2 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration
of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be
vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between
their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might
have.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for
Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint
themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland
Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes
of conflict of interest:
i) A financial conflict of
interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could
reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected
member; and
ii) A non-financial conflict
of interest, which does not have a direct personal financial
component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or
involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates
prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has
produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the
Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines
discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members
with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a
conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code
of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines
are available for inspection by members upon request.
Any questions relating to the Code or the
guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.
4 Leave
of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
5 Acknowledgements
At the close of
the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
6 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
7 Deputations
Standing
Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required
to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are
approved by the Chairperson of the Kaipātiki Local Board. This means that
details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total
speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
At the close of the agenda no
requests for deputations had been received.
8 Public
Forum
A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
9 Extraordinary
Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt
with at that meeting if-
(a) The
local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The
presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public,-
(i) The reason why
the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item
may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That
item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority;
and
(ii) the
presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is
open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no
resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item
except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for
further discussion.”
|
Kaipātiki
Local Board
26 August 2020
|
|
CCO
Review report feedback
File No.: CP2020/11765
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek local board feedback on the report of the independent panel’s review
of Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations (CCO).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The
independent panel that was set up to conduct a review of CCOs concluded its
review at the end of July 2020 and has now submitted its findings (hereafter
Review).
3. The Review is available in Attachment A of this agenda report.
4. The
Review investigated how effective the CCO model is and whether there were any
viable alternatives; whether the council has adequate accountability measures
and is using them effectively; and the CCO culture.
5. The Review found that the CCO model is the right one and clear
benefits are evident but there is room for improvement. It found that the lack
of strategic direction to CCOs is a key failing and that the council has
available mechanisms to ensure accountability but is not using these
effectively. The Review highlighted the need for strategic planning and
direction, effective use of accountability mechanisms and increased monitoring
of CCO performance. In terms of culture, the Review found little evidence of a
group culture and highlighted a need for greater collaboration across CCOs (and
with the council), especially when working with and responding to the public.
6. The Review proposes a package of 64 recommendations. One of these recommendations
is for a proposed merger of Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Auckland
Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED).
7. The Governing Body will be considering the Review at its meeting on
27 August 2020 and has had informal discussions in workshops on its findings
and recommendations. Local board chairs were invited to attend one of these
workshops (19 August 2020).
8. The Governing Body is expected to give some direction and make
decisions on the package of recommendations from the Review at its meeting on
27 August.
9. The Governing Body will also be receiving another report at its
meeting on 27 August seeking a decision on the proposed merger of RFA and ATEED
and outlining an implementation process for that work.
10. Local boards are invited to share their views, if any, on this issue
in addition to general views about the Review.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Kaipātiki Local
Board:
a) welcome
the findings and recommendations in the review of CCOs by the independent
panel
b) welcome
the proposal in recommendation 34 on how to address CCO-local board
engagement and request that this work be started as soon as possible
c) identify
any views and preferences on the recommendation to approve a merger of two
CCOs (namely Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and Regional
Facilities Auckland Limited)
d) note that local boards will be able to provide input on the other
relevant CCO review recommendations as they are
further developed for implementation
e) identify
views and preferences, if any, on the other findings and recommendations in
CCO review.
|
Horopaki
Context
11. In late 2019,
the Governing Body requested a review of CCOs by an independent panel and
directed the panel to focus on three key areas:
· the
effectiveness of the CCO model, roles and responsibilities – how
effective it is and whether there are viable alternatives
· the
accountability mechanisms between CCOs and the council – are the
mechanisms adequate
· the
culture of CCOs – how do CCOs engage with and respond to the council and
public concerns?
12. In conducting
the review, the independent panel consulted CCOs, local boards, the Independent
Māori Statutory Board, key stakeholders and requested public feedback. The
panel received 2250 submissions and considered a wide range of written material
(e.g. statement of intents, annual reports, local board and Māori
engagement plans, council policies and plans). The panel also held
workshops with councillors, local board chairs, CCO chief executives and
chairs, and iwi as well as drop-in sessions with the public.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
13. The Review concludes that the CCO model remains the right one for
Auckland, as it strongly brings together business discipline, agile
decision-making, a streamlined administrative structure, operational
efficiencies and specialist skills and expertise that would not be possible if
the council assumed direct control of CCO functions. The panel notes that most interviewees agree with this conclusion but
also acknowledges that some submitters thought CCOs should be brought in-house.
14. The Review is
divided into four parts – introduction, CCO model, CCO accountability and
CCO culture. Each part is divided into three parts: the relevant facts and
feedback, an assessment of current problems and the proposed improvements.
Part Two: CCO model
15. The Review concluded there were sound reasons why Auckland Tourism,
Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Regional Facilities Auckland
Limited (RFAL) should remain as CCOs. However, given
the similarities in the outcomes and potential duplication in some services,
the Review recommends a merger of these entities. (recommendation 1)
16. Key
recommendations relating to Auckland Transport (AT) that may be of interest to
local boards include a recommendation to jointly prepare the regional land transport plan (recommendation 4) and reviews how AT
designs, consults on, funds and implements minor capital works including how it
involves local boards in the design of its annual work programme.
(recommendation 6)
17. Key
recommendations relating to Panuku that may be of interest to local boards are
outlined in recommendations 8-14 and includes a recommendation that the council
assumes responsibility from Panuku for identifying and deciding which
non-service properties to sell (excluding Panuku project location areas (recommendation
11). This recommendation is highlighted because it addresses an area that has
been of significant interest to some local boards (for example decisions to
classify service properties as non-service).
18. The
Review acknowledges the need for a property strategy as well as several other
strategies on key issues that CCOs work on – water (specifically a three
waters strategy), economic development and stadiums. (recommendation 14 and 15)
19. The panel also concluded that the council should review the way it
requires CCOs to monitor and report on risks and risk mitigation measures.
(recommendation 19)
Part Three: Accountability
20. The
Review also highlighted the absence of strategic direction to CCOs and recommends the council draws up detailed, implementable
strategies that give CCOs more strategic direction (recommendation 20) and
establishes a strategic planning process to facilitate the necessary
conversations between Governing Body and CCOs.
21. The
panel also reviewed current accountability mechanisms and concluded that the
council has available to it all the mechanisms it needs to hold CCOs
accountable – both to the council and to the public. However, the Review
concluded that in many instances the council was not using these levers as effectively
as it could and in one important instance accountability powers are not used at
all – referring to Sec 92 of the Local Government Auckland Council Act
(LG(AC)A) which gives the council the power to direct a CCO to act in
accordance with a plan or strategy.
22. Some
concrete suggestions that address these issues include supporting the use of
statement of expectations (recommendation 22), developing templates for
statements of intent and a set of common key performance measures
(recommendation 23), rewrite the governance manual to focus squarely on
expectations of CCOs and removing policies to a separate document
(recommendation 29) and exercising the statutory powers under Sec 92 of LG(AC)A
if there are any concerns that a CCO is not acting consistently with any
strategy (recommendation 33).
CCO/Local board relationship
23. The
Review looked at the role of local board plans and local board engagement plans
that are developed by CCOs to cement CCO-local board relationships and ensure
CCO accountability (pages 60-61) and noted that the
engagement plans were not particularly effective as an accountability
mechanism. It also noted that there does not appear to
be a recognised or consistent process in place so local boards can have a say about
how elements of their local board plans can be included in a CCO’s
statement of intent.
24. The
Review concludes that the CCO-local board relationship is not working as
it should and proposes a series of practical suggestions on how this can be
reset. These are outlined in recommendation 34 and reads as follows:
Recommendation 34: CCOs and local boards reset how
they engage with one another, by means of:
· a
workshop to develop a more meaningful way for CCOs and local boards to work
together
· the
preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board
· more
initiative by local boards in integrating their own planning with CCO planning
· liaison
between CCOs and local boards at a more senior level so CCOs can quickly remedy
local board concerns
· the
preparation of joint CCO six-monthly reports for each local board
· the
communication of clear, up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on
projects in their area.
25. The
Review also outlined some practical recommendations that could improve the
experience for local boards:
· development
of joint engagement plans for each local board (reducing the number of plans
from 105 to 21)
· combined
CCO 6-monthly report
· recommend
local boards present and share their plans with CCOs – to help improve
engagement and to help CCOs understand local board aspirations and identify
future work opportunities in the local board area
· liaison
between CCO and local boards to be at a more senior level
· make
better use of technology so boards and communities have up-to-date information
· CCOs to
actively work with local boards at the planning stage of local projects so they
can have meaningful input into their design, and also so boards can have a
commitment to the projects and publicly support them.
26. The monitoring of CCOs is acknowledged as inadequate and
under-resourced and recommends more resourcing towards this.
Community responsiveness
27. The Review also concluded that CCOs are not responsive enough to
wider community concerns and recommends some improvements. (recommendation
41-43)
28. Recommendation 42 is for the council to give CCOs direction about
what it considers the meaning of “commercial interest and public
interest”, and how to balance these objectives.
Part Four: Culture
29. There are various recommendations to address issues that relate to
the culture of CCOs. Included in these are recommendations that the CCO board
membership should be more ethnically diverse, and include more mana whenua
appointments.
30. The Review touched on practical issues such as branding, job
descriptions, shared services including procurement, reporting to the council
on complaints received and various others. The range of recommendations aimed
at addressing these issues are contained in recommendations 44-64.
31. The Review highlighted that the public feedback on CCO
culture-related issues was not overwhelmingly positive. It is noted that the
public unquestionably regards CCOs and the council as not taking sufficient
account of their views and recommends that the council and CCOs explore options
to give ratepayers a more effective voice in what happens in Auckland.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
32. Climate
impacts were not considered for this report on procedural matters, however the
impact of implementing individual recommendations, if any, will be considered
as part of the programme of implementation.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
33. The panel met
with representatives of the council group including CCOs during its Review.
34. A joint
submission by CCOs to the Review can be found in Attachment B of this agenda
report.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
35. During the
review, the panel engaged with local board chairs, holding two workshops and
meeting with some chairs individually and collectively following requests by
these members to understand their views on the model and how engagement between
local boards and CCOs could be improved.
36. Sixteen local
boards also provided written submissions to the panel, three local boards reserved the right to provide further comment when the
recommendations of the Independent Panel were released and two local boards did
not provide feedback due to COVID-19 or other reasons.
37. Local board
chairs were invited to the Governing Body workshop on 19 August where the panel
presented their findings.
38. Local board views on these findings are not known as local boards
have yet to formally consider the Review.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
39. The Review
elaborates on issues and recommendations relating to Māori
responsiveness and relationships between CCOs and the Independent Māori Statutory
Board and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum.
40. The panel found that there are adequate mechanisms to ensure CCOs
comply with their obligations to Māori at governance and senior management levels. However, the
use of the mechanisms requires attention. The panel received feedback
that there is confusion about roles and relationships, lack of clear direction
and collaboration. Recommendations 35-40 address their findings in this
area.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
41. Implementing
the review will have financial implications. Some
recommendations will provide cost savings (including merger of ATEED and RFAL)
with more accruing over time.
42. The detail of financial implications will be presented in a report
to the Governing Body.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
43. We have not
undertaken a risk assessment for this procedural report. The risks associated
with the Review findings and recommendations will be outlined to the Governing
Body.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
44. Governing
Body will receive the report on 27 August and will give direction to staff and
the CCO Oversight Committee on the implementation of the Review.
45. An update on
the process for establishing an implementation work programme will be provided
to the 22 September CCO Oversight Committee.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
26 August 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board
Extraordinary Business Meeting - Review of Auckland Council's
council-controlled organisations - Report of Independent Panel
|
13
|
|
b⇩
|
26 August 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board
Extraordinary Business Meeting - Council Controlled Organisations Joint
Submission to Auckland CCO Review 9 April 2020
|
117
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager - Aotea / Great
Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards
|
|
Authorisers
|
Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager
|
