|
Council Controlled Organisation Oversight Committee
27 October 2020
|
|
Proposed review of non-substantive
council-controlled organisations
File No.: CP2020/14669
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
approve a framework and timing for a review of the status of
Auckland Council’s non-substantive council-controlled organisations.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland
Council has 14 smaller or non-substantive council-controlled organisations,
which are mostly charitable trusts which were established by the legacy
councils.
3. There
are several reasons to undertake a review of the non-substantive
council-controlled organisations: some of the
council-controlled organisations would like more clarity about their place in
the council family, and there may be better ways to deliver the outcomes that
the council-controlled organisations are involved in delivering.
4. We
have developed a framework to guide a review of the governance model of the
non-substantive council-controlled organisations. It covers six factors which
are based on the advantages and disadvantages of delivering activities at
arm’s length.
5. These
could also guide future council decisions about whether to be involved in
establishing a new charitable trust, as opposed to providing funding or in-kind
support.
6. We
propose that the reviews are done individually and are staggered because of
resource constraints within the department. The exact timing will depend on the
availability of resources, but it is possible that some will not start until
2022.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Council Controlled
Organisation Oversight Committee:
a) approve
the council undertaking a review of the status of non-substantive
council-controlled organisations on the proposed timing in the report.
b) approve
the proposed framework that will be used to guide a review of the status of
the existing non-substantive council-controlled organisations:
i) how
important it is to be able to access special expertise,
skills or knowledge, whether of decision-makers (trustees) or staff
ii) how likely it is that the activity may attract funding from philanthropic
sources
iii) how
important it is to maintain links with other council functions or services
iv) how important it is to have the opportunity to respond faster and
more flexibly and to tailor processes to specific objectives
v) the scale of the activity in comparison to the costs of
maintaining CCO status (e.g. monitoring, appointment and audit costs)
vi) whether the CCO status will affect the perception of equity with
other parties that are eligible for council funding or support
c) note
that within current resources, some of the reviews may not start until 2022.
d) note
that the Māngere Mountain Education Trust is currently undertaking a
review of its trust deed.
|
Horopaki
Context
7. Auckland
Council has 14 smaller council-controlled organisations (referred to as
‘non-substantive council-controlled organisations’ throughout this
report to distinguish them from the substantive council-controlled
organisations). Table 1 provides a summary of these organisations.
8. Nearly
all are charitable trusts which were established before amalgamation by one or
more of the former councils. They are mostly locally focused and provide community services, as well as manage assets on behalf of
communities. The two exceptions to this are Auckland City Water Limited and
Lutra Limited, which were set up and acquired by Watercare.
Table 1: list of
non-substantive (legacy) council-controlled organisations
|
|
Name
|
Auckland Council appointment rights
|
Activities
|
Area of operation
|
|
|
1
|
Community
Education Trust Auckland (COMET)
|
12
of 12 trustees
|
COMET
Auckland addresses educational needs from early childhood to life-long
learning. The trust originally served the area of Manukau City, but in 2012
amended its trust deed to cover the Auckland region.
|
Auckland
region
|
|
|
2
|
Māngere
Mountain Education Trust
|
Four
of eight trustees
|
Māngere
Mountain Education Trust operates an education center on Te Pane o Mataoho /
Māngere Mountain. The Trust was established in the 1990s. Māngere
Mountain Education Trust has a funding agreement with the
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board.
|
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
|
|
|
3
|
Contemporary
Arts Foundation
|
Five
of eight trustees
|
The
Contemporary Art Foundation supports contemporary art in Aotearoa New Zealand
through Te Tuhi’s exhibition and education programmes. It was formerly
the Pakuranga Arts and Cultural Trust.
|
Auckland
region
|
|
|
4
|
Arts
Regional Trust, Te Taumata Toi-a-Iwi
|
Nine
of nine trustees
|
Arts
Regional Trust, Te Taumata Toi-a-Iwi, contributes to the development of the
arts and culture ecosystem in Tamaki Makaurau through advocacy, facilitating
collaboration and joint projects. It was originally formed after the Auckland
Regional Services Trust was dissolved.
|
Auckland
region
|
|
|
5
|
Highbrook
Park Trust
|
Four
of four trustees
|
The
Highbrook Park Trust was established in August 2000 to acquire, establish,
and maintain a park on the Waiouru Peninsula next to the Highbrook Business
Park. In August 2015, Auckland Council extended the Highbrook Park Trust
agreement for another 15 years with five yearly reviews.
|
Howick
and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
|
|
|
6
|
Manukau
Beautification Charitable Trust
|
12
of 12 trustees
|
Manukau Beautification
Trust activates communities by coordinating environmental education,
community events and beautification projects all over South Auckland, in all
six southern local boards.
|
The
area of the former Manukau City
|
|
|
7
|
Te Motu a
Hiaroa Management Trust
|
Four
out of 12 trustees (Watercare also has four)
|
The
Puketutu Island Rehabilitation Project is Watercare Services Limited’s
long-term programme to deposit biosolids in an excavated site on Puketutu
Island. As part of establishing this programme, Watercare set up the trust to
manage the rehabilitation of the island and facilitate conversion into a
regional park.
Three iwi
entities hold the freehold title to Te Motu a Hiaroa through a land-owning
trust, Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) Charitable Trust.
|
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
|
|
|
8
|
Mount
Albert Grammar School Community Swimming Pool Trust
|
Three
out of five trustees (one must be a member of the Albert-Eden Local Board)
|
The Mount Albert
Grammar School Community Swimming Pool Trust was formed through a partnership between the Auckland
City Council and the Mount Albert Grammar School. The Trust has sub-licensed
the entire facility to Auckland Council.
|
Albert-Eden
|
|
|
9
|
Te Puru
Community Charitable Trust
|
Nine
out of nine trustees
|
Te Puru
Community Trust was formed 2002 to complete and operate Te Puru Community
Centre in Beachlands.
|
Franklin
|
|
|
10
|
Westhaven
Marinas Limited
|
The
council has delegated this to Panuku Development Auckland Limited, which
appoints three trustees to Westhaven Marina Limited
|
The
Westhaven Marina Limited is the sole corporate trustee of two subsidiary
trusts - Westhaven (Existing Marina) Trust and Westhaven (Marina Extension)
Trust, which manage the Westhaven marina assets and occupation rights.
Westhaven Marina Limited appoints a manager to supervise, direct and control
the management and operation of the two subsidiary marinas.
|
9. Waitematā
|
|
|
11
|
Westhaven
(Existing Marina) Trust
|
Westhaven
Marinas Limited is the sole corporate trustee
|
1.
|
| 12 |
Westhaven
(Extension) Trust
|
|
|
|
Watercare’s
council-controlled organisations*
|
|
13
|
Auckland
City Water Limited
|
One
director (chair of Watercare)
|
Auckland
City Water Limited is a subsidiary of Watercare. It was originally
established by Metrowater Limited for the sole purpose of name protection. It
transferred to Watercare in November 2010 and is a non-active company.
|
N/A
|
|
|
14
|
Lutra
Limited
|
Three
directors
|
Lutra
Limited provides software and process engineering services to the water
industry. Watercare acquired 66 per cent of Lutra Limited in 2019.
|
New
Zealand
|
|
* Although Watercare has set up or acquired these
organisations (and appoints their directors), they are still Auckland Council
council-controlled organisations because the council has indirect control.
The council’s role with council-controlled organisations
10. As the trustee appointer of a council-controlled organisation, the
council’s main ways to hold it to account are by:
· appointing
trustees (where the council has the right to make more than half of the appointments
of trustees, that trust is a council-controlled organisation under the
Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)).
· setting
the strategic direction through the statement of intent. In 2019, the council
made ten of the 14 council-controlled organisations exempt from preparing a
statement of intent (resolution FIN/2019/92).
· monitoring
its performance through half-year and annual reports.
11. In its role as a governor for local assets and services, the council
(either the Governing Body or local boards) can also provide a grant or
contract with a council-controlled organisation for the delivery of activities
or services. The two roles of council are not necessarily related.
Council organisations
12. The council also has the right to appoint trustees to between 20 and
30 ‘council organisations’, which is an organisation where the
council has a minority of appointment rights. Despite the name, council
organisations are more distant from the council than council-controlled
organisations. These are all local charitable trusts and incorporated
societies.
13. Governance of council organisations (which consists largely
of trustee appointments) has been delegated to local boards, although a local
board may choose not to exercise these rights. The CCO Governance and External
Partnerships department occasionally provides advice to local boards about
their governance role for these organisations, as required. Over time, the
number of COs has reduced through natural attrition and is likely to continue
to do so. Therefore, we have excluded council organisations from the scope of
this review.
Permanence of charitable trusts
14. All of the
non-substantive council-controlled organisations (and most of the council
organisations) are charitable trusts. Although charitable trusts have tax
advantages, once the council has set one up, they tend to be relatively
permanent and difficult to change.
15. Only the
trustees have the ability to change the terms of the trust deed or wind up the
trust; although the council may appoint a majority of trustees, it has no
ability to change the trust’s strategic objectives, beneficiaries or
purpose. Over time, this can cause conflict where the council and the trust may
have a different view about what the priorities or direction should be.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Non-substantive council-controlled organisations
16. Given that it
has been ten years since the council was first established, it is timely to
consider the status of these organisations as council-controlled organisations.
Since the amalgamation, there has been a substantial focus on the substantive
council-controlled organisations, including the recent independent review. The
nine smaller council-controlled organisations have not undergone any
substantial review.
17. There are
several reasons to undertake a review of the non-substantive council-controlled
organisations:
· Several
of the council-controlled organisations would like more clarity about their
place in the council family and whether the council still wants them to be
council-controlled organisations.
· For
at least some of the non-substantive council-controlled organisations there are
better ways to achieve the desired outcomes which are likely to be more
appropriate. For example:
- A
facilities partnership where the council is making substantial investment in a
long-lived asset which is or will be owned by someone other than the council.
- Grants
and contracts for short-term or operational funding. The council (usually a
local board) can maintain accountability through a funding agreement.
· As
well as reviewing the governance model, it is worthwhile to revisit to check
that an organisation’s purpose and objectives are consistent with the
Auckland Plan.
Framework to guide the review
18. We have
developed a framework to guide a review of the governance model of the
non-substantive council-controlled organisations.
19. It covers six
factors which are based on the advantages and disadvantages of delivering
activities at arm’s length (refer the right-hand box of Figure 2). We
derived them from a review of best practice and relevant literature, including
the recent independent review of the substantive council-controlled
organisations.
20. For the
function or service that each non-substantive council-controlled organisations,
each factor’s relative importance will be assessed which leads to an
overall assessment of which of three different governance models is most
suitable (delivery by the council, a council-controlled organisation or an independent
charitable trust). These are described in detail in Attachment A.
21. These could
also guide future council decisions about whether to be involved in
establishing a new charitable trust, as opposed to providing funding or in-kind
support.
22. The factors
are not intended to be a prescriptive assessment, but rather to act as a guide
to assess whether the benefits of more independence are outweighed by the costs
or risks, or the converse. This will inform whether the council should continue
to support that activity, whether to deliver it ‘in-house’, whether
the council-controlled organisation status is still appropriate, or whether it
should become a standalone charitable trust but continue to receive council
funding or support. In some situations, a local board may take a greater role
in decision-making.
Decision-making
23. For a trust,
the trustees must approve any decision to amend the terms of the trust deed,
reconstitute it or wind it up i.e. the council does not exercise direct control
over these trusts, as it would with the substantive council-controlled
organisations. This means that the future of each trust (and to an extent the
timing and outcome of each review) is dependent on the views of the trust.
Timing of the reviews
24. We propose
that the reviews are done individually and are staggered because of resource
constraints within the department. The exact timing will depend on the
availability of staff within the department to do this, but it is possible that
some will not start until 2022.
25. We are
currently inputting into Māngere Mountain Education Trust’s (MMET)
review of its trust deed.
Table 1: Proposed review timeframes
|
Organisations
|
Proposed timing of review
|
|
· Māngere
Mountain Education Trust
|
In
progress
|
|
· COMET Auckland
· Arts Regional Trust
· Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust
· Te Puru Charitable Trust
· Contemporary Art Foundation
· Highbrook Park Trust
|
NB:
COMET Auckland has asked that
the review of its governance structure is done sooner rather than later.
|
|
· Mount Albert Grammar School Community
Swimming Pool Trust
|
The
review can occur once there has been a decision about the future of the
swimming pool.
|
|
· Te Motu a Hiaroa Management Trust
|
We
began a review with Te Motu a Hiaroa Management Trust in 2019, however in
February 2020 it resolved to defer this until a spatial plan for the motu has
been developed. The review can occur once this has been completed.
|
|
· Marina trusts and company
|
The
review should be initiated once the strategy is complete. The independent
review of the substantive council-controlled organisations recommended that
the council develop a marina strategy.
|
|
· Auckland City Water Limited
|
Watercare
to advise whether there is still a need for this company
|
26. We recommend that Lutra Limited is excluded from the review. Because
it has only recently been acquired, we do not recommend that it is reviewed in
the near term. The board of Watercare should continue to report to this
committee on whether it has achieved its objectives when it acquired a stake in
the company.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
27. There are no
specific climate impacts associated with the advice in this report.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
28. The
non-substantive CCOs have been involved during the development of these
proposals, and have been consulted on the framework and the work programme for
reviews.
29. There is a
general view that the smaller CCOs have been looking for more certainty about
their relationship with the council for some time, and agree that there is a
need for a review. Therefore, they are supportive of the review, and generally
supportive of the framework above.
30. There is no
significant impact on the substantive CCOs.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
31. Although the
organisations are mostly local in nature, governance of CCOs is a governing
body function.
32. Some of the
non-substantive CCOs have strong relationships with the relevant local
boards. Local boards which have a relationship with one of the CCOs will
be consulted and kept informed during the review of each organisation.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
33. Two of the
smaller CCOs have strong Māori interests.
34. Māngere
Mountain Education Trust is a partnership with tangata whenua to operate an
education centre on Te Pane o Mataoho. The other trustee appointers are
Makaurau Marae and Pukaki Marae. Tangata whenua will be closely involved
in the process for the review.
35. Te Motu a
Hiaroa Management Trust makes decisions about the management of Te Motu a
Hiaroa (commonly known as Puketutu Island). The motu is highly
significant to Māori. It was transferred to a separate iwi trust as
part of the settlement of Watercare’s resource consent application to
deposit biosolids.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
36. There are no
direct financial implications associated with the recommendations in this
report. There may be financial implications depending on the outcome of each
review.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
38. Uncertainty
over the status of the non-substantive council-controlled organisation may
hamper their ability to plan strategically for the future, which would be
exacerbated if reviews are more complex and take longer than anticipated.
This can be mitigated by planning carefully, communicating with the
organisations and providing adequate resource.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
39. We will
continue to progress the reviews as outlined in this paper. We will
report the outcome of these reviews to this committee and seek approval for any
decisions that must be made by Auckland Council.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Proposed framework for the review of non-substantive
council-controlled organisations
|
25
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Sarah Holdem - Principal Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance &
External Partnerships
|
|
Council Controlled Organisation Oversight Committee
27 October 2020
|
|
Proposed name for merged entity
File No.: CP2020/15169
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
provide an update on the process used to develop recommendations from the board
of Regional Facilities Auckland Limited (RFAL) to council on a name for the merged
entity, resulting from the amalgamation of RFAL and Auckland Tourism, Events
and Economic Development Limited (ATEED) planned for 1 December 2020.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. At
the Governing Body meeting on 27 August 2020, the council agreed to the
establishment of a merged council-controlled organisation (CCO) entity by
amalgamating RFAL and ATEED.
3. The
Auckland Council Chief Executive was delegated the ability to undertake all
necessary steps and execute all necessary documents, on behalf of the council
as shareholder, other than merged entity board appointments or name, to
facilitate the transition to and establishment of the merged entity by 1
December 2020 [GB/2020/90].
4. Staff
from RFAL and ATEED have been working jointly to develop a final shortlist of
viable merged entity names for consideration by the new board of RFAL, with a
final decision to be made by the CCO Oversight Committee.
5. The
merged entity will have an establishment name (which covers legal and trading
purposes) and a Te Reo Māori name.
6. The
development of the Te Reo Māori name is proceeding on a slightly longer
timeframe. A process is underway, facilitated by Ngā
Mātārae in conjunction
with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and individual iwi, to develop a Te Reo Māori name. The Independent Māori
Statutory Board has also been engaged.
7. Naming parameters have been used to guide the RFAL board’s
development of the establishment name and will also guide the Te Reo Māori name.
8. The
name development and shortlisting process has been an iterative process with
progressive refinement. It has been informed by; elected member, Mana
Whenua and key stakeholder engagement, ATEED and RFAL employee research and
engagement, desktop research on international best practice, creative name
development, legal appraisal and consideration of brand strategy and the merged
entity’s brand and audience landscape.
9. The
establishment name and a Te Reo Māori name for the merged entity will be
represented visually as wordmarks. The Auckland Council
Group brand guidelines prescribe the design for the merged entity wordmarks
including the font, the colour palette and the pohutukawa logo. The merged entity name/wordmarks will not replace existing
lifestyle brands or the destination brand - the Auckland ‘A’.
10. Confirmation of the establishment name is
targeted by 30 October 2020 to enable timely completion of legal amalgamation
steps and rollout for ‘day one’ of the merged entity.
11. Should the
committee fail to agree to the preferred or alternative name, the default name
position for the purposes of legal amalgamation would be Regional Facilities
Auckland Limited.
12. Existing
RFAL and ATEED budgets have met the costs to date and the rollout costs for
change of name will be funded by re-prioritising existing ATEED and RFAL
budgets.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Council Controlled
Organisation Oversight Committee:
a) note
the information contained in this report enables transparency on the topic
due for discussion in the public excluded part of the meeting.
b) note
that the Regional Facilities Auckland Limited board has recommended to the
committee a preferred name for the merged entity and an alternative option, which
is the subject of a confidential report on this meeting agenda.
|
Horopaki
Context
13. Having
considered the recommendations from the independent panel review of
council-controlled organisations, at the Governing Body meeting on 27 August
2020, the council agreed to the establishment of a merged CCO entity by
amalgamating RFAL and ATEED [GB/2020/90].
14. The
Auckland Council Chief Executive was delegated the ability to undertake all
necessary steps and execute all necessary documents, on behalf of the council
as shareholder, other than merged entity board appointments or name, to
facilitate the transition to and establishment of the merged entity by 1
December 2020 and to support the ATEED and RFAL boards in executing the
transition and merger process.
15. Under
this process ATEED merges into RFAL, with RFAL being the surviving entity. RFAL
will continue to exist as the merged entity and ATEED will be dissolved (noting
the merged entity will have a new name).
16. The
new RFAL board was established from 14 September 2020, with Mark Franklin as
Chair. The current ATEED board remains in place until 30
November 2020.
17. A
project was established in early September 2020, led jointly by staff from RFAL
and ATEED, to develop a final shortlist of viable merged entity names for
consideration by the board of RFAL, with a final decision to be made by the CCO
Oversight Committee.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Naming approach
18. A Te Reo Māori name and an establishment name are being developed in parallel, guided by
common naming parameters as set out below.
19. The establishment name has two components:
i. the
legal name for the purposes of company registration, which is used primarily
for contracts, employment agreements etc (for example, Vodafone New Zealand
Limited).
ii. the
trading name which reflects how customers, employees and stakeholders refer to
the entity (for example, Vodafone).
20. Confirmation of the establishment name is
targeted by 30 October 2020 to enable timely completion of legal amalgamation
steps and rollout for ‘day one’ of the merged entity.
21. The Te Reo Māori name may be available in the same timeframe, however this is not
necessary for the legal amalgamation. A process is underway, facilitated
by Ngā Mātārae in
conjunction with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and individual iwi, to develop a Te Reo Māori name, referencing the
naming parameters set out later in this report.
22. Protocols for when and how the Te Reo Māori and establishment
names are to be used will need be confirmed in due course, considering the
naming parameters. This might reflect initially some high level
principles that evolve over time.
Visual representation
– CCO wordmark
23. An
establishment name and a Te Reo Māori name for the merged entity will be
represented visually as wordmarks, as illustrated by current examples
below.
24. The Auckland Council Group brand guidelines prescribe the design for
the merged entity wordmarks including the font, the colour palette and the
pohutukawa logo. The design of the final CCO wordmarks will be
consistent with the latest version of the brand guidelines when the new names
are launched.
Naming parameters
25. The
following naming parameters have been used to guide the RFAL board’s
development of both the establishment name and will also guide the Te Reo Māori name. See table 1 below.
Table 1: Naming parameters for merged
entity
|
Naming
parameters
|
|
Reflect what the
merged entity will do and the range of economic and cultural activity of the
entity
|
|
Support the merged entity’s draft 2020/21 Statement
of Intent purpose and goals (SOI to come to CCO Oversight Committee in
November 2020):
‘Enriching
cultural and economic life in Tāmaki Makaurau by creating and sharing experiences and
opportunities’
o Drive investment and support Auckland
businesses to innovate and thrive
o Tell the Auckland story
o Enhance Auckland as a culturally vibrant city
o Provide experiences and opportunities for all
|
|
Be easily
understood by key domestic and international audiences, including:
Aucklanders, employees, stakeholders, investors, skilled migrants and
international students
|
|
Be a name that
conveys energy, vitality, action and creativity
|
|
Include the
word ‘Auckland’ (for establishment name)
|
|
Be a timeless
name that won’t date
|
|
Not be easily
converted to an acronym as ATEED and RFA have been
|
|
Be
‘ownable’ as a company name and relevant domain names and social
media handles
|
Scope – what is in and out
26. The
merged entity name/wordmarks will not replace existing lifestyle brands or the
destination brand - the Auckland ‘A’.
27. The merged entity will be responsible for a ‘house of
brands’ e.g. Proctor & Gamble, rather than being a ‘branded
house’ e.g. Westpac.
28. The brand and audience landscape illustrated in table 2 below
summarises the merged entity brand family and draws attention to the key
audiences for each lifestyle and commercial brand in the stable.
29. The brand and audience landscape has influenced the final name
shortlist process. The merged entity name / wordmark needs to
embrace the entire brand family, and especially serve the merged entity’s
business and stakeholder audiences as well as employees.
30. Importantly, the brand of the merged entity is more than its name or
wordmark. A simple name, easily understood, relevant to key audiences and
flexible enough to cover the breadth of the merged entity’s remit is an
excellent starting point. The merged entity brand will then be built over time
by the sum of:
· the experiences both audiences and employees have with the merged
entity
· the personality, tone-of-voice, photography and videography style of
all marketing and communications.
Table 2: Merged entity
brand and audience landscape
Process
31. The name
development and shortlisting process led jointly by staff from ATEED and RFAL
has been an iterative process with progressive refinement, informed by the
following:
· Elected
member engagement
· Mana
whenua engagement
· Employee
research and engagement
· Desk
research on international best practice
· Creative
name development
· Key
stakeholder engagement
· Legal
appraisal
· Consideration
of brand strategy and the merged entity’s brand and audience landscape
(outlined above)
Elected Member engagement
32. Councillors and local board chairs were invited by email to send
any name suggestions they might have, to inform an initial shortlist of names
against the naming parameters. The responses indicated support for a Te
Reo Māori name.
33. An informal meeting of the Mayor and Councilors followed, to discuss
the naming approach and a preliminary shortlist. From this preliminary
shortlist councillors were invited to indicate their top two preferred names and
any additional name.
Mana whenua engagement
34. As a priority, the new RFAL Board Chair invited
the chairs of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (MWKF) and Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) to meet with the new Board, with a
view to covering the following topics:
· Respective strategic objectives and aspirations
· A future shared agenda
· Future terms of engagement
· Participation in the process to present name recommendations
to the CCO Oversight committee.
35. The MWKF Co-Chairs have indicated their support for the merged
entity having a Te Reo Māori name. They also support a process led by Ngā
Mātārae, in conjunction with the Forum and
individual iwi to develop a
Te Reo Māori name.
36. This process has commenced, with Ngā Mātārae developing name
options for the Forum and individual iwi to consider, referencing the naming
parameters set out earlier in this report. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has been engaged, and have
also acknowledged receipt of the
RFAL Chair’s invitation.
Employee research and engagement
37. All RFAL and ATEED employees were surveyed on an initial merged
entity name shortlist and were also invited to submit alternative name
suggestions. Participation was good with 242 responses received. A large number of
staff suggested new names which included Te Reo Māori in them. The
insights from this employee research helped iterate and refine the next update
to the name shortlist.
Desktop
research on international best practice
38. A desktop review
of similar organisations world-wide identified the following key insights:
· A strong alignment
between place name / brand e.g. Auckland ‘A and organisation brand
· Short, simple names
centred on the name of the place
· Consistent
application of the place name / brand across multiple sub-brands e.g. Film,
Invest, Conventions etc.
Creative name development
39. An external agency was utilised to generate merged entity name ideas
using the naming parameters set out in this report. These ideas also
contributed to the shortlist.
Key stakeholder engagement
40. Individual
conversations with a range of key stakeholders were undertaken. There was
no strong pattern to preferences expressed but it highlighted the need for the
merged entity name to be something simple yet broad and flexible enough to
reflect both commercial and creative audiences.
Legal
appraisal
41. Legal advisors to the merger process were instructed to provide a
risk assessment on the availability of the final shortlist of names considered
by the RFAL board for intellectual property (trademarks); social media handles;
website domain and company name.
Recommendation of the RFAL board
42. At
its meeting on 2 October 2020, the board considered a final shortlist of names
assessed with pros and cons to arrive at a preferred name recommendation and an
alternative.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
43. A
decision to agree a name for the merged entity will not have a material adverse
impact on direct greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions.
44. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri –
Auckland’s Climate Plan was adopted by the council in July 2020 and costed actions for the council’s contribution
to delivery of the plan are being developed for consideration as input
to the 10-year budget (Long-term Plan).
45. While
rollout plans for the merged entity name are yet to be finalised, it is
envisaged that environmental considerations will inform the development of any
new physical collateral. Digital renaming will progress most quickly and
physical assets/collateral will be replaced at end of life or if it is priority
touchpoint (e.g. way-finding).
46. Retaining
existing lifestyle brands and the destination brand (Auckland ‘A) will
also reduce wastage.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
47. The
decision to approve a name for the merged entity will have largely minimal
impacts on other parts of the council group, given that the merged entity will
deliver the all functions and activities currently provided by ATEED and RFAL,
with no new functions at this stage. Interactions and relationships between
various council and CCO units and teams will also continue.
48. The Auckland Council Group brand guidelines prescribe the design for
the new merged entity wordmarks including the font, the colour palette and the
pohutukawa logo. The design of the final CCO wordmarks will be
consistent with the latest version of these guidelines when the new name is
launched.
49. The Auckland
Council research, marketing, brand and communication teams have been informed
and have provided advice during the naming recommendation process.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
50. The Governing
Body has decision making responsibility for the governance of CCOs.
51. As part of
the naming development engagement process, all local board chairs were invited
to send any name suggestions they might have, to inform an initial shortlist of
names against the naming parameters.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
52. As outlined
earlier in this paper, as a priority, the
new RFAL Board Chair invited the chairs of the MWKF and IMSB to meet with the
new Board, with a view to covering the following topics:
· Respective strategic objectives and aspirations
· A future shared agenda
· Future terms of engagement
· Participation in the process to present name
recommendations to the CCO Oversight committee.
53. The MWKF Co-Chairs have indicated their support for the merged
entity having a Te Reo Māori name. They also support a process led by Ngā
Mātārae, in conjunction with the Forum and
individual iwi to develop a
Te Reo Māori name. This process has commenced, with Ngā Mātārae developing name
options for the Forum and individual iwi to consider, referencing the naming
parameters set out earlier in this report.
54. The IMSB has been engaged and have also
acknowledged receipt of the RFAL Chair’s invitation.
55. A Te Reo Māori name for the merged entity
supports the Māori
Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework – Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau, which was recently adopted by the council’s Parks, Arts,
Community and Events Committee.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
56. Changing the name of an entity incurs costs. The proposed will
minimise the costs of change and includes:
· the merged
entity wordmark being created in-house by council staff
· phased
roll-out of the new name with key customer facing touchpoints (website, social
media, stationery) occurring on day one
· other changes
for assets/ collateral occurring at their end of life, or as required.
57. Existing
RFAL and ATEED budgets have met the costs to date and the rollout for change of
name will be funded by re-prioritising existing RFAL and ATEED budgets.
58. Agreement
from relevant Finance staff on the implications of this advice has been gained.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
59. The RFAL
board has considered the risks and proposed mitigations associated with the
naming process for the merged entity.
60. The preferred
and alternative names have been assessed for availability. This process sought
to identify if a third party has already taken the domain name, trademark, the
social media handle or entity name globally. Any trademark
registration of either name will be subject to further assessment.
61. Confirmation of the establishment name is
targeted by 30 October 2020 to enable timely completion of legal amalgamation
steps and rollout for ‘day one’ of the merged entity.
62. Should
the committee fail to agree to the preferred or alternative name, the default
position for the purposes of legal amalgamation would be the name Regional
Facilities Auckland Limited.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
63. Subject to
approval of the preferred or alternative name by the committee, immediate next
steps will include finalisation of legal amalgamation documentation, rollout of
the merged entity name digitally and on priority physical touchpoints (e.g.
way-finding).
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Principal Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance &
External Partnerships
|
