Agenda of Governing Body

Governing Body

28 May 2015

Hearings Panel report on the proposed new Signage Bylaw

File No.: CP2015/08987

Purpose

1. To adopt the new Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have jointly proposed a new Signage Bylaw 2015 to regulate signage visible from a road or public place.

3. The Signage Bylaw Hearings Panel was appointed jointly by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to consider submissions and to make recommendations on the proposed Signage Bylaw that had been publicly notified for consultation from. The panel consisted of:

Cr George Wood (Chairperson); Cr Bill Cashmore; Cr Calum Penrose; Glenn Wilcox, Independent Māori Statutory Board Member; Cr Mike Lee, Auckland Transport Board Member; and Mark Gilbert, Auckland Transport Director.

4. As this bylaw is a combined Auckland Transport and Auckland Council bylaw, it will be considered by the Auckland Transport Board on 26 May 2015. The panel recommends the governing body adopt the bylaw as the Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015.

5. The most significant changes from the draft bylaw:

· removing the need for signage that will be regulated by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to comply with traffic safety requirements in the bylaw;

· amendments to allow for more free standing signage on larger sites;

· amendments to provide a clear distinction between approval to display signage and exemption from the requirements of the bylaw;

· amendments allowing a process for businesses that are not on the ground floor or do not have street frontage to apply for approval to display portable signage.

6. Submitters, including the Māngere - Ōtāhuhu Local Board, request that the bylaw include controls on signage advertising alcohol. The panel recommends that the governing body investigates a policy on advertising of alcohol on council and council controlled organisation-owned or controlled assets and services, and report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

7. The amended bylaw is proposed to come into effect from 1 October 2015, from which date the legacy council signs bylaws will be revoked.

8. The panel would like to thank the submitters and staff whose contribution to the consultation process has been greatly appreciated

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive and adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Panel on the combined Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015.

b) make the Signage Bylaw 2015 contained in Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to sections 145,146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002, section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998, and section 12 of the Prostitution Reform Act with effect from 1 October 2015.

c) revoke either in full or in part, as identified in Section One of “Additional Information to the Signage Bylaw 2015” in Attachment A to the agenda report, the following legacy council bylaws relating to signs to the extent that they have deemed to have been made by Auckland Council under section 63 or section 61 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, whichever is applicable, from 1 October 2015:

i. Clause 5 of the Auckland City Council Bylaw No. 30 - Brothels and Commercial Sex Premises

ii. Auckland City Council Signs Bylaw 2007

iii. Clause 6 of the Franklin District Brothel Bylaw 2010

iv. Franklin District Council Control of Signs Bylaw 2007

v. Clause 5 of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008, Chapter 3 – Brothels

vi. Chapter 19 (Temporary Signs) of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008

vii. Clause 4 of the North Shore City Bylaw 2000, Part 25 – Brothels

viii. North Shore City Part 12 (Control of Temporary Signs) Bylaw 2000

ix. Papakura District Council Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008

x. Clause 7 of the Rodney District Council, Chapter 14 – Brothels and Commercial Sex Premises

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

d) direct the Manager: Social Policy and Bylaws to report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on a policy for the advertising of alcohol on infrastructure, facilities, or services owned or operated by the council or Council Controlled Organisations.

e) authorise the Manager: Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the Chair of the Hearings Panel, to make any minor edits or amendments to the combined Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the governing body.

Background

9. The Signage Bylaw Hearings Panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to both the governing body of Auckland Council, and to the Board of Auckland Transport on the proposed combined Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Signage Bylaw (resolution no. RBC/2014/36).

10. Auckland Transport’s Board considered these matters at its meeting of 26 August 2014 (refer agenda item 10(iii)) and approved the combined Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Signage Bylaw for joint public consultation.

11. On 28 August 2014, the governing body approved the proposed combined bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2014/88).

12. The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 3 September 2014 to 3 October 2014.

13. A total of 183 submissions were received.

14. Twenty-nine submitters made verbal submissions during three days of hearings held on 11 November and 12 December 2014, and 25 February 2015. The Hearings Panel held its deliberations in public on 23 April 2015.

Overview of written and verbal submissions

15. The council and Auckland Transport received 183 written submissions, with a total of 790 submission points being made. Of those 183 submissions, 100 were in the form of a proforma submission form developed by the Newmarket Business Association requesting retention of the legacy Auckland City Council Signs Bylaw.

16. Most written submissions commented on the number and placement of permissible portable signs, controls for the display of free standing signage, the display of horizontal cross street banners, and controls for veranda signage.

17. Twenty-nine submitters made verbal submissions during three days of hearings. The panel heard from submitters on a range of issues including:

(a) the integration / relationship of the bylaw rules for signage and those in proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

(b) comprehensive package of signs

(d) portable signage, including both number and placement

(e) free standing signage

(f) local board place making decisions

(g) banners

(h) verandah signage

(i) signage on roofs

(j) signage content.

Deliberations

18. The Hearings Panel held its deliberations in public on 23 April 2015. The matters deliberated on by the Hearings Panel have been categorised into six topic areas and are presented in the order that they were discussed.

Table one: Deliberations topics and relevant bylaw clause

Topic number	Deliberation topic	Bylaw clause
1	Relationship between the proposed new bylaw and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan	3
2	Comprehensive package of signs	3
3	Requirement to have signage set back 0.8 m from the road on a bus route	9
4	Alcohol advertising on council owned assets – content of signage	13
5	Allowing businesses not on the ground floor to display portable signage	14(3)
6	The display of horizontal cross street banners	18

Deliberations Topic 1: Relationship between the proposed new bylaw and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Proposal as publicly notified

19. All non-site related signage advertising any business, service, goods, products, activity or event not directly related to the primary use or activities of that site will be regulated by proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

20. Signs to be regulated by proposed Auckland Unitary Plan will also have to comply with traffic controls (clause 9) in the bylaw, as well as any clause in the bylaw that does not have an “equivalent provision’ in proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Matters raised in submissions

21. Five submitters proposed drafting changes to clause 3(6) and reference to the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and resource consent.

22. Submitters felt there was a level of ambiguity with regard to whether the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the proposed bylaw, or both sets of requirements apply to certain sign types.

23. Submitters suggested that it appears that signage may be assessed against both the bylaw and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and that the bylaw should instead replicate proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rule 3H.6.3.1.1 whereby signage that requires resource consent will be exempt from consideration under the bylaw.

Hearings Panel deliberations

24. The Hearings Panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions.

25. The panel recommends including two new subclauses - 3(4)(b) and 3(4)(c) - and amending subclauses 3(5) and 3(6).

26. These changes will provide clarity on which signage will be controlled by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and which is controlled by the bylaw, ensuring there is no sign type that is regulated by both regimes, and clarifying that an approval under the bylaw is not required in addition to resource consent granted for a proposed Auckland Unitary Plan sign.

27. The one exception to this is the regulation of the content of the sign, including signage advertising commercial sexual services.

28. The amendments to this clause of the bylaw now clearly state that proposed Auckland Unitary Plan signs would also have to comply with two clauses in the proposed bylaw. These relate to content (clause 13) and commercial sexual services (clause 23) as the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan cannot address these issues under the Resource Management Act.

Deliberations Topic 2 – comprehensive package of signs

Proposal as publicly notified

29. The proposal was that all signage that was not considered part of a comprehensive development or re-development of a site would need to meet the requirements of the bylaw.

30. The bylaw made no provision for a comprehensive package of signage.

Matters raised in submissions

31. In total nine submitters requested that the bylaw create, and allow for a new category of signage, which they called a “comprehensive package” to be removed from the scope of the bylaw and regulated solely by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

32. Submitters requested this “package” be made up of all publicly visible signage on a site or sites, which may include branding signs, product signs, directional and information signs, typically with a consistent “design theme’. It would only be applicable to service stations, or businesses on one or more contiguous sites with a minimum aggregate area of 1500 square metres and with provision for five or more car parking spaces.

33. Submitters also requested this include existing approved signage and signage on a new development that does not meet the $100, 000 threshold, and therefore would not fall within the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 'comprehensive re-development' category.

34. Such signage should, submitters suggested, be considered collectively and holistically as a ‘comprehensive package”, rather than each individual sign considered on its own with regard to the bylaw requirements.

35. Submitters also raised concerns that certain of their existing signage would not meet the bylaw size and number requirements.

Hearings Panel deliberations

36. The Hearings Panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions.

37. The panel did not accept the submitters’ arguments for the creation of a comprehensive package of signs.

38. The intention of the bylaw is that, with a limited number of exceptions, all signs will be regulated by it. Introducing the concept of a comprehensive package of signs would result in a shift in the regulatory balance to proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

39. A comprehensive package of signs would allow an applicant to make a choice of process which would create uncertainty about which regulatory regime applies and create an open ended concept that would allow for “forum shopping”.

40. The suggested restriction of a new category of signage applying only to service stations and large sites would risk creating a double standard, with different rules for larger corporations on big sites compared to smaller, more localised, operators.

41. The panel is of the view that, with a limited number of exceptions, all site related signage will be regulated by the bylaw.

42. The policy direction underlying the proposed bylaw and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan involves a clear split between billboards and other signs, with some very limited exceptions. Creating a new category of signage and exempting it from the bylaw would risk undermining that division and the panel does not support submitters request for this proposal.

Deliberations Topic 3 – Requirement to have signage set back 0.8 m from the road on a bus route

Proposal as publicly notified

43. Subclause 9(3) of the proposed bylaw, as publicly notified, required all signage to be set back 0.8m from the kerb on an Auckland Transport bus route, and 0.6m from the kerb where there is no bus route.

44. Whilst this requirement would apply to all signage it is particularly relevant to portable signage, veranda fascia signage and under veranda signage.

45. Subclause 9(4) of the bylaw as publicly notified also required a person to ensure compliance with subclause 9(3) if Auckland Transport establishes a bus route on a road.

Matters raised in submissions

46. Six submitters supported the requirements as publicly notified.

47. A total of five submitters commented on subclause 9(3), and that the requirement for signage to be the 0.8m from the kerb appears to apply along the whole length of the bus route and not just to the bus stop.

48. Six submitters also commented on subclause 9(4) and argued that it was unfair on business to expect them to amend their signage following the installation of a new bus route by Auckland Transport and that compliance with this requirement should be within 6 to 12 months.

Hearings Panel deliberations

49. After considering written and oral submissions, the panel recommends amending the wording of subclause 9(3) to make it clear that the requirement for signage to be 0.8m from the kerb only applies where an Auckland Transport bus route runs in a lane directly beside the kerb (not for example where separated from the kerb by parked cars) at public transport stops. The term public transport stops being preferred over bus stops to allow for light rail vehicle stops.

50. The panel does not support submitters’ request that subclause 9(4) stipulate a timeframe for adherence with subclause 9(3).

Deliberations Topic 4 – Alcohol advertising on council owned assets

Proposal as publicly notified

51. The bylaw regulates site related signage. All non-site related signage advertising any business, service, goods, products, activity or event not directly related to the primary use or activities of that site will be regulated by proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Non-site related signage must also comply with the ‘content’ clauses of the bylaw. The bylaw regulates signage advertising commercial sexual services, as well as the display of any signage that:

· is discriminatory or advocates discrimination;

· is objectionable within the meaning of the Films, videos and Publications Classification Act 1993;

· incites or counsels any person to commit an offence;

· is defamatory.

52. The regulatory powers that allow for the making of a bylaw do not extend to controlling sign specific product advertising, such as alcohol.

53. As proposed, the bylaw required all signage to adhere to the Code of Ethics and relevant Code of Practise issued by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and that, in the first instance, complaints about the content of signage are referred to the ASA.

Matters raised in submissions

54. One submitter raised concern about the proliferation and placement of alcohol advertising in their local board area and the detrimental effect it was having in the local community.

55. One submitter commented that advertising and sponsorship of alcohol and junk food through council signage related to sporting and/or cultural events should be phased out of as soon as possible.

Hearings Panel deliberations

56. Having considered written and oral submissions the panel noted submitters concerns, the panel further noted that Auckland Transport has an advertising policy which does not allow for the display of any advertisement that promotes alcohol brands or products on its infrastructure, facilities or services. The Auckland Transport policy gives “preference to advertising which supports health and healthy lifestyle choices”.

57. The panel recommends that Auckland Council investigate adopting an equivalent advertising policy to that of Auckland Transport for the display of advertising for alcohol brands or products on infrastructure, facilities, or services owned or operated by the council and Council Controlled Organisation, and that the Manager, Social Policy and Bylaws reports to the Regulatory and Bylaw Committee on that policy.

58. The Hearings Panel did not consider it to be within the scope of this bylaw as notified to regulate alcohol advertising on publicly visible signage.

Deliberations Topic 5 – Allowing businesses not on the ground floor to display portable signage

Proposal as publicly notified

59. The bylaw allowed businesses on the ground floor of a building with a street frontage of 2 metres or more to display an individual portable sign on the footpath. It required that 1.8 metres of footpath be kept clear for pedestrian traffic at all times and that all portable signage must be:

· located directly outside the entrance or accessway of the business to which it relates;

· kerbside;

· set back 0.8m from the kerb on an Auckland Transport bus route, and 0.6m from the kerb where there is no bus route.

60. The bylaw allowed for businesses not on the ground floor of a building that wish to display portable signage to use a portable ladder board.

Matters raised in submissions

61. This clause drew the highest number of submissions, 127. Approximately 74 per cent of those 127 submitters opposed all or part of the requirements and 100 submitters sought retention of the existing portable sign rules in the legacy Auckland City Council Signs Bylaw.

62. Eighteen submitters supported the clause as publicly notified, and eight submitters commented on only ground floor business being permitted to display a portable sign.

63. Two submitters supported the involvement of local boards in determining roads, or parts of roads where portable signage may be prohibited.

Hearings Panel deliberations

64. The panel considered the written and oral submissions and recommends subclauses 14(3) and 14(4) be amended so that businesses not on the ground floor of a building be given the opportunity to apply to council for approval to display their own individual portable signage on the footpath.

65. The panel further recommends that an application for approval to display individual portable signage on the footpath from businesses not located on the ground floor should not be treated as an application for exemption in accordance with clause 28 and that the relevant matters when considering approval applications, as set out in clause 29 should not be applied.

Deliberations Topic 6 – Horizontal Cross Street banners

Proposal as publicly notified

66. The bylaw, allows the relevant authority to identify sites suitable for the display of horizontal cross street banners and to specify the proportion of a banner site to be used for the display of community based events.

Matters raised in submissions

61. One hundred and ten submitters commented on this clause, approximately 88 per cent of which suggested the current rules for the display of horizontal cross street banners in Newmarket be retained.

62. One submitter supported the involvement of local boards in determining sites for the display of horizontal cross street banners.

Hearings Panel deliberations

67. The panel does not agree with submitters’ request that the continuation of the current arrangements in Newmarket for the display of horizontal street banners be continued. These arrangements are an operational issue that take place outside of the bylaw and are not inconsistent with the bylaw requirements.

68. In order to ensure a regionally consistent approach the panel recommends Auckland Transport review the suitability of its existing sites to hold horizontal cross street banners and the contractual management for the display of banners on those sites.

69. The panel further recommends that Auckland Transport consult with stakeholders and report back to the Board of Auckland Transport and the council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on the issue.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

70. The views of the local boards were sought through two rounds of workshops (August – September 2013 and, March – April 2014).

71. The first round of engagement was to discuss the review and obtain feedback on the proposed approach to managing signage in, on or visible from a road or public place.

72. The second round of engagement was to determine the level on interest in local boards contributing to signage related place making decisions.

73. The majority of local boards supported the outlined approach that recommended providing regulatory support for the various activities through a signage bylaw

Māori impact statement

74. In order to determine the views of Māori, staff attended the Regional Kaitiaki Hui on 30 July 2013 and presented to those iwi representatives who were in attendance. In addition two hui were held in Manukau and Orewa on the proposed signage bylaw in October 2013.

75. Discussions with Māori indicated that bylaws dealing with signage should not be inconsistent with any policies that deal with issues such as protecting the view of historic places or those with specific cultural significance. Beaches are ecologically sensitive areas, especially dunes, and where the council has identified sensitive areas and provided particular access points, such as walkways, it is necessary to protect these areas. The proposed bylaw provides controls for the display of signage in public open spaces.

General

76. The proposed bylaw has been developed through pre-consultation with political, internal and external stakeholders, including elected members of the Governing Body (Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Working Party), Auckland Transport, all local boards, council departments and units, and other council controlled organisations, business associations, disability groups, and key industry stakeholders.

77. The panel would like to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process. The contributions from submitters and other stakeholders have been greatly appreciated.

Implementation

78. Staff are developing an operations policy and procedures manual to guide staff on the implementation of this bylaw. The bylaw will replace the legacy bylaws and district plan measures that regulate signage and will be implemented using existing available resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Signage Bylaw 2015	19
b View	Tracked changes Signage Bylaw 2015	65

Signatories

Author	Councillor George Wood – Hearings Panel Chairperson
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 May 2015

Hearings Panel report on proposed new Film Fees

File No.: CP2015/09007

Purpose

1. To adopt the Auckland Film Protocol and approve the increase in land use fees for filming in a public place.

Executive Summary

2. Screen Auckland, operating as part of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) is responsible for the permitting of all filming on public open space in Auckland, including the use of roads, paths and berms, and has proposed revising the fees for filming, along with amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol.

3. The Film Fees Hearings Panel was appointed to consider submissions and make recommendations on the Auckland Film Protocol. The panel consisted of:

Cr Denise Krum (Chairperson), Cr Ross Clow and Karen Wilson, Independent Māori Statutory Board Member.

4. The panel recommends that the Governing Body adopt the proposed new Auckland Film Protocol and the proposed new land use fees for filming.

5. The most significant changes that are recommended from the draft Auckland Film Protocol are:

· a new regionally consistent land use fees for filming in a public place

· an average increase of 20 per cent in fees for filming in a public place from those charged by the legacy councils

· reference to the name change of Screen Auckland from that of Film Auckland

· reference to the Maunga Authority and filming on the maunga.

6. Submitters, including the Albert-Eden, Devonport and Takapuna, and Upper Harbour local boards, requested that a proportion of the fee for filming in a public place be returned to the local board where the filming activity took place. The panel recommends that the film fees received by Screen Auckland for filming in local parks be recompensed to the council for the use in parks in the local board area where the filming took place. In addition, the panel recommends that the local boards collaborate with the staff to determine the most appropriate use of the film fees in local parks in their ward.

7. The panel further recommends that Auckland Transport be encouraged to work with Screen Auckland to determine whether to redirect film fees recouped from filming activity on roads, paths and berms to individual local boards.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive and adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Panel on the Auckland Film Protocol 2015 and schedule of film fees.

b) note that Screen Auckland will continue to work with individual local boards to promote and encourage filming activity in their local board areas.

c) direct Screen Auckland to recompense the council the fees collected for filming in local parks.

d) direct staff to collaborate with each local board to determine the most appropriate use of the film fees received from Screen Auckland in local parks in their local board area.

e) note that individual local boards will collaborate with Local and Sports Parks to determine the manner in which the recompensed film fees are spent in the local board area.

f) encourage Auckland Transport to work with Screen Auckland to determine whether to redirect film fees recouped from filming activity on roads, paths and berms to individual local boards.

g) note the Auckland Film Protocol 2015 and schedule of film fees will come in to force on the 1 November 2015.

Background

8. The Film Fees Hearings Panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on proposed amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol (HEA/2015/4).

9. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted a proposal to consult on the proposed fees and amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol (REG/2015/8).

10. The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 27 February 2015 to 26 March 2015.

11. A total of 14 written submissions were received.

12. Three submitters made verbal submission at public hearings held on 5 May 2015. The panel held its deliberations in public on the same day.

Over view of written and verbal submissions

13. The council received 14 written submissions, with a total of 33 submission points being made. Of those 14 written submissions, five were from the film industry and four were from local boards.

14. The main points raised in written submissions were:

· support for the level of proposed new fees

· local boards receiving a proportion of the fee for filming in a local or sports park

· local boards retaining decision making for allowing filming activities in their local and sports park

· student film shoots not being charged a fee

· film productions being encouraged to use local businesses and local people in their shoots.

Deliberations

15. The Hearings Panel held its deliberations in public on 5 May 2015. The matters deliberated on were;

(a) parity between the fee for the use of a road / footpath and a park

(b) local boards receiving a proportion of the fee for filming in a local or sports park

(c) ensuring the person in charge of a shoot had a copy of the Auckland Film Protocol to hand and was aware of their requirements under it

(d) inclusion of a complaints procedure in the Auckland Film Protocol

(e) reference in the Auckland Film Protocol to the use of drones in film shoots

(f) lower fees for taxpayer funded projects.

Topic A - parity between the fee for the use of a road / footpath and a park

16. One submitter requested that the fee for the use of a road or footpath be increased to the same as that for a park. The submitter argued that making the fee less, as was publicly notified, suggests they are of less value.

17. The panel deliberated on the submitter’s suggestion and recommends uniformity for all land use fees.

Topic B - local boards receiving a proportion of the fee for filming in a local or sports park

18. Six submitters requested that a proportion of the fee for the use of a public place be returned directly to the local board.

19. The Hearings Panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions.

20. The panel did not accept the submitters’ arguments that film fees should be returned directly to local boards. Around half of all filming activity takes place on a road or footpath and, as land owner, that fee goes directly to Auckland Transport.

21. The panel recommends that the film fees received by Screen Auckland for filming in local parks be recompensed to the council for the use in parks in the local board area where the filming took place. The Local and Sports Park Department of the council is responsible for the management of local parks geographically and are best placed to use the funding locally to improve parks in a specific local board area. In addition, the panel recommends that the local boards collaborate with staff of this department to determine the most appropriate use of the film fees in local parks in their local board area.

22. The panel also recommends that Auckland Transport work with Screen Auckland to determine how best to redirect film fees recouped from filming activity on roads, paths and berms to individual local boards.

Topic C - ensuring the person in charge of a shoot had a copy of the Auckland Film Protocol to hand and was aware of their requirements under it

23. One submitter requested mandatory training for the film industry on the Auckland Film Protocol and two submitters requested changes to the Protocol to ensure that the person in charge of a shoot had a copy of the Auckland Film Protocol on set and was aware of the overall responsibilities laid out in it.

24. The Hearings Panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions.

25. The panel does not support compulsory training as it is impractical.

26. The panel recommends that additional wording be added to both paragraph 2.1 – Obtaining consent to film and 3.1 - Standard conditions for filming activity in the Auckland region.

27. The additional wording will make it clear that the person in charge of a shoot will have to have a copy of the Auckland Film Protocol on set and ensure that all of the cast and crew are aware of their responsibilities laid out in it.

Topic D - inclusion of a complaints procedure in the Auckland Film Protocol

28. One submitter raised concerns about the lack of monitoring of film shoots once a permit is issued and requested that a complaints procedure be made explicit in the Auckland Film Protocol.

29. The Hearings Panel deliberated on the views of the submitter and acknowledged other written and verbal submissions.

30. The panel recommends that additional wording be added to paragraph 3.2, in respect of the monitoring of a film shoot and that a new paragraph be added outlining the complaints should a person wish to raise concerns.

Topic E - the use of drones in film shoots

31. One submitter noted that the use of drones in filming was becoming more prevalent and raised concerns regarding privacy. The submitter also noted there is no reference to drones in the Auckland Film Protocol.

32. The panel deliberated on the submitters comments and recommends inclusion of an additional paragraph in Section 4 – The approval process in detail.

33. The additional wording will make it clear that anyone wishing to use a drone for the purpose of filming must notify Screen Auckland and abide by any rules or requirements set out by the civil aviation authority (CAA).

Topic F - lower fees for NZ government funded projects

34. One submitter proposed lower fees for local productions that are taxpayer funded.

35. The panel deliberated on the submitters comments and recommends a flat fee regime. The panel further recommends the fee for filming should be based on the impact of that filming activity and not on its funding stream.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. The views of the local boards were sought through a round of workshops (October –November 2014) and a collective workshop (October 2014).

37. The engagement was to discuss the review of film fees and obtain feedback on the proposed charges for the use of public place for filming.

38. The majority of local boards supported the outlined approach, with a number wishing to work with Screen Auckland to attract more filming opportunities in their local board area.

Māori impact statement

39. The proposed new film fees do not cover filming on the maunga. Screen Auckland is currently consulting with Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority. The consultation includes any fee that may apply for activities on the maunga.

40. Screen Auckland has an ongoing relationship with several mana whenua and mataawaka groups across its whole portfolio of activity. In relation to film production specifically, Māori views and input may be obtained in several ways where there is a potential impact on particular land or sites. This is coordinated either by a Screen Auckland film facilitator or through the relevant parks manager.

41. In order to give emphasis to the process for requests for filming on the maunga, the panel recommends that wording in the Auckland Film Protocol be moved to Section 2.1 – Obtaining consents to film and that additional clarification be included

Implementation

42. The Auckland Film Protocol will be implemented by Screen Auckland.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Film Protocol 2015	113
b View	Auckland Film Protocol 2015 - Tracked changes comments following hearings	151

Signatories

Author	Councillor Denise Krum – Hearings Panel Chairperson
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 May 2015

Committee Terms of Reference

File No.: CP2015/06701

Purpose

1. To adopt a revised terms of reference for the Governing Body’s committees.

Executive Summary

2. Earlier this year councillors held two days of informal discussion on a range of topics. One of the issues discussed was the effectiveness of current governance arrangements. Issues raised included: insufficient time to workshop key issues, constituency time being eroded by the demand for additional workshops and meetings, inefficient committee meetings, uncontrolled expansion of the organisation’s work programme and behaviours in meetings not always being conducive to good decision making.

3. Following this discussion, the Mayor undertook to bring back a proposal for changes to the committee structure. This report sets out a proposal for changes to the Terms of Reference for some committees. It is acknowledged that the proposal will not meet all expectations. Views ranged from major change to no change and this proposal strikes a balance between the two.

4. Proposed changes to the committees’ Terms of Reference are primarily narrowing the focus of some of the reporting committees to focus on a few key projects or responsibilities rather than wider areas of activity. It is also proposed to merge the Budget Committee with the Finance and Performance Committee after the completion of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) process.

5. Other work being undertaken to support improved governance processes is – a review of standing orders, a revised approach to workshops, a review of the Chief Executive’s (CE) delegations, a new structure for committee agendas (separating items for decision from items of information) and professional development for councillors in governance skills. Standing Orders and CE delegations are the subject of separate items on this agenda.

6. The meeting schedule has been amended by staff to reflect the agreed changes and is attached as Attachment B.

7. In addition, on 30 April 2015, the Governing Body agreed to the establishment of a Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel. A liaison councillor now needs to be appointed for that panel.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the Terms of Reference for Committees as contained in Attachment A to the agenda report, to take effect from 1 July 2015

b) approve the amended meeting schedule as prepared by staff, attached as Attachment B to the agenda report.

c) delegate to the Manager Democracy Services the ability to amend the schedule in consultation with the chairpersons of any affected committees.

d) appoint Councillor Casey as the liaison councillor for the Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel.

Comments

Governance arrangements

8. The current committee Terms of Reference and committee timetable were adopted at the beginning of this term of council. They reflected a sharing of leadership roles across the council and were designed to keep Mondays and Fridays free for councillors to deal with constituency issues as well as building in “recess weeks” throughout the year.

9. As time has progressed a number of governance related issues and concerns have arisen and it is timely to look at how the existing arrangements and processes can be improved.

10. Issues that have been identified include:

· insufficient time available for workshops on key issues

· Monday and Friday constituency time being eroded by the demand for workshops or additional meetings

· inefficient committee meetings – spending too much time on items not requiring a decision, while decision making items are either deferred or have insufficient time spent on them

· the organisation’s work programme being expanded in an uncontrolled manner by requests for reports or additional work that is not prioritised

· behaviour in meetings not being conducive to good decision making.

11. Several changes are proposed that will assist in dealing with these issues. This report deals with changes in the committees’ Terms of Reference, with a view to narrowing the focus of some of the reporting committees to key deliverables for the next 12 months as well as combining the Budget Committee with the Finance and Performance Committee after the completion of the LTP 2015-2025.

12. A proposed restructuring of committee agendas is also underway (being trialled at the Auckland Development Committee). This will see the agenda reports divided into two distinct sections – “items for decision” and “items for information”. The latter sections will be a compendium of reports and memos which have been provided and/or requested and are placed on the public record. These will be dealt with by way of a covering resolution to receive all information reports. The intention is that little meeting time would be spent on the items and questions can be handled before or after the formal meeting.

13. The approach to workshops is also being slightly modified. More time is being made available for workshops on key issues within the regular schedule. Workshops will be used for two major purposes:

a) briefing – these will be used for more in-depth briefings than can be covered by an information report. This will include briefings from CCOs.

b) policy guidance - these would normally be held ahead of a formal agenda item being presented. It provides the opportunity for councillor input and highlighting of issues as policy positions are being developed by staff. These will not be decision-making meetings, but will ensure all issues have been canvassed ahead of formal reporting.

14. In addition to the changes identified above, further work has being undertaken on the CE delegations and a review of Standing Orders, these are the subject of separate items on this agenda. Professional development for councillors in the area of governance skills is also being provided.

15. This report sets out proposed changes to the Terms of Reference of some of the existing committees. These changes are intended to focus the work of the reporting committees into a few key deliverables rather than a broad portfolio of activity. This will enable the prioritisation of the resources of the council organisation and the time of elected members. Pressure has been put on the organisation through successive Annual Plans and LTPs to deliver efficiencies, and funding to areas such as the policy and planning teams has been significantly reduced. These are key support functions for council’s decision making and it is important that they are focused on the priority projects.

Proposed changes to Terms of Reference

16. The Terms of Reference of the following reporting committees are proposed to be revised:

· Arts, Culture and Events

· Parks, Recreation and Sport

· Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage

· Community Development and Safety

· Economic Development

· Infrastructure.

The Terms of Reference have been modified to identify key projects and responsibilities rather than “areas of activity”. These key projects and responsibilities are attached as a schedule so that they can be updated from time to time without having to adopt a new Terms of Reference. These committees will continue to act as the major community interface for consultation on policies (within the identified scope of the committee) as well as a forum for raising community concerns.

17. The changes to the meeting schedule will align the schedule to the new terms of reference:

· the following committees will meet two-monthly, instead of six-weekly:

o Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

o Community Development and Safety Committee.

· the following committees will meet quarterly, instead of six-weekly:

o Arts, Culture and Events Committee

o Economic Committee

o Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

o Infrastructure Committee.

· Monday afternoons are largely available and can be used for reporting committees that need to convene an additional meeting or workshop for a specific purpose

· there will be dedicated times for workshops (wherever possible different briefings will run consecutively to ensure most efficient use of time)

· Mayor and councillors’ lunches will move from Thursday to Tuesday or Wednesday to coincide with workshop sessions.

18. Currently the LTP and Annual Plans (APs) are managed by the Budget Committee, chaired by the Mayor. At the completion of the LTP it is proposed that the Budget Committee be dis-established and the responsibility for the APs be transferred to the Finance and Performance Committee. This may save a small number of meetings, but largely, meetings to consider AP matters will be in addition to the regular monthly meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.

19. At the April Governing Body meeting, a new panel – the Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel - was established. In line with other panels, a liaison councillor for that panel needs to be appointed and Councillor Cathy Casey has been nominated for that position.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. The Terms of Reference relate to the Governing Body’s committees and local board views have not been sought on these as they are matters of Governing Body procedure.

Māori impact statement

21. The current Terms of Reference of council committees includes representation on most committees for members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB). This is intended to ensure input from the IMSB into a wide range of council decision making. No changes are proposed to this representation.

Implementation

22. The revised Terms of Reference and associated changes to the meeting schedule will be operative from 1 July 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Amended Terms of Reference	249
b View	Amended meeting schedule	289

Signatories

Author	Theresa Stratton - Principal Advisor Finance and Governance
Authoriser	His Worship the Mayor

Governing Body

28 May 2015

Delegations to the Chief Executive

File No.: CP2015/08868

Purpose

1. To review the delegations to the Chief Executive.

Executive Summary

2. At today’s Governing Body meeting, committee members will consider a proposal to change Auckland Council’s committee structures to improve the effectiveness of the governance arrangements. Concurrently, councillors have discussed amending the Chief Executive’s delegations. The purpose for amending the delegations is to enable councillors to focus on higher strategic priorities by delegating more routine and lower priority decisions to the Chief Executive.

3. The Chief Executive’s financial delegation of $7.5 million was set by the Governing Body in June 2011. The Chief Executive’s delegated financial authority is relatively low compared to other public sector entities given the size of council’s annual operating and capital expenditure.

4. It is recommended that the Chief Executive’s delegations are increased from $7.5 million to $20 million. This will reduce the number of items referred to committees, while allowing transactions over $20 million to be considered by councillors.

5. The current delegations allow for items that are within the delegated authority, but are contentious or political in nature, to be referred to councillors for consultation or decision. This clause will be carried over in the amendment to the delegations. The Chief Executive will also provide regular reporting to councillors on financial transactions and related items to enable elected members to monitor activities in line with good governance best practice.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) agree that the Chief Executive’s delegations are increased from $7.5 million to $20 million, and that joint delegated authority between the Chief Executive and the Mayor or the relevant Committee Chair be raised from $10 million to $22.5 million.

b) agree to amend Schedule One of the Chief Executive’s Delegation to reflect the changes approved in recommendation a) above.

c) agree to amend the Terms of Reference for the Tenders and Procurement Committee to reflect the increase in the Chief Executive’s financial delegations from $7.5 million to $20 million, and the joint delegated authority between the Chief Executive and the Mayor or the relevant Committee Chair from $10 million to $22.5 million.

d) note that the Chief Executive’s financial delegations relating to Local Boards remain unchanged.

e) agree that the changes to the Chief Executive’s delegations come into effect from 1 July 2015.

Comments

6. Councillors discussed amending the Chief Executive financial delegations as part of their retreat in February 2015. In addition, the Chief Executive Officer Review Committee has discussed amending the delegations at successive meetings since late 2014 and resolved to support the increase at its meeting on 19 May 2015. The purpose for amending the delegations is to enable councillors to focus on higher strategic priorities by delegating more routine and lower priority decisions to the Chief Executive.

7. The current delegations limit the Chief Executive to expenditure of up to $7.5 million, or $10 million if jointly approved with the Mayor, or relevant Committee Chair, or relevant Local Board Chair. The current limit was adopted by the Governing Body in June 2011 (GB/2011/123 refers). The delegation relates to financial transactions comprising of goods, services, real estate, gifts, grants, guarantees, indemnities, and disposal of assets. It also includes power to vary transactions and terminate them. Prior to June 2011, the Chief Executive held all the responsibilities, duties, and powers of the council that any Act (except the Resource Management Act 1991) allows a local authority to delegate to an officer of the local authority as part of the transitional arrangements for establishing Auckland Council (Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 section 70).

8. Auckland Council’s financial delegated authority is relatively low compared to other public sector organisations, given its annual operating and capital expenditure. Of the former councils, Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council had a delegated limit of $4 million and $5 million respectively. Auckland Regional Council and Rodney District Council both had limits up to the budget provided for in their Annual Plans.

9. Council’s such as Tauranga City Council, Wellington City Council and Dunedin City Council have delegations up to the budget provided for in their Annual Plans. Other councils, such as Hamilton City Council, have differing levels depending on the activity (e.g. different levels for operating funds, capital expenditure, overspends and legal claims).

10. There are different levels amongst central government agencies. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Chief Executive has delegated financial authority up to $100 million, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) up to $10 million for operating expenditure and $50 million for capital expenditure, and The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) (health services) up to $50 million and ACC (non-health services) up to $10 million. Other government departments generally have Chief Executive financial delegations up to $15 million (whole of life costs).

Table One: Chief Executive Financial Delegations (Public Sector Organisations)

	Chief Executive Financial Limit
Waitakere City Council	$0.5m
Auckland City Council	$4m
Manukau City Council	$5m
Auckland Council	$7.5m
MBIE (Opex)	$10m
ACC (Non-health)	$10m
Generic Government Departments (WOLC)	$15m
Auckland Council (Proposed)	$20m
MBIE (Capex)	$50m
ACC (Health)	$50m
NZTA	$100m
Auckland Regional Council	Up to budget provided for in Annual Plan
Rodney District Council	Up to budget provided for in Annual Plan
Tauranga City Council	Up to budget provided for in Annual Plan
Wellington City Council	Up to budget provided for in Annual Plan
Dunedin City Council	Up to budget provided for in Annual Plan

11. It is recommended that the Auckland Council Chief Executive financial delegation is increased from $7.5 million to $20 million, and joint approval with the Mayor or relevant Committee chair is increased from $10 million to $22.5 million. The increase will reduce the number of items referred to committees for decision, but items over $22.5 million will still require either a joint elected member or committee approval.

12. As an example, based on initial contract value, 34 contracts have met the threshold for committee approval since amalgamation. By increasing the Chief Executive’s delegation to $20 million, the number of contracts referred for approval could have been reduced to 16.

Table Two: Supply Contracts Value

	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15	Total
$100m+			1	1	1	3
$50m to $100m		2	1			3
$22.5m to $50m	1	1	1	3	1	7
$20m to $22.5m		1			2	3
$7.5m to $20m		7	7	3	1	18
Less than $7.5m	208	250	300	323	221	1,302
$0 or near $0*	2	13	10	5	79	109
Totals	211	274	320	335	305	1,445

* The zero and near zero monetary value contracts are largely associated with Master Service Agreement (MSA) standalone or part of a panel.

13. The current delegations allow for the Chief Executive to refer items that are contentious or political in nature to councillors, the Governing Body or committees for consultation or decision. The Tenders and Procurement Committee terms of reference also note that the Chief Executive may refer contract decisions which are sensitive or may impact on the reputation of council. These clauses will be carried over. The Chief Executive will also provide regular reporting to councillors on financial transactions and related items to enable elected members to monitor activities.

14. The proposal does not include the Chief Executive financial delegations for powers delegated by local boards and these will remain unchanged.

15. Delegations to the Chief Executive are subject to the approval of the Governing Body. The delegations can be amended at any time by the Governing Body.

16. If approved, the revision requires an amendment to Schedule One of the Chief Executive’s Delegation (Attachment A) and an amendment to the Tenders and Procurement Committee Terms of Reference (Attachment B).

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. Local boards make their own delegations to the Chief Executive with respect to their decision-making responsibilities.

Māori impact statement

18. The decision is an internal matter of the Governing Body empowering the Chief Executive to implement its policy decisions. Its effect on the Māori community is no different from the effect on Auckland communities as a whole.

Implementation

19. If approved, the revised delegations will be implemented from 1 July 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Chief Executive Delegations - Amended Schedule One	313
b View	Tenders and Procurement Terms of Reference - Amendment	315

Signatories

Authors

Michael Quinn - Executive Officer

Kevin Ramsay - General Manager Finance

Authorisers

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

28 May 2015

Standing Orders - Proposed changes

File No.: CP2014/27714

Purpose

1. To adopt a new set of Governing Body standing orders.

Executive Summary

2. A political working party was set up in November 2013 to review the Governing Body’s standing orders.

· The working party assisted with guidelines for confidential information which were presented to the Governing Body in August 2014.

· The working party has now considered issues relating to the standing orders and a workshop was held with councillors on 13 May 2015.

3. The replacement standing orders:

· have a simplified layout

· are written in a plain language style

· contain a summary at the front for ease of reference during a meeting

· collect all standing orders that are unique to committees in one place

· give a chairperson limited discretion to extend the waiting time for a quorum

· include provisions for members to attend meetings by audio or audiovisual means once the technology becomes available

· extend the discretion of the chair to decline an application for public input

· require a notice of motion to be seconded when it is lodged with the Chief Executive

· clarify that, for extraordinary meetings, the agenda should be limited and public input is retained with the limitation that speakers may only address matters on the agenda

· clarify the process for bringing urgent matters before a meeting

· include a requirement for a refreshment break.

4. The working party considered the quorums of reporting committees and recommends a change to the Terms of Reference for Committees, to recognise all councillors who are not named members of a reporting committee as ex officio members, without voting rights but counting towards the quorum when present.

5. The working party recommends to local boards that they include in their standing orders a provision which is similar to the provision for local boards in the Governing Body standing orders so that councillors are given speaking rights at meetings of local boards, at the discretion of the chairpersons, on agenda items that are relevant to the Governing Body.

6. At the recent workshop, councillors indicated a difference of views on proposed changes to rules around repeat notices of motion. These proposals were not considered by the Working Party prior to the workshop and are set out as separate recommendations for discussion.

7. The proposed rules are intended to provide a higher threshold to re-litigating a matter once it has already been considered and decided. The changes are detailed in the body of the report.

8. A 75 per cent majority is required to amend standing orders.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) amend the standing order relating to repeat notices of motion so that:

i) a seconder is required when the notice of motion is lodged

ii) if rejected by the meeting, signatures of a majority are required if the same motion is submitted again within six months

iii) the same motion cannot be submitted a third time within six months.

b) amend the standing order relating to repeat notices of motion to revoke previous resolutions so that:

i) signatures of a majority are required when the notice of motion is lodged

ii) if it is rejected, the same motion cannot be submitted a second time within six months.

c) revoke its current Standing Orders (adopted 1 November 2010 and revised 1 September 2011) and adopt the Standing Orders in Attachment A to the agenda report, including amendments resulting from recommendations a) and b) above.

d) amend the Terms of Reference for Committees so that all councillors who are not named members of reporting committees are ex-officio members without voting rights, but counting towards the quorum when present, provided a minimum of two named members are present, noting that this is in addition to amendments made by the reports on Committee Terms of Reference and Chief Executive delegations.

e) forward this report to all local boards, drawing their attention to the suggestion to provide for councillors’ participation at local board meetings in their standing orders.

f) authorise the Manager Democracy Services to make changes to the standing orders of a minor nature, such as correcting typographical or grammatical errors, in consultation with the chair of the working party, Councillor Chris Darby.

Discussion

Working party

9. At its meeting on 7 November 2013, when it adopted its terms of reference for committees, the Governing Body resolved to appoint a working party comprising Councillors Casey, Darby and Webster to work with officers to review and report back on the standing orders relating to reporting committees and, with the participation of local boards, review standing orders generally.

10. Local Board members involved in the working party were David Collings (Chair of Howick Local Board), Shale Chambers (Chair of Waitemata Local Board), Julie Fairey (Chair of Puketāpapa Local Board) and Colin Davis (Deputy Chair of Ōrākei Local Board).

11. Issues relating to standing orders which were to be investigated by the working party included:

· reporting committees to operate less formally

· workshops to take place in association with committee meetings

· ease of use and readability of the standing orders

· issues of interest to local boards.

12. In addition to these issues, the working party has discussed and provided comment on:

· guidelines for members’ access to confidential information (reported back to the Governing Body on 28 August 2014)

· new provisions in legislation that allow members to be present at meetings by remote audio visual means (reported back in this report)

· quorum requirements for reporting committees

· other improvements to the standing orders.

Formality of reporting committees

13. The “reporting committees” are those committees which report back to a committee of the whole. They include the:

· Arts Culture and Events Committee

· Community Development and Safety Committee

· Economic Development Committee

· Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

· Infrastructure Committee

· Parks Recreation and Sport Committee

· Tenders and Procurement Committee

· Unitary Plan Committee.

14. Formality in a meeting occurs when there are more rules. Informality occurs when there are fewer rules and so discussion is less constrained. There are some rules that must apply to all meetings. These include rules giving status to the chair such as the requirement that all speakers address the chair. Rules which add to formality but which can be relaxed include:

· speakers can only speak once

· speakers have a limited speaking time

· process for amending motions.

15. Relaxing these rules allows a meeting to have a general discussion, with any member speaking when they wish to contribute to the discussion, under the control of the chairperson. The meeting can make decisions without a formal procedure of moving and disposing of amendments.

16. The full Standing Orders apply to meetings of the Governing Body.

17. The Working Party recommends that the full Standing Orders also apply to committees of the whole. This change has been made to the Standing Orders as the current ones relax the rule about speaking only once for all “committees”.

18. To promote informality at smaller committees, the working party recommends that the current rules, which remove the limitation of speaking only once, continue to apply to reporting committees and other committees, other than committees of the whole.

Workshops

19. The working party considered the options under existing standing orders for conducting workshops in conjunction with committee meetings. The following options allow a workshop to be held without creating a meeting on a separate day:

1) hold a workshop immediately prior to the commencement of a formal meeting

2) hold a workshop immediately following a formal meeting

3) hold a workshop during the meeting by:

a) adjourning the meeting, or

b) not adjourning the meeting but suspending the standing orders, for example, on the rules of debate, and on motions and amendments; this allows members to speak more than once without time constraints and without rules around amending motions but still allowing voting.

20. The full Standing Orders do not apply to a workshop held outside the formal meeting or when the formal meeting is adjourned. Under existing Standing Orders the conduct of a workshop is determined by the presiding member. Since the formal meeting is not taking place, rules around quorums do not apply. Since resolutions are not being made, there is no requirement to provide for public attendance.

21. In option 3) b) the workshop is not a separate event before, after or during the meeting. The meeting continues, a quorum must be present, the meeting must be open to the public unless the public are legally excluded and the meeting may make resolutions. The rules relating to debate and making amendments are simply suspended to allow for informal discussion.

22. Given these options already exist under current Standing Orders, the working party does not recommend any changes to standing orders to allow for workshops taking place in conjunction with committee meetings.

23. A separate report on this agenda, relating to committee terms of reference, addresses workshops within the context of current committees and the meeting schedule.

Readability

24. The current Standing Orders were compiled in 2010 by the Auckland Transition Agency from legacy council standing orders and the NZ Model Standing Orders. It is appropriate to review them. Furthermore, the NZ Model Standing Orders are not easy to navigate to find answers to meeting issues that arise in real time.

25. The Working Party supports a change to the layout in order to:

· remove material that is not relevant to the conduct of meetings

· group standing orders in a logical layout that is easier to use

· improve the wording to comply with plain language standards

26. The new layout puts standing orders that are most relevant at a meeting first:

· meeting procedures

· holding meetings

· meeting quorums and attendance

· committees

· workshops

· local boards

· public

· minutes

· general.

27. In addition, a two-page summary of key standing orders and flow chart are included in the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

Quorums

28. There have been times when, at the start of a meeting, a quorum of named members of a reporting committee was not present but there were other councillors in attendance who did not count towards the quorum. Councillors have expressed concern about the potential for such meetings to lapse, even though other councillors were present.

29. In the previous term, all councillors were deemed ex-officio members without voting rights of all “forums” (the equivalent of the current “Reporting Committees”), so that if present, such councillors would be counted towards the quorum.

30. The working party recommends that a similar provision is made for Reporting Committees so that, in addition to the named members of Reporting Committees, all other councillors are made ex-officio members without voting rights. If in attendance, the other councillors count towards the quorum provided there are no less than two named members with full voting rights present, one of which must be a councillor (this reflects the statutory minimum requirement for a quorum of a committee).

31. The quorums of committees are contained in the Terms of Reference of Committees, and the working party recommends these are amended to reflect these changes.

32. The working party also considered whether the chair could be given further powers in regard to the waiting time to form a quorum. Legislation requires a quorum to be present, but the Governing Body itself decides in its standing orders how long the meeting should wait for a quorum to form (currently 30 minutes). If the meeting lapses, the business is suspended until the next meeting unless the chair calls an earlier meeting.

33. The Working Party recommends that the chair should have the discretion to extend the waiting time to form a quorum where the chair has information that sufficient members to complete the quorum are approaching the meeting but are held up due to an unusual weather event or traffic congestion. This has been included in the standing orders (3.1.4).

Local Boards

34. The Governing Body’s current standing orders make two provisions for local boards:

· speaking rights on an agenda item for the local board chairperson, or nominee, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson

· local board input at the commencement of a meeting.

35. The working party considered whether these should be changed (for example, to remove the discretion of the chair so that speaking rights are automatic) and recommends they be retained.

36. The working party noted that various practices exist in relation to rights of councillors at local board meetings. The working party recommends to local boards that they incorporate a provision into their standing orders that mirrors the provision in the Governing Body standing orders so that councillors are given speaking rights at meetings of local boards, at the discretion of the chairpersons, on agenda items that are relevant to the Governing Body.

Attendance at meetings by audio or audio-visual means

37. The Local Government Act 2002 was amended in 2014 to provide for:

· a member to attend a meeting by audio or audio-visual means

· a person other than a member to attend a meeting by audio or audio-visual means (for example staff, CCOs or members of the public addressing the meeting).

38. The new provision does not in itself require any council to provide technology. Furthermore, the Act makes the provision subject to:

· the council’s standing orders allowing it to happen and setting out the conditions

· the presiding member being satisfied that:

o the technology is available and of suitable quality

o all those participating can hear each other

o this does not reduce the accountability or accessibility of the member in relation to the meeting

o the requirements of LGOIMA are met.

39. The accountability and accessibility of a member would include the meeting and the minutes of the meeting being clear which items the member was in attendance for and which items the member was not in attendance for.

40. A member attending by audio or audio-visual means is not counted towards the quorum.

41. The working party supports making provision in standing orders so these have been included in the new standing orders. The provision would only apply once technology was available. The working party was assisted by draft standing orders prepared through LGNZ.

42. These draft standing orders are based on the following principles:

· Attendance by audio or audio-visual means should only occur when a member is not able to physically attend because:

o the member is representing the Council at a place which makes physical attendance impossible

o the member is ill or infirm

o there is an emergency (for example, the ability for members to meet without being physically present was an issue raised some years ago during planning for a pandemic).

· Formal permission is given by the meeting. For example, at the start of a meeting when receiving apologies the meeting would receive and approve any requests to attend by audio or audio-visual means. Approval would be subject to the chair being satisfied that the criteria in the legislation are met.

· If a member is attending by audio or audio-visual means when the public are excluded, the member must ensure no-one apart from the member is able to hear or see the meeting and that this part of the meeting is not recorded.

Amendments

43. The current standing orders provide for a motion to be amended either by:

· substitution of different wording with the agreement of the meeting, or by

· an amendment which is moved, seconded, debated and put to the vote, prior to considering any further amendment.

44. The standing orders also provide for upcoming amendments to be foreshadowed (but they cannot be debated until the current proposed amendment is disposed of).

45. The working party considered simplifying the process for amendments but recommends retention of the current process (except for committees that are not committees of the whole as referred to above).

Committees

46. The current standing orders contain statements spread through the standing orders about rules applying or not applying to committees. These have been brought into one section on committees and apply to all committees other than committees of the whole, which the working party feels should comply with the full standing orders.

47. The particular provisions for committees other than committees of the whole are:

· members may speak more than once and speeches are not timed

· it is not necessary to formally debate each amendment and dispose of it before moving on to the next amendment; the meeting can pick the best words from all suggested amendments.

Public Input

48. The Working Party recommends minor changes to Public Input standing orders:

· an application to speak must be received no later than one clear working day prior to the meeting (currently no later than two working days)

· the discretion of the chair to decline a request is extended to include reasons that:

o the request is inappropriate

o the business of the meeting is such that it is necessary to reduce or remove speaking time for all members of the public.

49. The meeting must be advised of any request that has been declined and the reasons for declining it.

Notices of motion

50. Under standing orders, an ordinary motion made at a meeting must be seconded before it can be debated. The working party recommends that this rule should apply to a notice of motion before it is accepted for placing on an agenda. A notice of motion, when lodged with the Chief Executive, should be signed by both the mover and a seconder (other than a notice of motion to revoke a previous decision which must be signed by not less than one third of the meeting).

51. The Standing Orders provide that if such a motion has been defeated it may be repeated two more times within six months (with the appropriate number of signatures). Given the workload of the Governing Body and its committees and the time it takes for debate when a meeting comprises 23 members, there should be provision for only one repeat within six months and the required signatures should be a majority to show it is the will of the meeting to re-debate the matter.

Ordinary notice of motion

Current standing orders

Amended standing orders

Lodged by proposer

Lodged by proposer with a seconder

If it is rejected by the meeting, the same motion can be put forward again within six months:

(i) a second time with signatures of one-third

(ii) a third time with signatures of a majority.

If it is rejected by the meeting, the same motion can be put forward again within six months:

(i) only a second time, with signatures of a majority.

Notices of motion to revoke a previous resolution

52. The Standing Orders provide for the revocation of a previous decision by way of notice of motion with one third signatures. There is no express provision in Standing Orders for repeat notices of motion to revoke. Words have been added to the Standing Orders to make clear there is no provision for a repeat.

53. Because a notice of motion to revoke causes a meeting to debate a matter a second time, the requirement for signatures should be a majority to show that this is the will of the meeting. This is consistent with the proposal above for an ordinary notice of motion.

54. A previous decision can always be revisited by way of report from the chief executive or chairperson if there is genuine new information that needs to be considered.

Notice of motion to revoke a previous resolution

Current standing orders	Amended standing orders
Lodged by proposer, having signatures of one-third.	Lodged by proposer having signatures of a majority.
Standing orders are silent on whether such a notice of motion could be repeated if it is rejected.	Clarify that the same notice of a motion to revoke a decision cannot be brought a second time within six months.

Extraordinary meetings

55. The working party considered whether the full procedural part of the agenda (acknowledgements, petitions, Local Board Input, Public Input) should be placed on agendas for extraordinary meetings. The current standing orders are not clear.

56. Extraordinary meetings, or other meetings that are not regular monthly meetings, are usually called to deal with a specific matter that cannot be deferred to the following regular monthly meeting.

57. The working party recommends retaining Local Board Input and Public Input on agendas for extraordinary meetings (or any other meeting that is not a regular monthly meeting):

· at the discretion of the chair, and

· only in regard to matters on the agenda.

Procedural motions

58. Following discussion at the workshop, the ability of a member to move the suspension of standing orders has been added to the section on procedural motions. The motion, if seconded, is put without debate but a 75% majority is required.

59. The chairperson has discretion on whether to accept any other procedural motion, which is consistent with the general rule that the chairperson decides all matters for which there is insufficient provision in the Standing Orders.

Extraordinary / urgent business

60. The Standing Orders mirror the provision in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow business to be dealt with that is not on the published agenda. The Standing Orders do not set out a process for raising such an item of business.

61. The Standing Orders generally provide for business to be brought before a meeting in one of the following ways:

(i) report from the Chief Executive

(ii) report from the chairperson

(iii) notice of motion of a member

(iv) report of a committee.

62. A matter of extraordinary business will usually be out of time for a notice of motion or report from a committee. An item of extraordinary business will therefore be brought before the meeting by way of report from the Chief Executive or report of the Chairperson. If there is not enough time to prepare a written report, the report may be verbal.

63. A member may bring to the attention of the meeting, through the chair, a matter that has come to the member’s attention as needing urgent consideration.

64. An extraordinary matter which is simply a minor matter for discussion and not a matter of business that needs to be dealt with, will be at the discretion of the chair.

Refreshment breaks

65. A councillor has requested a requirement for a refreshment break be included in the standing orders.

66. Currently the standing orders set a maximum duration time of six hours (unless extended by resolution) but do not have any requirement for a refreshment break.

67. A requirement for a break after three hours has been added. The original request suggested two hours but this would not work with the current practice of commencing meetings at 9.30 am. A mandatory break at 11.30 am would likely have the effect of delaying a lunch break.

68. An option has also been added for a councillor who has attended back-to-back meetings continuously without a break for two hours to bring this to the chairperson’s attention.

Other changes

69. Auckland Council has commenced webcasting meetings of the Governing Body and Committees of the Whole. The Working Party was asked to comment on draft protocols for webcasting. These have also been endorsed by the Mayor and have been included in the Standing Orders as an appendix.

70. Guidelines for who attends public-excluded meetings have been added as an appendix.

71. A summary of how business is placed on an agenda has been added as an appendix.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

72. This report deals primarily with the standing orders of the Governing Body. Local board representatives were included in the working party and local board issues were discussed. The key issues were those relating to Governing Body confidential information and meetings (which were taken into account in the previous report), the speaking rights of local boards at meetings of the Governing Body and its committees, and the speaking rights of councillors at local board meetings.

Māori Impact Statement

73. The standing orders deal with meeting procedure. They make provision for use of Te Reo. There are no proposed substantive changes that will impact on Māori.

Implementation Issues

74. Once the Governing Body has adopted these standing orders and approved the changes to the Terms of Reference, copies will be provided to all members of the Governing Body and its committees.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Revised Standing Orders	327

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Mayor	Len Brown, JP
Deputy Mayor	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