Agenda of Governing Body - 28 August 2014

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 28 August 2014

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Governing Body

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor	Len Brown, JP
Deputy Mayor	Cr Penny Hulse
Councillors	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr John Watson
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr George Wood, CNZM
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Calum Penrose

(Quorum 11 members)

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

22 August 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6328

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Governing Body

28 August 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Affirmation 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements 5

6 Petitions 5

7 Public Input 5

8 Local Board Input 5

9 Extraordinary Business 6

10 Notices of Motion 6

11 Long Term Plan 2015 - 2025 Mayoral Proposal 7

The Mayor’s proposal for the 2015 – 2025 Long Term Plan will be tabled at

the meeting

12 Impact of Local Government Amendment Act 2014 on development contributions 9

This report was not available at the time the agenda went to print and will be circulated separately

13 Signage Bylaw Review - Statement of Proposal: Recommendations from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee 11

14 Stormwater Bylaw Review - Statement of Proposal: Resolutions from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee 13

15 Outdoor Fires Bylaw Review - Statement of Proposal: Resolutions from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee 15

Due to their size, the attachments for Items 13-15 are published under separate cover and will be available on the Auckland Council website as an attachments document. Hard copies available on request.

16 2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation Arrangements 17

17 Guidelines - elected members' access to information 25

18 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

19 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 35

C1 Confidential: Special Housing Areas, Tranche 4 Recommendations 35

C2 Confidential: Draft Memorandum of Understanding 35

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

An apology from Cr LA Cooper has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 14 August 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

6 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

7 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

8 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

9 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

10 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Governing Body

28 August 2014

Signage Bylaw Review - Statement of Proposal: Recommendations from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

File No.: CP2014/18716

Purpose

1. To adopt the recommendations of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee regarding a signage bylaw.

Executive summary

2. At its meeting of 19 August 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee agreed to recommend to the Governing Body that a combined Auckland Council and Auckland Transport signage bylaw is the most appropriate way to address signage related issues. At that same meeting, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee also agreed to recommend to the Governing Body the Statement of Proposal (including a report on the expected impacts of the proposed bylaw and the scale of change, a proposed combined bylaw and a revocation of the legacy council signs bylaw provisions) for consultation using the special consultative procedure – Resolution Number RBC/2014/36.

3. A copy of the statement of proposal (including the proposed bylaw) is contained in Attachment A. A copy of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee report is contained in Attachment B.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) agree that pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues relating to the display of signage that is on or visible from any road or from any public place under the management and control of the Auckland Council or a substantive council-controlled organisation and which is not part of the Auckland transport system.

b) agree that pursuant to section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed draft Auckland Council signage bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw to address problems related to signage advertising commercial sexual services.

c) agree that pursuant to section 155(2)(b) and section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, as described in part 9 of the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A to the agenda report), the proposed draft combined Auckland Council and Auckland Transport signage bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) agree that pursuant to section 62 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and 156 of the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council revokes those clauses of the existing eleven bylaws that deal with issues of signage (and replaces them with a new Auckland-wide signage bylaw).

e) agree that pursuant to sections 145, 146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 22(AB)(1)(y) and (zk) of the Land Transport Act 1998, the proposed draft combined Auckland Council and Auckland Transport signage bylaw is for the purposes of:

i) providing for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on any road or public place under the management and control of the Auckland Council or a substantive council-controlled organisation and which is not part of the Auckland transport system, by limiting obstruction and distraction caused by signage;

ii) protecting the public from nuisance and from harm or damage caused by the poor maintenance or abandonment of signage;

iii) assist in enhancing, maintaining, and promoting the visual amenity value of Auckland’s cultural character, and its built and natural environments;

iv) enabling the economic benefits to Auckland that are provided through signage;

v) assist in protecting council-owned or controlled assets from damage or misuse.

f) agree that pursuant to sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002, Attachment A to the agenda report: Statement of Proposal (including a report on the expected impacts of the proposed bylaw and the scale of change (Attachment A: Appendix 1), a proposed Auckland Council Signage Bylaw (combined with an Auckland Transport signage bylaw(Attachment A; Appendix 2) and a revocation of the legacy signs bylaw provisions) be approved for public consultation (noting that portions of this Statement of Proposal relate to Auckland Transport and that decisions relating to those portions will be made by Auckland Transport’s board).

g) agree that pursuant to section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 Auckland Council confirms the following legacy council bylaws remain in force until such time as the proposed new signage bylaw becomes operational:

i) Auckland City Council Signs Bylaw 2007;

ii) Franklin District Council Control of Signs Bylaw 2007;

iii) Chapter 19 (Temporary Signs) of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008;

iv) North Shore City Part 12 (Control of Temporary Signs) Bylaw 2000;

v) Papakura District Council Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008;

vi) Rodney District Council, Chapter 22 of the General Bylaw 1998, (Temporary Signs).

h) authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal (including proposed bylaw) (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Rita Bento-Allpress - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 August 2014

Stormwater Bylaw Review - Statement of Proposal: Resolutions from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

File No.: CP2014/18668

Purpose

1. To adopt the recommendations of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee regarding a stormwater bylaw.

Executive summary

2. At its meeting of 19 August 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee agreed to recommend to the Governing Body of Auckland Council the adoption of the Statement of Proposal (including a Summary of Information, the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2014 and a revocation of the three legacy stormwater bylaws) for consultation using the special consultative procedure – Resolution Number RBC/2014/34.

3. A copy of the statement of proposal (including the proposed bylaw) is contained in Attachment A. A copy of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee report is contained in Attachment B.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) agree that pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a bylaw is the most appropriate way to:

· manage the development and maintenance of the stormwater and land drainage network, and the land, structures, and infrastructure associated with that network;

· protect the stormwater and land drainage network, and the land, structures, and infrastructure associated with that network, from damage, misuse or loss;

· manage the use of the stormwater and land drainage network, and the land, structures, and infrastructure associated with that network, and provide for the conditions on which connections to the public stormwater network may be made or maintained;

· prevent interference with the stormwater and land drainage network, and the land, structures, and infrastructure associated with that network;

· manage the stormwater and land drainage network, and the land, structures, and infrastructure associated with that network, so as to protect the public from nuisance and promote and maintain public health and safety;

· provide measures to support the management and enhancement of the natural part of the stormwater network; and

· ensure the maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems, the removal of redundant stormwater systems on private land and the management of hazardous materials to prevent damage to the stormwater network.

b) agree that pursuant to section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2014 (Appendix 1 to the Statement of Proposal) is the most appropriate form of bylaw to address problems related to the management of stormwater identified as in scope

c) agree that pursuant to section 155(2)(b) and section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2014 is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) agree that pursuant to section 62 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, the Auckland Council proposes to revoke the following legacy stormwater bylaws (and replace them with a new region-wide stormwater):

· Auckland City Council Bylaw No 18 Stormwater Management 2008;

· Papakura District Council Stormwater Bylaw 2008; and

· Chapter 21 (Stormwater drainage) of the Rodney District Council General Bylaw 1998.

e) agree that pursuant to sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002, Attachment A to the agenda report: Statement of proposal - Review of stormwater bylaws be adopted for public consultation.

f) authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal (including proposed bylaw) (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Rita Bento-Allpress - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 August 2014

2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation Arrangements

File No.: CP2014/18538

Purpose

1. To advise the Governing Body of the opportunity to change the electoral system for the 2016 elections, establish Maori wards and to undertake a representation review.

Executive summary

2. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for the opportunity to review the electoral system, the establishment of Māori wards and a review of representation.

3. Each of these reviews has specific timeframes and processes. The Governing Body should be aware of the implications of initiating reviews on these matters.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

i) agree that the status quo prevail for the electoral system, electoral wards and representation.

Comments

Background

4. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the opportunity for local authorities to consider:

· changing the electoral system (for example from FPP to STV)

· establishing Māori wards

· reviewing representation arrangements.

5. That Act sets out deadline dates in relation to each of these, if they are to take effect at the next elections. A summary of these dates is:

· 12 September 2014 for a resolution to change the electoral system

· 23 November 2014 for a resolution to establish Māori wards

· 31 August 2015 for a resolution making the council’s initial proposal on representation arrangements.

Electoral system

6. Under the First Past the Post system (FPP) a candidate can be successful at election by winning more votes compared to other candidates.

7. Under the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system, a voter casts a single vote but ranks his or her preferences. First preferences are used to establish whether any candidates are elected by reaching the required quota of votes. If not, the system provides a method for transferring second preferences and other preferences until all vacancies are filled.

8. An argument in favour of STV is that it is a fairer system, in that if a voter’s first preference would otherwise be wasted, the voter’s second and other preferences can be recognised. An argument against STV is that it is more complex than FPP and more difficult for voters to understand – with a possibility of more “informal” votes (votes not properly entered so not counted). Some councils which moved to STV have moved back to FPP, on the basis that it is easier to understand for voters and that STV did not affect the outcome. There is some evidence that informal votes are due to mixed electoral systems on the one voting paper, rather than STV per se, and that when all issues on a voting paper are decided through STV there are fewer informal votes.

9. The legislation setting up the Auckland Council prescribed FPP for the 2010 and 2013 elections. When the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill it said:

“The majority of us are of the view that the disadvantages of STV, particularly its perceived complexity (and therefore its propensity to discourage voting), outweigh the disadvantages of FPP for the 2010 elections.”

10. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has recently published its inquiry into the 2013 local government elections. It notes the mix of FPP and STV as follows:

“Local authorities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system or STV. In 2013, 90 per cent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections. Therefore, voting in most local elections involved a combination of FPP and STV. We understand that generally the STV councils have a higher turnout, but the incidence of invalid voting is usually far higher in District Health Board elections, because people tick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them.

In 2008, the Local Government Commission conducted a post-election survey of voters; 52 per cent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing, while 46 per cent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 per cent) said they would prefer a single system.”

11. The committee did not make a specific recommendation.

12. A further aspect of STV is that, on election day, the result is delayed, due to the need to have all votes in prior to transferring preferences.

13. The guidelines issued by the Local Government Commission state:

“The Commission notes, for example, the argument that to gain the full benefits of proportional representation under STV, multi-member wards or constituencies of at least three members, but preferably five to seven members, are required. Clearly this should be considered by a local authority using STV when undertaking its representation review.”

14. Governing Body member wards are either one member or two member wards, and therefore STV would not likely have a significant impact.

15. Local boards are multi-member bodies and local board members were invited to a briefing on these issues. There was not a strong desire expressed for change.

16. Whether or not the council resolves to change the electoral system, it must give public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll.

Māori wards

17. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 23 councillors, two of whom would be elected at large from the Māori electoral role and one of whom would be appointed by Mana Whenua.

18. However, Parliament legislated for a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 20 councillors with no Māori seats and the creation of an Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

19. Nevertheless, the general provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 with respect to Māori wards still apply to Auckland Council. Thus, as the legislation stands, the IMSB would continue to exist if Māori wards were established.

20. The legislation provides for councils to establish Māori wards by passing a resolution by 23 November 2014. This is discretionary, council is not required to take any action

21. On the basis of statistics supplied by Statistics New Zealand, two members of Auckland Council could be elected through Māori wards. The total number of Governing Body members is set in legislation at 20 plus the mayor and so the number of general members would be reduced to 18 if Māori wards are established. There could be two separate Māori wards with one member elected in each, or there could be one Auckland-wide ward with two members.

22. Should the Council resolve to introduce Māori wards then the timeframes are as follows.

By 23 November 2014	A local authority MAY resolve to introduce Māori representation for the next triennial election. If a resolution is made after this date then it takes effect at the subsequent triennial election. It has effect for two triennial elections and continues unless changed.	Section 19Z of LEA
By 30 November 2014	IF a resolution has been made by a local authority to introduce Māori representation, a local authority MUST give public notice of the right of 5 per cent of the electors to demand a poll on Māori representation.	Section 19ZA of LEA
By 28 February 2015	IF a resolution has been made by a local authority to introduce Māori representation, a certain period MUST be given following the public notice on Māori representation allowing electors to gather sufficient signatures to demand that a poll be held on Māori representation for the next two triennial elections.	Section 19ZC of LEA
By 28 February 2015	A local authority MAY resolve to undertake a poll of electors on a proposal that Māori representation be introduced for the next two triennial elections.	Section 19ZD of LEA

23. Through various engagement and consultation processes there has been a call for direct Māori representation on the Governing Body and greater involvement by Māori in council decision making processes.

24. This is reflected in the IMSB’s schedule of issues of significance and Māori Plan:

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their ability to actively and meaningfully contribute to the development of Auckland, in becoming the world’s most liveable city by a council that actively engages, consults and includes Māori in decision making processes and future plans”.

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised as playing an important role in the development of local communities by a council that recognises the role of Māori in local board decision making”.

25. In the IMSB’s view the establishment of Māori wards are an important part of contributing to these outcomes. The board is of the view that direct representation on the Governing Body through Māori wards is distinct from the IMSB’s role as an independent statutory authority. From the board’s perspective the two roles are not mutually exclusive.

26. The establishment of up to two Māori wards, would have the effect of triggering a representation review. The transfer of Māori voters from the general roll to the Māori roll, would impact on the remaining number of voters in each general ward in a manner that would not be uniform. This would affect the plus or minus 10 per cent rule and mean the redrawing of most, if not all, ward boundaries. The Governing Body ward boundaries would then not be contiguous with local board boundaries unless they were to be reviewed as a consequence.

27. The representation review provisions which apply to councils generally and to Auckland Council’s Governing Body with respect to ward boundary changes do not apply for local board boundary changes. Proposed changes to local board boundaries must be dealt with as a reorganisation proposal in the same manner as proposed boundary changes between local authorities.

28. The following section of this report draws the conclusion that there are no compelling reasons to undertake a representation review for the 2016 election, although one must be undertaken for the 2019 election. However, the establishment of Māori wards would result in such a review being undertaken for 2016 and is therefore not recommended.

29. If the council were of a mind to consider the establishment of Māori wards in the future it may well want to consider advocating changes to legislation as to the maximum number of members, and the process for considering local board boundaries. Such a review could not be completed within the timeframe required for the 2016 elections.

Review of representation arrangements

30. Each territorial and regional council must conduct a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years. If the council decides to not conduct a review for the 2016 elections, it must conduct a review for the 2019 elections.

31. If the council decides to conduct a review, it must resolve its initial proposal by 31 August 2015. Investigations would need to commence this calendar year to meet that deadline.

32. The total number of members of the Governing Body is set by legislation. The review could propose to amend the number, names and boundaries of wards; the number and names of local board subdivisions and the number of local board members in each board. As stated above the boundaries of local boards can only be changed through a reorganisation process.

33. The legislation requires effective representation of communities of interest and fair representation (the people represented by each councillor should not deviate from the average by more than 10 per cent). When the Local Government Commission set the current boundaries it accepted some deviations over the 10 per cent threshold. The commission was directed by legislation to create a single member ward for the former Rodney district and a single member ward for what remained of the Franklin district after the southern part of the district was transferred to Waikato District Council. On current statistics, there would be an under-representation problem in the Waitemata ward. This is primarily brought about by the number of residents now residing in apartments in the CBD and CBD fringe. Attached is a table of changes based on information from the 2013 census.

34. Adjusting the boundary of the Albert-Eden-Roskill boundary to include some of the current Waitemata ward could address this variance. Changing the boundaries of one ward can have a flow-on effect into other wards.

The timeframes should the council choose to undertake a review this term are as follows.

By 31 August 2015	Representation Arrangements Review completed by local authority. Local authority resolves its proposals.	Section 19H of LEA
By 8 September 2015	A local authority MUST give public notice of the resolution containing the representation arrangements review proposals. One month submission period.	Section 19M of LEA
By 8 October 2015	Close of submissions.	Section 19M of LEA
By 19 November 2015	Submissions heard by local authority.	Section 19N of LEA
By 19 November 2015	A local authority MUST give further public notice of its proposals. One month appeals/objection period.	Section 19N of LEA
By 19 December 2015	Close of appeals/objections.	Section 19O of LEA
By 15 January 2016	Forward all representation and boundary review material to LGC (if appeals/objections received).	Section 19Q of LEA
By 10 April 2016	Determination by LGC	Section 19R of LEA

We are not aware of significant problems with the current arrangements and do not intend to recommend a review for the 2016 elections.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. A workshop was held for local board members. Those attending did not express a desire for change in relation to the electoral system. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has also advised their preference for maintaining status quo (WTK/2014/110).

Māori impact statement

36. There has been no consultation with Māori specifically in relation to this report. However, the matter has been raised through previous engagement processes and been the subject of advocacy to the council by the IMSB (see paragraphs 23-25).

37. Māori wards are one mechanism for increasing Māori participation in council decision making. However, there are a range of other mechanisms which are not reliant on a representation review. These are the subject of advocacy through the IMSB’s schedule of significance and Māori Plan, and the council is actively striving to advance enhanced involvement in decision making through a range of initiatives.

Implementation

38. If the Governing Body resolves to change from FPP to STV, the council’s current provider of election services will be able to make the appropriate changes.

39. There would need to be an extensive awareness campaign to ensure all voters were aware of the change.

40. The cost of a poll would be in the order of one million dollars.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Wards 2010 and 2013	23

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 August 2014

Guidelines - elected members' access to information

File No.: CP2014/16818

Purpose

1. To approve guidelines for elected members’ access to information.

Executive summary

2. In August 2013, the Governing Body requested the Code of Conduct Review Working Party to report back on how the “need to know” principle might be addressed in terms of the Code. The Working Party comprised former councillors Richard Northey (chair) and Michael Goudie, councillors Penny Hulse, Wayne Walker, local board chair Angela Dalton and former local board chair Faye Storer.

3. A positive statement about members’ access to information was added to the Code at the same meeting.

4. The working party members were not all returned after the elections. However, prior to the elections, three members of the working party individually endorsed an approach to provide a separate document setting out guidelines on dealing with confidential information in a wider sense, rather than expanding on the existing provision in the Code. The guidelines document would include principles and processes around access to confidential information by elected members as an essential element of the wider aspect of managing confidential information.

5. Work on a guidelines document has progressed since then. The Standing Orders Political Working Party has provided feedback as has the local board chairs forum.

6. Essentially the guidelines affirm the “need to know” principle and provide more detail on principles and processes. The Guidelines are attached as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the “Confidential Information – Guidelines for Elected Members and Staff” document (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Comments

Proposal to produce guidelines on accessing confidential information

7. At its meeting on 22 August 2013 the Governing Body resolved:

“That the Governing Body:

a) affirm the ‘Need to Know’ principle with regard to a councillor’s entitlement, by virtue of the office, to all information for which there is good reason for such access.

b) recommend that the Code of Conduct Review working party address the “Need to Know” issue and report back within three months to council on how it will be included in the Code of Conduct.”

Resolution number GB/2013/88.

8. At the same meeting the Governing Body adopted amendments to the Code of Conduct. The following statement was added to the Code:

“As a policy principle Members are entitled to have access to all information, for which there is good reason to have such access, to enable members to properly discharge their duties under the ‘need to know’ test.”

9. The Code of Conduct Review Working Party comprised Richard Northey, Michael Goudie, Cr Penny Hulse, Cr Wayne Walker and local board chairs Angela Dalton and Faye Storer.

10. Prior to the elections, officers commenced work on the Governing Body’s resolution and proposed to members of the Code of Conduct Review Working Party that, since the Code now has a definite statement about access to information and the “need to know” principle, a separate guidelines document should be drawn up to provide more detail about principles and processes.

11. Furthermore, since access to information only becomes an issue when information is deemed to be confidential, the guidelines should encompass the broader matter of dealing with confidential information. The guidelines should include the issue of an elected member’s access to confidential information as an essential aspect of how confidential information is managed. The guidelines should also acknowledge concerns that have been raised through the Governing Body previously about the need to share relevant information with local boards.

12. Feedback prior to the elections from three of the members of the working party endorsed this approach.

13. Because the Code of Conduct Working Party was not continued after the elections, the draft guidelines were presented to the Standing Orders Political Working Party for comment. Those present were Councillors Chris Darby (chair), Penny Webster, Cathy Casey and Board Members David Collings, Colin Davis and Pippa Coom (representing Shale Chambers).

14. Following comment by the Working Party, the guidelines were presented to the Local Board Chairs Forum.

The “need to know” principle

15. The “need to know” principle arises from a judgment of the House of Lords in 1983. The facts of the case related to a councillor who was not a member of the council’s social services committee asking for access to files about prospective child adopters, arising from some anxiety she had about the family. The council granted access and the family challenged the council in court. The House of Lords determined that a councillor’s need to know information in order to perform his or her duties can override confidentiality.

Guidelines

16. The proposed Guidelines are attached.

17. Section 1 sets out the key principles, including the need for elected members to have the information that they need in order to perform their role.

18. Section 2 discusses the nature of confidential information. It is information that is withheld from the public when requested, for specific reasons in LGOIMA that would cause some kind of harm if the information was released. An aspect of managing confidential information is limiting its distribution to those who need to know it. There is a duty of confidentiality on those who have access.

19. Section 3 sets out how information is made available to members. This includes the duty of staff to ensure members are properly informed and the duty of members to retain confidentiality. A climate of trust and good faith is important.

20. Section 4 provides guidelines around confidentiality at meetings. When the public are excluded certain members of the public, who would otherwise need to leave, can remain if the meeting passes the resolution set out in LGOIMA. Elected members and staff (either of the governing body or of local boards) are not members of the public and their presence when the public are excluded is based on the “need to know” principle.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. The Guidelines were presented to the Local Board Chairs Forum. There have been minor amendments to the Guidelines as a result. The key practical difficulties raised were:

(i) ensuring local boards were provided with the information that is relevant to them, whether confidential or not

(ii) clarity in standing orders to give local boards the ability to address governing body meetings, particularly at the item under discussion and when the public are excluded.

22. The first issue is partly an operational matter and the need to improve this is acknowledged. Report writers are required, as part of the report template, to ensure local board views are conveyed to Governing Body meetings.

23. The Standing Orders Political Working Party will consider the second issue. The Working Party comprises Crs Darby (chair), Webster and Casey; together with Local Board Chairs David Collings, Shale Chambers, Julie Fairey and Member Colin Davis.

24. A further aspect that relates to Local Boards is the attendance of Governing Body members at Local Board meetings. Governing Body members may remain when the public are excluded based on the “need to know” principle.

Māori impact statement

25. This is an internal procedural matter and does not impact on the Māori community.

26. The IMSB appointees to committees are full committee members and have the right to remain when the public are excluded. Other than that, the IMSB is “independent”. However, the IMSB has statutory obligations that may require access to council information and it has a statutory duty of confidentiality in regard to that information.

Implementation

27. Once approved by the Governing Body, these Guidelines will be made available to staff and to members.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Confidential information - Guidelines for Elected Members and Staff	29

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive