Agenda of Governing Body - 23 November 2017

Terms of Reference

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate

(b) the power to make a bylaw

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation

(b) approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

(c) resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e) relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees

(f) approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Governing Body

23 November 2017

Mayoral Advisory Group for the First World War Centenary Memorial Project : Update on Te Takuahi

File No.: CP2017/23473

Purpose

1. To provide an update on progress made by the Mayor’s Advisory Group for the First World War Centenary Memorial Project and seek endorsement of a completion date for the project in mid-2019.

Executive summary

2. At its 27 July 2017 meeting the Governing Body confirmed ongoing oversight and governance of the First World War Centenary Memorial Project.

3. A Mayor’s Advisory Group was appointed to oversee fundraising initiatives, stakeholder management and communications for the project. It was also delegated responsibility to consider possible alternative dates for recommendation back to the Governing Body. The Mayor’s Advisory Group has worked with staff and design consortium Wraight Athfield Landscape Architecture (WALA) with artist Ross Hemera, to review the timeline for completing the project.

4. A key element to Auckland’s centenary is commemorating peace. Celebrations took place in Auckland over three days in July 1919 and it is envisaged that the First World War Centenary Memorial (Te Takuahi) will be a focus point for commemorating peace in Auckland in 2019.

5. Taking into account detailed design, consent requirements, construction (including allowances for winter weather) and use of Auckland Domain for scheduled events, the Mayor’s Advisory Group recommends a completion date of mid-2019.

6. The Mayor’s Advisory Group is pursuing a fundraising programme for the remaining project budget.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the Mayor’s Advisory Group update on the status of the First World War Centenary Memorial Project.

b) approve the Mayor’s Advisory Group recommendation to confirm a project completion date of mid-2019.

Comments

Background

7. In June 2015, the Governing Body approved a budget allocation for a First World War centenary memorial to be constructed in Auckland Domain. In early 2016, the Governing Body endorsed the selection of a preferred concept design known as Te Takuahi – The Hearth, led by Wraight Athfield Landscape Architecture with artist Ross Hemera. At its 27 July 2017 meeting, the Governing Body confirmed oversight and governance for the project would be undertaken and delivered directly by the Governing Body.

8. The purpose of Te Takuahi is not to duplicate the commemorative function offered by the many First World War memorials found throughout Auckland (and New Zealand). It is intended to reflect the impact of the war on Auckland and Aucklanders.

9. Te Takuahi will be set into the grassy slopes fronting the Auckland War Memorial Museum. It uses existing and constructed contours of the landscape to create an area of peaceful reflection that carries memories inscribed (in words) in the stonework.

Theme, completion and commemoration

10. Te Takuahi has been designed to commemorate the whole of society impacted by the First World War. Its theme of ‘keeping the home fires burning’ reflects in particular upon those who stayed behind in Auckland and suffered the hardship and loses associated with the conflict. It marks the end of a time of war and the hope of peace that followed.

11. The Mayor’s Advisory Group was tasked with considering a recommendation for an alternative date for completing the project. After reviewing the overall Auckland WWI centenary programme, which includes commemorating peace in July 2019, and taking into consideration detailed design and consent requirements; construction, including a contractor procurement process and allowances in the construction schedule for winter weather limitations; and the already-planned use of this area of the Auckland Domain for scheduled events such as the commemorative Fields of Remembrance Trust (October-November 2018), a mid-2019 completion date is both realistic and appropriate.

12. The Mayor’s Advisory Group’s proposal is to have work completed and revealed on or around the centenary of the 1919 Auckland peace celebrations (in July 2019). This would also coincide with the 100th anniversary of the significant peace commemorations across New Zealand from 19-21 July 1919, and align with Auckland’s First World War Centenary programme of commemorating this event and celebrating peace.

Budget and Fundraising

13. Following the council’s initial allocation of $1 million to this project, it was anticipated that further funding would be sought from grants and philanthropy. A New Zealand Lotteries grant of $655,000 has been secured and the estimated project cost is expected to be around $3 million.

14. In July 2017, the Mayor’s Advisory Group was tasked with providing leadership and support for fundraising efforts. Fundraising discussion, instigated by the Mayor’s Advisory Group, is underway and will be reported to the Governing Body once agreements are in place.

15. The revised completion date of mid-2019 will enable further funding applications and approaches to be made to potential funders, including those whose grant decision announcements are expected in mid-2018, with payments scheduled for the 2018/2019 financial year.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. Auckland Domain sits within the Waitematā Local Board area. The Waitematā Local Board is represented on the Mayor’s Advisory Group. No additional views have been sought from the Waitematā Local Board.

Māori impact statement

17. Consultation with mana whenua has occurred throughout the project, with the following iwi expressing direct interest

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Akitai

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Tamatera confirm they will be represented by Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara confirmed they will be represented by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

18. The council’s project team has made an ongoing commitment to keep mana whenua informed of progress with the project and continue engagement as it evolves. No concerns have been raised with respect to the project to date.

19. A member of Independent Māori Statutory Board is a member of the Mayor’s Advisory Group.

Implementation

20. Implementation of the project’s various phases will aim to align with Auckland Domain Masterplan implementation, such as improvements to adjacent vehicle, pedestrian and cycling routes. The construction stages will consider significant WWI Commemoration activities such as Armistice Day 2018 and Anzac Day 2019.

21. The following indicative timeline involves concurrent developed design, resource consent and fundraising processes to ensure no time is lost and preparations are in place for a summer 2018 to autumn 2019 construction season.

Timeline

Key Steps	Indicative completion
Developed design, including ongoing engagement with stakeholders to inform the design process	November 2017
Preparation and submission of resource consent application detailed design and specification	November 2017
External fundraising	June 2018
Contractor procurement	March 2018
Works on site	Summer 2018 – Autumn 2019
Official opening	June/July 2019

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Kaye Oliver – Senior Advisor – Special Projects, Heritage

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Ian Maxwell - Director Community Services

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 November 2017

Auckland Council response to the Remuneration Authority consultation document 'Local Government Review'.

File No.: CP2017/23718

Purpose

1. To agree the Auckland Council response to the Remuneration Authority’s consultation document ‘Local Government Review’.

Executive summary

2. The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) is consulting local authorities on proposals outlined in its consultation document ‘Local Government Review’. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Authority also wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards have been provided the opportunity to respond as well as the Governing Body. The Auckland Council submission will include the local board submissions as attachments.

4. A significant change contained within the proposals is as follows:

(i) each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the Mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v) there is relativity between Mayoral and parliamentary salaries, with the Auckland Mayor being paid no more than a Cabinet Minister.

5. The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions.

6. The proposals do not impact on the expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings.

7. The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the consultation document and quotes the questions. Comments from local boards are included and comments from staff highlight issues the Governing Body might wish to consider. The consultation document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8. A draft submission is provided in Attachment B.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the proposed submission in Attachment B as the Auckland Council response to the Remuneration Authority on its consultation document ‘Local Government Review’

b) authorise the General Manger Democracy Services to make minor editorial changes prior to sending the submission to the Remuneration Authority

c) authorise the Deputy Mayor to to approve any amendments to the submission arising as a result of the discussion at this meeting.

Comments

The Remuneration Authority is consulting with local government on how it sets remuneration

9. The Authority has circulated a consultation document entitled ‘Local Government Review’ with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. The document, in Attachment A, outlines proposed changes to the Authority’s approach to setting determinations on remuneration.

10. The Authority states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council. That separate consultation document is yet to be received.

11. The Authority is seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards have been provided the opportunity to respond. We received comments from 20 local boards (Henderson-Massey Local Board were to finalise theirs at their meeting on 21 November 2017), which are discussed in the body of the report. A number of local boards based their submission on a draft combined submission that was circulated to boards. That draft submission is contained in Attachment C and individual local board submissions are in Attachment D. Submissions from local boards will be attached to the Governing Body submission when it is sent to the Authority.

12. Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv) the Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5 per cent for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13. The Authority is proposing changes to this system.

14. This report summarises the content of each section of the consultation document and quotes the questions the Remuneration Authority has asked. Relevant local board comments are noted and comments from staff highlight issues the governing body might wish to consider.

How the Authority proposes to establish council size

15. The consultation document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights, as a proxy for the demands visitors place on services.

16. For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

17. For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5 per cent loading would not apply.

18. Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the consultation document.

19. Local board comments:

(i) Most local board submissions are based on the combined submission in Attachment C. Their view is that the remuneration of local board members should be primarily based on clearly defined roles and responsibilities with factors such as population only being used to provide additional remuneration where this is appropriate. The combined submission sets out roles and responsibilities. Most boards are happy with the way remuneration is currently set.

(ii) The Manurewa and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards support remuneration being based on roles and responsibilities but do not support additional factors.

(iii) The Waiheke Local Board makes a comprehensive case that there should be more equity between boards given that responsibilities are similar regardless of populations. All board chairs are expected to be full-time yet there is a disparity in remuneration. Waiheke also submits there should be an additional factor based on visitor numbers.

20. Staff comments:

(i) For the governing bodies of territorial authorities, there are differences between the demands and accountabilities of members of large councils like Auckland and small councils. It is appropriate to recognise those factors that have a direct bearing on the governing body’s responsibilities.

(ii) Prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth. In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

“The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses.”

(iii) In terms of the Authority’s definition of council size (“the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”) staff believe there is a case for the Authority to again include a factor reflecting growth. For Auckland, its growth, and the subsequent demands for housing, infrastructure and public transport, are not just items that are reflected in expenditure, but are also reflected in the council’s ability to work with government and develop planning solutions in a context where there are conflicting views on what those solutions should be.

21. Proposed submission:

(i) We do not see any issue with the proposed factors for setting size but recommend that an additional growth factor be included.

(ii) The submission draws attention to the points made by the Waiheke Local Board that guest nights are not a good measure of visitor numbers for Waiheke because most visitors are day-trippers who also place significant demands on services.

22. The consultation document proposes weighting the sizing factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

· population

· operational expenditure

· assets

· deprivation index

· visitor nights.

Regional councils:

· operational expenditure

· geographic size

· assets

· population

· visitor nights.

Unitary authorities:

· population

· operational expenditure

· geographic size

· assets

· deprivation index

· visitor nights.

Weighting of council size factors

Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:
• Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?
• If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

23. Local board comments:

Local boards have not commented on the relative weighting of these factors, other than that they should be secondary to assessing the roles and responsibilities of the positions.

24. Staff comments:

If growth is included as a factor for setting size, its relative weighting should be less than population, operational expenditure, geographic size and assets and similar to deprivation index and visitor nights.

25. Proposed submission

Include growth as a factor for setting size with a relative weighting that is similar to deprivation index and visitor nights.

Should mayoral remuneration be full-time?

26. Mayors are considered to be full-time positions. The consultation document proposes that a base rate would be determined for the Mayor and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Authority would set the Mayor’s salary.

Remuneration Authority questions on mayoral remuneration:
• Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?
• If not, how should they be treated?
• Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?
• If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

27. Local board comments:

Local boards have not commented on these questions.

28. Proposed submission:

For Auckland Council, the role of the mayor is treated as full-time. Responsibilities have not diminished since prior determinations. There is no rationale for making a change.

Proposed pool for councillor remuneration

29. A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the Mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75 per cent majority vote would be required. The Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

30. The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

31. Local board comments:

(i) The local boards who have considered the Authority’s proposal universally disagree with this proposal. They do not agree with the principle of local authorities proposing their own remuneration based on a pool. They believe the proposal compromises the ideal of remuneration being set by an independent authority.

(ii) If the Authority proceeds with its pool proposal, the boards state that proposals for how to allocate the pool should be made by the boards and not by the Governing Body.

(iii) Most boards stated that the current way remuneration is set independently should be retained.

32. Staff comments:

(i) A key benefit of this proposal is that the council would have discretion over recognising different positions of responsibility. For councillors, the only positions of responsibility that are currently recognised for additional payment are the Deputy Mayor and Chairs of committees of the whole. For local boards, only local board chairs are recognised for additional remuneration. The pool proposal would allow other positions to be recognised, but, since the pool is fixed, any additional positions recognised for remuneration would reduce the available pool for others.

(ii) However, the pool arrangement requires elected members to discuss their own remuneration in order to make a proposal to the Authority on how a pool would be allocated. Since the creation of Auckland Council, the setting of remuneration has been at arms-length and determined by the Authority, an independent body.

(iii) A side-effect of a pool arrangement is its effect on discussions about increasing or decreasing the number of members. (If members are increased and there is a fixed pool, then individual remuneration decreases.) The number of members in each local boards will be discussed as part of the representation review in 2018.

(iv) Staff have drafted the submission assuming that elected members would prefer to retain the system where remuneration is set independently and where remuneration is not a factor in discussing the number of members.

33. Proposed submission:

The proposed submission reflects a desire to maintain a system where remuneration is set independently.

Local board remuneration was not addressed in the consultation document

34. Local board remuneration was not addressed in the consultation document. Local boards have made comments about how their remuneration should be set and these will be included in the submission to the Authority.

Should external representation roles attract additional remuneration?

35. The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:
• Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

36. Local board comments:

Local boards have not provided feedback on this question.

37. Staff comments:

(i) There are many diverse bodies that elected members are appointed to, for example the Auckland Domain Committee, Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, Hauraki Gulf Forum, LGNZ, Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group, Town Hall Organ Trust, Trust Board of the Friends of the Auckland Botanic Gardens, Kaipara Joint Political Committee, Kaipara Moana Working Party, Mutukaroa Management Trust, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board, and the Maunga Authority, with some councillors being appointed to more than one body. These appointments are currently treated as part of the elected member role.

(ii) Governing Body members currently receive remuneration that is based on an assumption that the role is full-time. It might be difficult to make a case that, for Governing Body members, appointments to other bodies are in addition to the full-time role or, if included as part of the full-time role, require additional responsibility.

(iii) It also raises the issue of establishing the limits in recognising additional responsibility. Some members belong to more committees than other members. Should committee membership be recognised? Some members attend more workshops than others. If a member is remunerated for being appointed to an external organisation but does not attend all meetings, should the remuneration be reduced? Does being a member of the Maunga Authority, for example, have more responsibility than being a member of a community trust? Staff believe that being too fine-grained over recognising different levels of responsibility could create a very complex remuneration system.

(iv) Furthermore, the more additional responsibilities are recognised, the more the pool reduces, with less being available as a base rate.

(v) Auckland Council would require clear rules from the Remuneration Authority on when this would apply.

38. Proposed submission:

We recommend the status quo because of the complexity of recognising different levels of responsibility.

Should elected members on council-controlled organisation boards be paid?

39. The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to council-controlled organisations.

Remuneration Authority question on appointments to CCOs:
• Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

40. Local board comments:

Local boards have not provided feedback on this question.

41. Staff comments:

(i) Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive council-controlled organisations other than Auckland Transport.

(ii) On 10 November 2016, at the beginning of the new local government triennium, the Governing Body discussed the appointment of councillors to the Auckland Transport Board. It resolved that the primary consideration in filling the vacancies on the Auckland Transport board would be the quality of the skills, knowledge and experience candidates bring to the directorships and that governing body members would be eligible for nomination. [Resolution no GB/2016/257].

(iii) The Auckland Council Appointment and Remuneration Policy for Board Members of Council Organisations notes that in the event of appointment of elected members to Auckland Transport at the beginning of each triennium, the decision to remunerate elected members (and if so how much) will be determined at that time.

(iv) The policy also notes that elected members should not be appointed to non-substantive council-controlled organisations unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This is because council has a responsibility for monitoring the performance of these smaller entities.

42. Proposed submission:

The only substantive council-controlled organisation to which Auckland Council can appoint elected members is Auckland Transport. The council’s policy is that any board appointment should be made through an open, transparent and competitive process based on the skills, knowledge and experience of the candidates and remuneration. If a governing body member was to be appointed through that process in the first year of the triennium, then remuneration would be considered at that time.

Community boards

43. The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and will not comment on these proposals.

Comparing local government and central government remuneration

44. The consultation document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

45. The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

46. Staff comments:

(i) The Authority suggests that there is no other industry where remuneration is comparable to local government other than parliamentary remuneration. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland Mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland Mayor to that of a Cabinet Minister, other Mayors could be scaled accordingly.

(ii) The remuneration of members of parliament and of the executive are determined by the Authority, the same body that sets local government remuneration. It is well-placed to determine appropriate relativity. However, the remuneration of members of parliament and cabinet ministers is comprised not only of salaries, but also allowances that are not made available to local government elected members. This needs to be recognised when establishing benchmarks.

47. Proposed submission:

Supports selecting the remuneration of members of parliament, and of the executive, in order to benchmark mayoral remuneration.

The Authority proposes a triennial determination

48. A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools would be made around 1 July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on Statistics New Zealand’s Labour Market Statistics, which are produced quarterly.

Conclusion

49. If implemented these proposals would constitute a major change in remuneration setting for the elected members of Auckland Council. From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Authority.

50. In particular, the remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries which could be perceived as lacking independence.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

51. The consultation document has been reported to all local boards who have made separate submissions which will be attached to the Governing Body submission.

Māori impact statement

52. The Remuneration Authority’s proposals relate to all elected members and do not impact Māori differently to others.

Implementation

53. Following approval by the Governing Body, the submission will be conveyed to the Authority with the local board submissions attached.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Consultation document	41
b ⇩	Draft Governing Body submission	61
c ⇩	Local board combined submission	67
d ⇩	Summary of local board individual submissions	85

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

23 November 2017

Remuneration Authority

Consultation Document: Local Government Review

Auckland Council Governing Body Submission

Auckland Council thanks the Remuneration Authority for the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Authority’s processes for determining the remuneration of local government elected members.

As the Authority will be aware, the governance of Auckland Council comprises a unitary authority with a governing body of a mayor and twenty members, together with twenty-one local boards. Under the Auckland legislation the local boards must make all the decisions relating to the activities of the council that are local and non-regulatory. The consultation document refers to community boards but does not refer local boards. It is important to note that local boards are different to community boards in important respects.

All local boards have had the opportunity to make submissions on the consultation document. The local board submissions are attached.

The consultation document makes proposals and invites feedback on specific questions. The submission from the Auckland Council governing body is set out below under those questions.

Council size

The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

· Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

· Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

· When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

The council notes that in previous years, ‘growth’ was included as a factor. Those councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth. In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

“The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses.”

In terms of the Authority’s definition of council size (“the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”) the council believes there is a case for the Authority to again include a factor reflecting growth. For Auckland, its growth, and subsequent demands for housing, infrastructure and public transport, are not just items that are reflected in expenditure, but are also reflected in the council’s ability to work with government and develop planning solutions in a context where there are conflicting views on what those solutions should be.

The Authority has suggested adding a factor to take visitors into account. It proposes this should be measured by guest nights. The council draws the attention of the Authority to the comments of the Waiheke Local Board in regard to its experience of having influxes of visitors who do not stay overnight.

Weighting

The discussion document proposes weighting the sizing factors differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

· If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit?

If the Authority agrees that a factor reflecting growth should be included, its weighting would be similar to that of deprivation index and visitor nights.

Mayoral remuneration

The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

· If not, how should they be treated?

· Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

The Auckland mayoral position is currently treated as full-time and there is no rationale to suggest that this should change. The council notes that the Authority raises the question of mayoral remuneration later in its document when it discusses possible relativities. Any additional comments on mayoral remuneration are made under that section.

Councillor remuneration

The document proposes that a total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75% majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

· If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

· Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

The pool arrangement requires elected members to discuss their own remuneration in order to make a proposal to the Authority on how a pool would be allocated. Since the creation of Auckland Council, the setting of remuneration has been at arms-length and determined by the Remuneration Authority, an independent body. The council, along with local boards, believes that remuneration should continue to be set independently and that elected members should not be involved in making proposals on how a pool should be allocated.

The council is also aware of undesirable incentives that a pool might create. Particularly when reviewing membership as part of a review of representation arrangements. A fixed remuneration pool creates an incentive to reduce, or at least to not increase, the number of members. While the governing body cannot currently review the number of members of the governing body, the membership of local boards will be reviewed in the statutory review of representation arrangements to be conducted in 2018.

External representation roles

The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

· Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

In a city the size of Auckland there are many bodies that elected members liaise with or get appointed to. Introducing the possibility of remuneration could lead to an overly complex remuneration structure.

Governing body members currently receive remuneration that is based on an assumption that the role is full-time. It might be difficult to make a case that, for governing body members, appointments to other bodies are in addition to the full-time role or, if included as part of the full-time role, require additional responsibility.

It also begs the question of where are the limits in recognising additional responsibility. Some members belong to more committees than other members. Should committee membership be recognised? Some members attend more workshops than others. If a member is remunerated for being appointed to an external organisation but does not attend all meetings, should the remuneration be reduced? Does being a member of the Maunga Authority, for example, have more responsibility than being a member of a community trust? Auckland Council believes that being too fine-grained over recognising different levels of responsibility could create a very complex remuneration system.

The council prefers that members are remunerated by way of salary which covers all of the members’ obligations.

Appointments to CCOs

The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

Remuneration Authority question on appointments to CCOs:

· Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

The Auckland Council cannot make appointments of elected members to its substantive CCOs other than to Auckland Transport. The position of the council is that if any member wishes to seek appointment to Auckland Transport then the member is able to put themselves forward for appointment through the same competitive process as outside candidates. If a governing body member was to be appointed through that process at the beginning of the triennium, then remuneration would be considered at that time.

In regard to the smaller non-substantive CCOs, the council’s position is that elected members will not be appointed unless there is a compelling reason.

Local government pay scale

The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

The Authority suggests that there is no other industry where remuneration is comparable to local government other than parliamentary remuneration. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors could be scaled accordingly.

The remuneration of members of parliament and of the executive are determined by the Remuneration Authority, the same body that sets local government remuneration. It is well-placed to determine appropriate relativity. However, the remuneration of members of parliament and cabinet ministers comprises not only salaries but also allowances that are not made available to local government elected members and this needs to be recognised when establishing benchmarks.

Governing Body

23 November 2017

Combined Local Board Submission

Remuneration Authority

Consultation Document: Local Government Review

Executive summary

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards and 149 local board members, have a significant and wide-ranging governance role. We are independent governance entities with decision-making responsibility for local activities, issues and facilities, as well as providing the local input into regional policies, plans and decisions. We have responsibility for significant operating and capital budgets and are fully accountable for the decisions we make.

The manner in which local board members are remunerated is of critical importance to us and the communities we serve. After 7 years of experience with Auckland Council’s governance model, we have the depth of knowledge to advise on the potential implications of the remuneration proposals put forward by the Remuneration Authority We also note that Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for its elected members, including local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs. The responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood.

The workload and responsibilities of each local board, and as a result, local board members, chairs and deputy chairs, are primarily driven by statutory and allocated roles and responsibilities. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards are required to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. While there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on factors such as those proposed by the Remuneration Authority (namely population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights), we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. As such, we submit that the roles and responsibilities of local boards should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards. A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority. We believe this approach would negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities we serve. It provides uncertainty about remuneration to potential local board candidates, makes local board remuneration a political issue, and may well cause unnecessary conflict and tension between elected members (and particularly with the governing body if it is the decision-making body).

Given the considerable work undertaken by Auckland Council to clearly define and articulate the roles and responsibilities of local board members, including chairs and deputy chairs, we believe that the Remuneration Authority has sufficient information and clarity to make a determination. Therefore, we strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority should continue its current practice of transparently and independently setting the rates of remuneration for local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs.

We are firmly of the view that the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to reflect the fulltime commitment required of this role. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs and as such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority. We also submit that the Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role, as demonstrated by Auckland Council’s recent work to develop a detailed role and capability description for this role.

Introduction

About local boards

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards (comprising 149 local board members) have a significant and wide ranging role. Local boards are independent governance entities and for some purposes, are considered to be local authorities. We have decision-making responsibility for local issues, activities, services and facilities. We are fully accountable for the decisions we make, without any involvement or oversight of Auckland Council’s governing body. We also have a key advocacy role in regional decisions and policies. In particular local boards:

· help make local government accessible to Aucklanders

· make governance decisions on local activities, issues and services

· develop and adopt local board plans every three years, to reflect the aspirations and priorities of local communities

· prioritise expenditure in local board budgets and monitor delivery of projects and spending against budget

· work with mana whenua and mataawaka

· develop annual local board agreements

· engage with communities and express views and preferences on their behalf to the governing body on region-wide strategies, plans and bylaws

· develop relationships with key stakeholders including community organisations, sports and recreation organisations and special interest groups

· propose local bylaws and local targeted rates

· work with council-controlled organisations on services they provide in the local board area.

The extent of the local board governance role is reflected in the Annual Budget. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the combined annual operating budget of local boards is $287,444,000. The combined capital budget is $172,888,000. As well, some local boards are bigger in terms of both budget and the population they serve, than other New Zealand local authorities.

The governance role of local boards, and as a result, local board members, is a significant one. When considering local board remuneration, the nature and extent of this governance role, and the demands associated with it, are key factors. After seven years of experience with this model of governance, local boards have a good understanding of these demands and are well equipped to advise on the implications of the Remuneration Authority’s proposal as it relates to local board members.

About local board members

Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for all its elected members. These have been developed in consultation with and have the agreement of elected members from both arms of Auckland Council’s shared governance model. The role and capability descriptions for local board chairs, deputy chairs and local board members, all require a considerable time commitment (see Appendix A for the full role and capability descriptions). These roles are as follows.

· Local board chair: The role of local board chair is a full-time position requiring substantial additional commitment to that of other local board members. It involves civic leadership and is the most high-profile role in the local board. The chair has broad oversight of the local board’s activities and is called upon to undertake additional tasks, such as fronting media enquiries and representing the local board at a regional level. The chair is also responsible for leading local board meetings and workshops.

· Local board deputy chair: Each local board elects a deputy chair. Deputy chairs form part of the local board’s leadership team and assume significantly more responsibilities than other local board members. To meet the expectations of their role, deputy chairs are generally undertaking well in excess of the 20 hours per week time commitment expected of other local board members.

· Local board members: The workload of local boards is extensive. As a result, local board members can expect to spend around 20 to 25 hours per week on local board business. The role involves a mix of daytime and night-time commitments. Annual business such as plan development and hearings mean the job is also busier at certain times of the year.

These are significant governance roles requiring considerable commitment and as a result, limit the capacity to undertake additional employment. The manner in which local board members are remunerated is therefore, an important issue.

Factors to be used in sizing local board member remuneration

The Remuneration Authority is proposing a mix of population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights to be used when sizing local authorities for the purposes of determining remuneration. However, while there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on these factors, we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. Due to the statutory and allocated responsibilities of local boards, the workload and responsibilities of each local board, and particularly chairs and deputy chairs, are very similar. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards have to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. For example, all local boards are required to prepare local board plans and local board agreements. They are all responsible for significant local activities, issues, facilities and services. All local boards are required to input into a multitude of regional policies and plans, as well as work with council-controlled organisations on issues relevant to their areas. These are significant undertakings required of all local boards, irrespective of issues such as size of population, operating expenditure or asset base.

Collectively, the roles and responsibilities required of all local boards have the most impact on workload and should be the predominant factor when allocating a base level of remuneration across Auckland Council’s local boards. Each local board role (member, chair, deputy chair) should be sized and a base level of remuneration allocated to that role. The other proposed factors (population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights) would then be used to provide additional levels of remuneration to particular local boards, if appropriate. This approach should apply to the current remuneration practice, which determines the level of remuneration by role, as well as any proposed remuneration pool.

Submission:

· The roles and responsibilities of local boards have the most significant influence on the workload of local board members (including chairs and deputy chairs) and should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards.

· A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

Local board member remuneration

We strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority’s proposal of a remuneration pool is not in the best interests of local board members and will negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities they serve. Our reasons are set out below.

Certainty

Certainty regarding remuneration is an important issue for potential local board candidates. Currently, candidates know the remuneration they will receive if successful and can plan accordingly. This certainty is also relevant to a local board member’s decision-making process at the start of the electoral term when considering a potential role as a chair or deputy chair of a local board. The proposed remuneration pool will create uncertainty, as the actual level of remuneration for specific local board roles will not be set until after the local government election. This uncertainty has the potential to discourage potential candidates. It may also disadvantage local board members who sought re-election based on certain remuneration expectations which are not met when decisions regarding allocation of the remuneration pool are made. Financial hardship could occur as a result, particularly for those candidates who have reduced their hours of work elsewhere to become a local board member.

Independence and transparency

The remuneration pool approach has the potential to make local board member remuneration a political issue. It removes the current transparency and independence provided by the Remuneration Authority. If the level of remuneration is determined by the governing body, it has the potential to undermine the autonomy of local boards and cause unnecessary conflict and tension between the governing body and local boards. If it is determined by each individual local board (with a remuneration pool allocated at the individual local board level), it has the potential to cause conflict within the local board, particularly if there are discrepancies in how individual local board members are remunerated. It may also result in significant inconsistencies between local boards in remuneration levels for similar roles, which may negatively affect relationships between local boards.

Adequacy of information

Prior to 2017, the role definition for Auckland Council’s elected members was underdeveloped. Auckland Council has undertaken significant work over the last two years to define the roles and capabilities required of its elected members. This includes local board chairs, deputy chairs, and members. We are confident that the responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood. As such, we believe there is now sufficient information and clarity on roles for the Remuneration Authority to continue with its current practice of setting the rates of remuneration. While some differences may occur in terms of the specific workloads of individual local board members, the expectations of the various local board roles are clear. Workload issues and discrepancies are best addressed internally within each local board as part of its management of performance, rather than as a remuneration matter.

Submission:

· We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority.

· We believe that the current regime, where remuneration is transparently determined by an independent authority, is preferable and should continue, and that there is sufficient clarity on roles to enable the Remuneration Authority to make its determination.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then:

o We believe the remuneration pool should be allocated to each individual local board for its determination, rather than to the governing body;

o Each additional position of responsibility, above the base local board role, should have a formal role description; and

o Each local board should be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all of its positions.

Local board chair remuneration

The local board chair has a leadership role, with broad oversight of all local board activities. The chair is called upon to undertake many additional tasks, such as chairing local board meetings and workshops, representing the local board at a regional level, fronting media enquiries, and representing the local board at civic and community events. The role of the local board chair requires a fulltime commitment. This is reflected in the current remuneration set by the Remuneration Authority. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure, and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs. As such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the roles and capabilities required.

Submission:

· The local board chair role should continue to be treated as fulltime and remunerated accordingly.

· The current approach to determining the remuneration for local board chairs should continue.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then the remuneration for local board chairs should be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the role and capabilities required of a local board chair.

Local board deputy chair remuneration

Local board deputy chairs have a major role, which extends beyond that of a local board member. As well as chairing meetings and assuming the role of the chair when the chair is absent or unavailable, they provide leadership, governance and decision-making support to the chair and the local board as a whole. A role and capability description has been developed, which demonstrates an expectation that deputy chairs will commit to a workload well in excess of the 20 hours per week expected of local board members. However, currently deputy chairs receive no additional remuneration for this additional responsibility and workload, which significantly disadvantages those local board members who are prepared to accept this leadership role. We strongly urge the Remuneration Authority to set a rate of remuneration for deputy chairs which reflects the additional responsibilities and workload assumed by local board deputy chairs.

Submission:

· The Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role.

Governing Body

23 November 2017

Appendix A

Context

Auckland Council has a unique two-part governance structure, made up of the governing body and local boards. The governing body comprises of the mayor (elected at large) and 20 governing body members (councillors) elected from 13 wards. There are 21 local boards, each of five to nine members elected from the local area (a total of 149 members).

Governing body members and local board chairs are a full-time role, while local board members are a part- time commitment.

The role of the mayor is to articulate and promote a vision for Auckland and to provide leadership towards that vision, including leading the development of the council’s plans (including the long-term plan and the Auckland Plan), policies and budgets.

The governing body focuses on Auckland-wide strategic decisions including strategies, policies, plans, regulations and activities. The governing body also appoints the chief executive and governs the council-controlled organisations.

Local boards set local direction through the local board plans, represent their local communities and make decisions on most local issues, activities and facilities. Local boards also provide input to the governing body on regional decisions and on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.

Decisions of the local boards and the governing body are decisions of Auckland Council. The chief executive has management responsibility, delegated by the elected members, for implementing the direction and decisions of the governing body and the local boards.

The elected member role is therefore a governance one.

The governing body member role

The following provides an outline of the governing body member role.

Provide regional strategic leadership and direction

· Consider the Mayor’s proposal for plans and budgets, and together with the Mayor, set direction through regional strategies, policies and plans including the Auckland Plan, long-term plan and Unitary Plan

· Balance a wide range of considerations and perspectives to provide the best possible outcomes for Auckland as a whole

· Bring views on the future of Auckland into the collective vision-making process

· Set direction for the council-controlled organisations and appoint their directors

Make decisions on regional matters

· Make decisions, without bias, that take into account social, cultural, environmental and economic matters for the benefit of all Aucklanders, both now and in the future

· Make financially responsible decisions that ensure Auckland Council has a sound financial future

· Adopt regional strategies, policies and plans and consider the views of local boards before adopting regional policies and plans or making a decision which affects the communities in a local board area Allocate non-regulatory decision-making powers to local boards

· Appoint the chief executive of Auckland Council

· Debate issues and consider all views, but once a decision is made, respect the democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Work collaboratively with other councillors, the mayor’s office, the local boards, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and the advisory panels

· Create a strong working relationship with council’s Executive Leadership Team and the council-controlled organisation executive teams and board members

Engage with communities

· Engage with the community, interest groups and organisations, particularly about regional strategies, plans and policies

· Be aware of and interested in ward issues, including attend local events, meetings and local board meetings

· Respond to requests from constituents

· Develop relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori wellbeing

· Take part in overseas delegations to promote Auckland’s interests and relationships

· Represent Auckland Council at civic other events

· Oversee hearings as part of formal public consultation

Monitor performance

· Oversee the council’s regulatory activities, consenting and bylaws

· Monitor and review performance of the organisation to ensure regional outcomes and priorities are achieved

· Oversee emergency management processes and protocols

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the committee chair

In addition to the above

· Provide leadership and inspire the committee to achieve its priorities

· Encourage an environment of collaboration and respectful debate

· Represent the committee, and the wider Auckland Council, on the committee’s work

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair committee meetings efficiently and in accordance with standing orders, terms of reference, and the elected members’ code of conduct

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Ensure committee members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account (noting that the Mayor plays this leadership role for the governing body as a whole)

The local board member role

Provide civic leadership locally

· This is the fundamental purpose of the role of a local board member. It is about making a positive difference to communities and shaping local places

· The points below are the elements that enable a local board member to achieve this.

Set local direction and deliver priorities

· Work with the community to identify a vision, outcomes and priorities in the local board plan that take into account the Auckland Plan and council’s overall financial position

· Set a work programme based on the local board plan and the local board agreement within the available budget (noting that the agreement must not be inconsistent with regional strategies and policies)

· Work pro-actively with the local community and partner with others to deliver shared aspirations

· Consider the national and regional context, including relevant legislation, when setting strategic direction

Make decisions on local matters

· Make decisions without bias for the benefit of the whole community (not just particular groups) and for both current and future generations

· Debate issues but once the local board makes a decision, respect democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

· Maintain a broad view and check that the overall direction remains appropriate

Input to regional decisions, policies, plans and strategies

· Provide views to the governing body to inform their regional decisions, including input to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Recognise that the governing body makes regional decisions and once they are made, these are decisions of Auckland Council, of which the local boards are a part

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Build relationships and work collaboratively with other local boards, the governing body and the mayor

· Build relationships across the council family, including council staff and council-controlled organisations

Promote strong, resilient and engaged communities

· Develop relationships and understanding with mana whenua, mataawaka and the range of people, groups, organisations and businesses in the area.

· Work proactively with the local community, encouraging and enabling them to have influence, get involved and work together

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori well-being

· Oversee local hearings as part of formal public consultation

· Represent Auckland Council at civic and public events

Represent members of the local community

· Represent all members of the local community by actively seeking and sharing their views with others and, advocating on their behalf

· Communicate with members of the local community in an open and appropriate way

· Advise members of the local community on the appropriate council channels to address their issues and concerns (provide the bridge between the council and the community)

Monitor the organisation’s progress and report to the public

· Monitor progress and review performance to ensure the organisation achieves the local board’s outcomes and priorities.

· Be accountable to the public by explaining council processes and reporting progress against outcomes and priorities

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the local board chair

In addition to the above

· Provide strong leadership and inspire the local board

· Build and maintain relationships to develop a collegial local board that is able to work effectively together and reach consensus to deliver the local board’s vision and priorities

· Be accountable for the local board relationship with iwi (chief-to-chief)

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair local board meetings effectively abiding by standing orders and the code of conduct

· Represent the local board, and the wider Auckland Council as appropriate, including in a civic and community role (such as citizenship ceremonies) and as the spokesperson to the media

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Work with the governing body and council committees to provide local board input to regional decisions and to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Ensure local board members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account

The role of the local board deputy chair

The chair and deputy chair collectively form the leadership team for the local board.

In addition to the local board member role, the local board deputy chair has the following roles.

Chairing and attending meetings	· Assumes leadership responsibility for chairing local board meetings and workshops (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair). · Shares the leadership responsibility for attending meetings and workshops on behalf of the local board (in the absence of the Chair or as agreed with the Chair).
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works with the Chair to provide strong and inspiring leadership to the local board and to support the achievement of agreed local board outcomes and priorities. · Supports the Chair by acting as a sounding board and sharing knowledge, experience, and workload.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Promotes the principles and processes of good governance and decision making by encouraging the provision of quality advice, sharing of information, and open, inclusive and robust discussion and debate amongst local board members.
Team and capability building	· Strives to build strong and collaborative working relationships within the local board. · Supports local board members in their roles and activities, including mentoring less experienced or new local board members.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Works with the Chair to develop strong relationships with the community, stakeholders, staff, and other elected members. · Shares the leadership responsibility for representing the local board at civic, community and council events and with the media (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair).
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Undertakes specific decision-making roles as delegated by the local board. · Undertakes specific activities delegated by the local board.

Capabilities (knowledge and skills) for all elected members

Quality decision-making

· Make good decisions based on a combination of staff advice, community views, wisdom, experience and informed judgement

· Understand and interpret information

· Be open minded, apply critical thinking and ask the right questions at the right time to test and challenge advice

· Take a broad view and balance considerations and conflicting opinions while putting aside personal bias

· Be financially prudent and have an eye to risk

Political acumen

· Understand the political environment as well as the respective roles of governors and management

· Use influence and persuasion to mobilise and proactively engage in the political environment

· Manoeuvre through complex political situations effectively and respectfully

· Aware of all stakeholders and their different needs

Leadership

· Provide leadership and direction and makes things happen to achieve the vision and outcomes

· Put energy and focus into the higher priorities

· Show leadership by continuously developing skills and knowledge, supporting others to do so and being open to feedback

Cultural awareness

· Understands and empathise with different people and cultures within the Auckland community

· Respect and embrace differences and diversity in a non-judgemental way

· Support equal and fair treatment and opportunity for all

· Understand tikanga Māori, the Māori Responsiveness Framework and the council’s responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi

· Makes an effort to support and use Māori and other languages where possible and appropriate

· Respectfully participates in cultural activities and ceremonies when required

Strategic thinking

· Understand Auckland’s needs and priorities and the links between local, regional, national and global perspectives

· Consider multiple aspects and impacts of an issue or opportunity

· Understand possible future scenarios, options and consequences and see connections across issues and opportunities

Knowledge and understanding of Auckland Council and local government

· Understand Auckland Council’s governance model and the role of the Mayor, the governing body and local boards (in particular the allocation of decision making)

· Understand and comply with relevant legislation

· Understand council’s processes (such as decision-making and policy development) and know how to influence appropriately

· Understand and abide by the Standing Orders and Terms of Reference and support the chair in using the Standing Orders

· Understand council’s key strategies, policies and plans as well as topical issues

· Understand the council organisation including the council-controlled organisation model and how to work with CCOs

· Understand central government’s policy and legislative framework, and how it affects the council

· Understand the council’s financial language, budgets and processes

Communication and engagement

· Relate well and build rapport and trust with people from all parts of the community and within the council

· Use diplomacy and tact to put others at ease. Is easy to approach and talk to

· Seek the input of others, shares ideas and engages in active listening

· Diffuse high-tension situations with confidence and respect and facilitate respectfully to reach acceptable resolutions

· Consult and engage with the whole community

· Is effective and comfortable in a variety of engagement settings, e.g. one-on-one, small and large, public and internal facing groups

· Speaks well in a range of forums with a range of people from different backgrounds and cultures

· Represent and promote council in a measured, unified and dignified light and avoid risks to council’s reputation

· Work effectively with the media, as appropriate

Relationship building and collaboration

· Build productive relationships and support within the community and with other organisations to create and deliver on the vision and outcomes

· Work to find common ground and solve problems for the benefit of all

· Represent their own views with respect, empathy and fairness to other groups or perspectives

· Able to agree to disagree and accept and own decisions and outcomes

Resilience

· Manage time, prioritise and be flexible

· Cope with the pressures of being in the public eye

Ethics and values

· Understand and uphold the code of conduct and relevant policies that guide appropriate behaviour for elected members

· Understand and model the council values and behaviours and discourage unethical behaviour

· Work respectfully with council staff, and others, and value their roles

Integrity and trust

· Widely trusted, keeps confidences and respects the confidentiality of information provided

· Seen as an honest, fair and open-minded elected member

· Take ownership and responsibility for actions

· Does not misrepresent him/herself or others for personal gain

Computer literacy

· Utilise computers and related technology as required, to carry out the role effectively

Additional capabilities for the role of committee chair or local board chair

The following capabilities are in addition to the above and specific to the role of a committee chair or a local board chair.

Leadership and delegation

· Encourage direct and robust debate but is not afraid to end it and move on

· Looked to for direction in challenging situations and faces adversity head on

· Take an unpopular stand if necessary

· Not afraid of using the casting vote if necessary

· Delegate tasks and decisions when needed

· Support peers and colleagues when needed

· Chair meetings effectively

· Find common ground and get cooperation with minimum noise

· Negotiate skilfully in tough situations with both internal and external groups

Managing vision and purpose

· Communicate a compelling and inspired vision or sense of core purpose for all members of the committee or board

· Invite input from each person and share ownership and visibility

· Foster open dialogue

Additional capabilities specific to local board chairs

· Build and lead an effective local board team, including providing feedback to members of your local board

· Develop and mentor other local board members

· Work effectively with the media

Additional capabilities specific to local board deputy chairs

In addition to the capabilities of all elected members:

Chairing and attending meetings	· Chairs meetings effectively and in accordance with good governance principles. · Demonstrates a good knowledge of standing orders · Understands and accurately represents and articulates the views of the local board
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works collaboratively to achieve agreed outcomes and priorities · Provides feedback in a constructive manner.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Shares information, seeks input and views on issues, and listens to competing interests and perspectives. · Role models good decision making and governance by encouraging robust, sound, open and inclusive processes.
Team and capability building	· Acts in a supportive manner to other local board members as needed. · Role models collaboration. · Displays a high level of political acumen and ability to navigate different political dynamics to encourage the local board to work effectively together.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Builds strong and respectful relationships.
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Seeks the input and views of local board members (where appropriate) and ensures they are accurately represented and articulated.

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
Deputy Mayor	Cr Bill Cashmore
Councillors	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Penny Hulse
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dick Quax

No.	Title	Page
a	Report on Mayor's Europe trip (Under Separate Cover)
b	Memo - Progress update on governance arrangements for accommodation provider targeted rate (Under Separate Cover)
c	America's Cup and Queen's Wharf Minutes - 13 and 14 November 2017 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	America's Cup Presentation (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Queen Wharf Dolphin Presentation (Under Separate Cover)

Authors	Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader – Governance Advisors
Authorisers	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Author	Shameel Sahib - Head of Strategy & Capability
Authoriser	Patricia Reade – Director People & Performance