but that's what those things are like. I took it as an omen.
The fun started when their analyst - who was very professional (no kidding), refused to look at an additional tab containing the procurement information. You see she wanted in the their tab. I was thinking, for fuck's sake, how hard could it be to move the information to your tab. Would she budge, budge she would not. OK - I'll just put the stuff into her spreadsheet. Then she refused to accept an affidavit from an ICT company because it didn't say ICT. For fuck's sake again - it's an affidavit that sets the same thresholds as the dti's generic codes. The problem is that it needs to say ICT sector on it. Just like the ones you can download from the ICT Charter Council website. No!! they say, SANAS will reject it. They are right - SANAS are fascists, process orientated wastes of time. That was fixed - now she was happy.
The crowing glory was the shareholder affidavit that stated the following
2. I hereby declare under oath that:
• The enterprise is 100% black owned;
• The enterprise is 25% black woman owned;
• The Enterprise has 50% Black Designated Group Beneficiaries as youth
• The enterprise may be regarded as a new entrant in terms of the DTI's Revised BEE codes of good practice,
They aren't new entrants and that's not evidence. I sent the bloke an email telling him he was smoking something, perhaps the stuff in Cape Town is stronger than we might be able to find here. He sends me a long email, quoting from the DRAFT verification manual (he must know better than I do that I'm an idiot) that he can reject it because it's on that affidavit because it doesn't explain what percentage of the enterprise are new entrants. Huh, what? Yes the enterprise in question is a trust but for goodness sake, the affidavit is for the ENTERPRISE IN QUESTION. The TRUST is a fucking new entrant. They have a signed a sworn affidavit to that effect.
Noddafok says Benito. No points awarded and SANAS will find no fault with their file. You're fucking right they won't, and they will never find any fault with any of my clients' files because you are never going to see them.
Which I suppose brings me to the crux of this post.
There is nothing wrong with Benito's anal thoroughness. But I got the distinct impression that they were not working with the client (and me). The first draft came out as non-compliant, and this begs the question, what company is going to send you a file to end up non-compliant? None. Perhaps some other approach could be taken - specifically with consultants, who tend to know what they are talking about. The second thing is their absolute rigidity. There is a lot of scope for interpretation on both sides - being a fucking fascist and sticking to your guns when you could bend a bit is a career limiting move. Hiding behind SANAS doesn't help the cause either.
You can work with your client, you don't need to advise but you can ask for other information. You can request other types of evidence if what you see isn't what you don't like.
It's the consultants - and there is one under every second polyphagous infested bush that provide the verification agencies with their clients. When a relationship with a VA dies then the client moves to the next one with the consultant. Don't take them for idiots and for god's sake - don't hide behind your dogma.
Benito will never be considered by me, nor will it ever be referred to clients in Cape Town or anywhere for that matter.