|
Howick Local
Board
14 December
2015
|
|
Draft Local
Government Election Year Policy for Elected Members
File No.: CP2015/26962
Purpose
1. To
provide comments to the governing body on the draft “Local Government Election
Year Policy for Elected Members”.
Executive Summary
2. This
report attaches the draft policy which will be considered by the governing body
at its meeting on 25 February 2016, along with comments from local boards.
3. The
policy applies during an election year, which is the time that some sitting
members may be “wearing two hats”. One role is as an elected member, making
the decisions of the Auckland Council. The other role is as a candidate for the
next elections. The policy sets out how to distinguish between these two
roles. The “pre-election” period (three months prior to the election) is a
particularly sensitive period.
4. The
draft policy is based on the policy that was presented to local boards and the
governing body in 2013 and reflects guidance provided to public sector entities
by the State Services Commission and by the Office of the Auditor General.
5. It
has been reformatted to:
i) make it clearer
it is principle-based
ii) remove some of
the policy relating to staff conduct, which will be contained in a separate
organisational policy for staff
iii) include a
“Frequently Asked Questions” section giving additional guidance to common
questions that confront elected members.
6. The body of the report provides comments raised by local boards in
2013 and the responses to them as contained in the report to the governing
body.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Howick
Local Board provide comments on the draft “Local Government
Election Year Policy for Elected Members”.
|
Comments
7. Previous
comments from local boards that were reported to the governing body in 2013,
along with responses, are below.
8. Two
local boards queried the requirement that elected member bodies do not
criticise decisions of other elected member bodies in council publications and
one sought clarification regarding who the arbiter of this is.
i) This
principle is included on the basis that it is
considered inappropriate for different parts of council to be publicly
criticising each other’s decisions in council-resourced communications. This
principle operates once a decision has been made. Auckland Council’s
decision-making process provides several opportunities, prior to a decision being
made, for local boards and the governing body to
advocate for a particular position. There are no
restrictions on elected members’ use of non-council funded news media or
publicity, other than the standards of behaviour required by the Code of
Conduct.
ii) The
Manager, Communications and Public Affairs, is responsible for ensuring that
council-funded publications adhere to council’s policies.
9. One local board expressed a view that the
pre-election period was one month too early.
i) The
pre-election period of three months is defined in the OAG guidelines and
applies nationally for all local government elections.
10. One
local board requested information on sanctions that will be put in place to
ensure elected member candidates adhere to the policies.
11. The Election Year Policy now includes a section on breaches of the
policy. This is based on a similar section in the Code of Conduct and provides
that the chief executive will consider and take appropriate action on a case by
case basis in response to complaints about breaches of the policy. This may
include involving the electoral officer depending on the nature of the alleged
breach.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
12. This
report provides an opportunity for the board to record its views on the draft
policy.
Māori impact statement
13. The attached policies are for the guidance of all elected members
and are of equal relevance to Māori and non-Māori.
Implementation
14. Once adopted, the policies will be forwarded to all elected members.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Election Year Policy for Elected Members
|
7
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy
Services
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services
Angeline Barlow - Relationship Manager
|
|
Howick Local Board
14 December
2015
|
|
Howick Community Safety Recommendations 2015-2016
File No.: CP2015/26660
Purpose
1. To present to the Howick Local Board the four recommended safety
initiatives to improve safety and perceptions of safety in the local board
area, and to allocate funds from the Howick Local Board 2015/16 safety budget.
Executive Summary
2. The
Howick Local Board has an annual budget of $31,000 for safety initiatives to
improve safety and perceptions of safety in the Howick Local Board area.
3. The
New Zealand Police have provided information on the top five categories of
crime and the top vehicle crime locations (April 2015 to October 2015) in the
Howick Local Board area.
4. Council
staff and key organisations have identified 10 safety initiatives to address
these ‘hot spot’ crime areas.
5. Staff
recommend the local board allocates $15,848 from the 2015/16 safety budget to
fund four of these initiatives.
6. The board will allocate further funds in 2016
for other safety initiatives.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Howick
Local Board:
a) Allocate
$15,848 of the 2015/16 Howick Local Board safety budget as outlined below:
|
Organisation
|
Project/programme
|
Allocation
|
|
Asian Council on Reducing Crime
|
Coordination of the Asian Foot Patrol
|
$ 4,000
|
|
Manukau East Council of Social Services Incorporated
|
Two community safety breakfast workshops
|
$ 5,000
|
|
Howick Neighbourhood Support
|
Safer Plates – number plate security screws
|
$ 4,000
|
|
DTZ Group NZ
|
Sensor security lighting (Dale Court)
|
$ 2,848
|
|
TOTAL
|
$15,848
|
b) Request staff to provide a report in April 2016 outlining
further safety initiatives to be funded from the 2015/16 safety budget.
|
Comments
7. On
15 June 2015 the Howick Local Board:
“approved the 2015/2016
Community Development, Arts and Culture work programme, noting that the
Community Development and Safety component is dependent upon the outcome of the
Empowered Communities Approach” (HW/2015/92).
8. The
board allocated $31,000 for community-led safety initiatives to improve safety
in places identified as ‘hot spot’ crime areas. This supports the local board
plan outcome of ‘An involved and connected community”.
9. The
New Zealand Police have provided information on the top five categories of
crime in the local board area over the last seven months (April 2015 to October
2015). These are burglary, disorderly behaviour, family violence, theft from
cars and theft of cars.
10. Botany Downs, Highland Park and Pakuranga shopping centres and Half
Moon Bay were identified by the
police as the most common targets for car crime.
11. Staff
worked with key organisations (NZ Police, local business associations,
Crimewatch Patrol, Asian Council on Reducing Crime (ACRC), Asian Safety
Education Promotion Trust, Manukau East Council of Social Services (MECOSS),
Neighbourhood Support), and other volunteer groups to identify 10 safety
initiatives.
Safety initiatives for consideration
12. Table 1 below, presents and analyses the options with
reference to the following criteria:
i) addresses at least one of the identified top
five crime types (burglary, disorderly behaviour, family violence, theft from
cars and theft of cars)
ii) is resident or community-led
iii) is collaborative
iv) is a vehicle ‘hot spot’ area (Botany Downs,
Pakuranga or Highland Park shopping centres, Half Moon Bay).
Table
1: Analysis of safety initiatives
|
Initiative
|
Analysis
|
|
Option 1: Asian Foot Patrol (Lin An Dui) – a recommended option
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
three of the top five crime types (burglary, disorderly behaviour, theft of
cars)
· Patrolling
identified vehicle hot spot areas
· Encourages
collaboration between NZ Police and Asian Wardens
· Improves
community perceptions of safety
· Values
cultural diversity and promotes social inclusion to reduce barriers and
allows meaningful engagement for diverse groups
· Greater
awareness of prevention and intervention measures associated with burglary
and disorderly behaviour
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Number of
volunteers varies and may affect effective service delivery
· Language
barrier could minimise potential impact
|
|
Implementation:
· Coordinated
by Asian Council on Reducing Crime
· Costs $4,000
|
|
Option 2: Automatic number plate recognition (Half Moon Bay) – not
recommended
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
one of the top five crime types (car theft)
· In an
identified vehicle hot spot area (Half Moon Bay)
· Collaborative
initiative between key safety organisations
· Improve
communities perception of safety
· May
contribute to a reduction in petty crime in Half Moon Bay
· Increase
awareness of and perception of prevention measures associated with car theft
|
|
Disadvantages:
· NZ
Police statistics do not justify installation of cameras in this area
· Difficult
for NZ Police to commit resources swiftly to ‘hits’ received on the system
· Initial
cost and ongoing maintenance costs of cameras
|
|
Implementation:
· Relies on
Auckland Transport and/or Half Moon Bay Business Association to confirm
ownership and ongoing maintenance costs of the cameras
|
|
Initiative
|
Analysis
|
|
Option 3: Automatic number plate recognition (Panmure Bridge)
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
one of the top five crime types (car theft)
· Collaborative
initiative between key safety organisations
· Improves
communities perceptions of safety in neighbouring areas
· Potentially
providing valuable intelligence on criminal activities and detection of more
crime for police
· Increased
detection of more crime
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Police
statistics do not justify installation of cameras in this area
· Is not in an
identified vehicle ‘hot spot’ area
· Difficult
for Police to commit resources swiftly to ‘hits’ received on the system
· Auckland
Transport to confirm ownership and ongoing maintenance costs of the cameras
|
|
Implementation:
· Auckland
Transport and Police to implement
· Auckland
Transport has offered one year network and analytics software support only
· Cost to
implement is $32,908
|
|
Option 4: Burglary pack
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
one of the top five crime types (burglary)
· Improves
community perceptions of safety
· Potentially
provides accessible and useful information to the community
· Collaborative
initiative involving Police and Neighbourhood Support
· Increased
awareness of crime prevention and general safety measures
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Can become
expensive to fund significant numbers with little impact
|
|
Implementation:
· Neighbourhood
Support to distribute packs to residents
|
|
Option 5: Community safety breakfasts
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
three of the top five crime types (car theft, family violence and disorderly
behaviour)
· Encourages
collaboration between key organisations (MECOSS, Police and Auckland Council)
· Community-led
activity
· Improves
community perceptions of safety
· Building
community capacity through increased knowledge of effective prevention
measures
· Greater
awareness of prevention measures for car theft, family violence and
disorderly behaviour
|
|
Disadvantages:
· One off
information sessions with lack of follow-up on impact
|
|
Implementation
· Two
breakfast events hosted by MECOSS
· Cost $5,000
to cover two breakfasts
|
Initiative
|
Analysis
|
|
Option 6: Neighbours Day 2016 Aotearoa
|
Benefits:
· May
indirectly address all top five crime issues (burglary, disorderly behaviour,
family violence, theft from and of cars)
· Increase
community interaction to strengthen local relationships and connections
· Encourages
people to look out for each other
· Improve
communities perception of safety
· Community-led
initiative
· Increases
perceptions of safety
· Connected
neighbourhoods
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Does not
directly address top 5 safety priorities
· May be time
and resource intensive
|
|
Implementation:
· Led
by local neighbourhood groups
|
|
Option 7: Safety Day
|
Benefits:
· Depending on
programme may indirectly address all top five crime issues (burglary,
disorderly behaviour, family violence, theft from and of cars)
· An avenue to
promote Neighbours Day, burglary packs, distribute crime prevention
information, promote community safety messages and services and recruit
community volunteers
· Collaborative
initiative
· Improves
community perceptions of safety
· Improved
collaboration between safety groups and organisations
· Potential
increase in community safety awareness
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Resource
intensive in terms of planning and implementation
· Potential
limited community engagement unless well promoted or joined up with other
events
|
|
Implementation:
· Community organisations assisted by
council staff
|
|
Option 8: Safer Plates; number plate security screws
|
Benefits:
· Addresses
one of the top five crime types (car theft)
· Collaborative
project involving police and community volunteers groups (community patrols
and neighbourhood support)
· Improves
community perceptions of safety
· Increase
safety prevention measures
· Potential
reduction in car related crime
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Can become
expensive to fund significant numbers on an ongoing basis
|
|
Implementation:
· Police and
community safety groups as a pilot initiative
|
|
Initiative
|
Analysis
|
|
Option 9: Security Lighting, Dale Court, Pakuranga
|
Benefits:
· May
indirectly address one of the top five crime types (burglary)
· Improve
local perceptions of safety at night for the elderly residents
· Initiated
by residents, community driven
· Collaborative
project with Auckland Council Property unit
· Improved
sense of safety amongst older residents in Dale Court at night
|
|
Disadvantages:
· May be
expensive to fund significant numbers, depending on other similar social
housing demands
|
|
Implementation:
· Cost to
install 16 sensor lights - $2,848
|
|
Option 10: Volunteers Campaign
|
Benefits:
· May address
all top five crime issues (burglary, disorderly behaviour, family violence,
theft from and of cars)
· Community
led initiative
· May
increase number of community safety volunteers
· Improves community
perceptions of safety
· May
encourage a culture of community volunteerism
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Requires a
coordinated plan to implement effective campaign
· Little
impact for time and resource invested
|
|
Implementation:
· Collaborative
campaign involving different community groups
|
13. Each initiative was assessed against the following
criteria: addresses at least one of the five top crime types; resident or
community led; collaborative; vehicle safety ‘hot spot’ area; and improve
perceptions of safety. The four initiatives in Table 3 aligned strongly with
the criteria, therefore staff recommend these are funded by the local board, as
they are collaborative; address at least one of the
five major crime types; are community led; and will improve community
perceptions of safety. They will assist the local board to achieve their
outcome of ‘an involved and connected community’. Please refer to Attachment A
for budget information.
Table 3: Recommended
community safety initiatives
|
Option
|
Initiative
|
Lead Organisation
|
Amount
|
|
1
|
Asian
Foot Patrol (Lin An Dui)
|
Asian
Council on Reducing Crime
|
$ 4,000
|
|
5
|
Two
Community Safety Breakfasts
|
Manukau
East Council of Social Services Incorporated
|
$ 5,000
|
|
8
|
Safer
Plates
|
Howick
Neighbourhood Support
|
$ 4,000
|
|
9
|
Security
Lighting – Dale Court, Pakuranga
|
DTZ
Group NZ
|
$ 2,848
|
|
TOTAL
|
$ 15,848
|
14. There is a remaining unallocated safety budget of $15,152. The
Howick Local Board may choose to allocate this to further safety funding in
early 2016 and can request staff to present further options for consideration.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
15. On
23 September 2015, all safety initiatives were presented at a local board
workshop where members agreed in principle with the four recommended options.
Māori impact statement
16. The
safety initiatives promote rangatiratanga to enhance leadership for community
groups and increase participation and ownership of community safety concerns in
the Howick Local Board area.
17. The
safety initiatives align to manaakitanga through adding value to Maori
wellbeing by improving people’s perceptions, understanding and application of
safety prevention measures.
Implementation
18. If
the recommended initiatives are adopted by the local board, staff will prepare
funding agreements and contracts for organisations selected for delivery.
Monitoring of delivery will happen through funding agreement accountability
measures.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Attachment A - Budget
|
21
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Rosetta Fuimaono - Specialist Advisor, Community
Empowerment
Mark Evans – Practice Manager Operations, Community
Empowerment
|
|
Authorisers
|
Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and
Events
Angeline Barlow - Relationship Manager
|
