Agenda of Governing Body - Thursday, 24 February 2022

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:

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

(i) approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

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

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

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

(m) overview of and decisions relating to any CCO review including the implementation of any resulting changes to CCOs

(n) oversight of work programmes of all committees of the governing body.

Code of conduct

For information relating to Auckland Council’s elected members code of conduct, please refer to this link on the Auckland Council website - https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/elected-members-remuneration-declarations-interest/Pages/elected-members-code-conduct.aspx

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

24 February 2022

Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2022/01514

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider feedback on proposed changes to the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Significance and Engagement Policy, adopted in 2014, has undergone a policy refresh to make it more contemporary and user-friendly.

3. The goal of the policy refresh is to provide for a simplified decision-making process through a high-level guiding document that allows for case-by-case assessments.

4. Minor updates are needed in both the significance and engagement components of the policy.

5. Proposed updates around the significance component of the draft policy include:

· the assessment of significance in terms of a continuum

· taking a cumulative approach to a package of proposals or decisions

· adjusting the list of strategic assets to include only assets critical for the delivery of services and clarifying that most strategic assets are identified as groups or networks of assets to reflect the way in which they deliver services

· adding guidance for assessing the significance of decisions for assets that do not meet the criteria for being strategic.

6. Proposed updates around the engagement component of the draft policy include:

· simplifying existing text to make the policy more user-friendly

· ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

· capturing the need to safeguard staff, elected members and the community during consultation and engagement

· giving more visibility to the connection between the policy and the forthcoming and separate refresh of the Engagement Guidelines, which will support staff to operationalise the policy.

7. The draft policy with these proposed updates was adopted for public consultation by Governing Body at its 23 September 2021 meeting, resolution number GB/2021/111.

8. Public consultation ran from 27 September to 18 October 2021.

9. Local boards considered the proposed changes to the policy and public feedback in November and December 2021.

10. Staff recommend that the Governing Body adopt the updated policy as consulted on. The Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 will then be used as the basis for key decision-making and consultation processes from March 2022 onwards.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) consider the public feedback and local board input received on the proposed changes to the Significance and Engagement Policy and adopt the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 as set out in Attachment A.

Horopaki

Context

11. The Significance and Engagement Policy (the 2014 policy) was created and adopted in 2014 to fulfill the legislative requirements outlined in section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

12. The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key document for decision-making and the consultation process. It is comprised of two interrelated sections on significance and engagement.

13. The significance section sets out how and when communities can expect the council to engage before making decisions, describes the council’s approach to determining the significance of proposals and decisions, and lists the council’s strategic assets.

14. The engagement section provides high-level principles on how to engage inclusively with the diverse communities of Tāmaki Makaurau. These high-level principles ensure that engagement is fit-for-purpose according to the level of significance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Staff have undertaken a policy refresh as the 2014 policy has not undergone changes since its initial adoption.

16. An internal assessment of the 2014 policy found that there was no compelling need for major changes, but minor improvements would allow for more efficient decision-making and more fit-for-purpose engagement processes.

17. General high-level updates and clarifications are being proposed for the policy to create a more contemporary policy.

18. The Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to be a prescriptive policy document, and any accepted changes to the policy will not change the purpose for which it is used.

19. The proposed changes to the 2014 policy were reported to the Governing Body at its meeting on 23 September 2021.

20. An overview of the respective significance and engagement section updates is below:

Significance updates	Engagement updates
· Maintaining that the policy is a high-level document that sets out the general principles with specific decisions being made on a case-by-case basis	· Refining and simplifying existing text to strengthen the policy and make it user-friendly
· Clarifying that the policy applies when assessing the significance of an issue, proposal, decision, or other matter	· Refreshing the current set of engagement principles to reflect a changing and more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau
· Clarifying that council considers the cumulative effect of the proposals as a whole when assessing the significance of a package of proposals or decisions	· Updating policy content to reference connection to the council’s Engagement Guidelines which is a separate document.
· Clarifying the high-level relationship between the significance of asset decisions and their subsequent engagement processes
· Clarifying that significance is assessed on a continuum from low to high
· Refining the list of strategic assets

Consultation

Public consultation

21. Formal public consultation was held from 27 September to 18 October 2021. The consultation document and feedback report are Attachments B and C.

22. Given COVID-19 lockdown restrictions across the region, consultation was conducted entirely virtually and consisted of:

· consultation materials and online feedback forms made available on the council’s engagement website (AK Have Your Say)

· virtual workshops with community partners with demographic advisory panels

· working with community partners to reach diverse groups.

23. A total of 420 pieces of feedback were received as a mix of online forms and community partner feedback.

24. Nearly three quarters of submitters agreed with the proposed changes within the Significance and Engagement Policy refresh (74% agree, 5% disagree, 20% I don’t know).

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

25. Most submissions did not make any specific comments to explain their response. Of those that did make a specific comment, the most common theme in the consultation feedback was targeted towards the simplification of language in the policy to make it easier to understand and achieve greater participation.

26. Feedback from the 5 per cent of submitters who did not agree with the proposal was about a desire to see more changes to the policy in terms of greater transparency, alongside other minor changes.

27. Some submitters thought that the policy enabled more diversity in engagement with all communities and provided a better platform for fit-for-purpose engagement.

28. There was notable support for updates to the policy that provided greater clarity to communities around when and how they would be engaged, and how council would make its decisions around issues of significance.

Local board consultation

29. Staff held briefings and workshops on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy to local boards. Local board chairs were also invited to the Finance and Performance Committee workshops relating to the draft policy. Local boards were asked for their views on the draft policy at their November/December 2021 business meetings. The feedback report of all local board resolutions is included as Attachment D.

30. Similar to public consultation, local board input was conducted entirely virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions across the region.

31. Local boards widely supported the policy refresh and provided valuable feedback both overall and specifically regarding the significance and engagement components of the policy.

32. All local boards were generally supportive of the proposed policy changes.

33. Some local boards noted concern about protecting the role that they play in decision-making around both local and regional assets and services. The Significance and Engagement Policy does not impact the allocation of decision-making within the council (governed by legislation, delegation, and the allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities), or the legal requirement of the Governing Body to consider the views of local boards if a decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

34. The approach to the identification of strategic assets was of particular interest to local boards with some questioning the approach and others the exclusion of specific items. The proposed policy takes a service-based approach to identifying strategic assets. In looking at which assets are required to support the delivery of services to Aucklanders it has been assessed that most services are delivered by a group or network of assets in collaboration and therefore it is the group or network which is strategic.

35. Some local boards were concerned that the update to the policy could make it easier for assets to be sold and that their “protection” would be reduced. Designating an asset “strategic” does not prevent its sale but rather requires a lengthy and complex audited long-term plan amendment process to support any decisions being made. Decisions around other assets, where the level of significance is assessed as high, will still likely require comprehensive consultation and documentation, but this can involve a more bespoke and appropriate engagement approach which is more fit for purpose for the specific asset or decision. The proposed policy changes (along with the associated guidelines to be developed for these kinds of asset-based decisions) will better support this outcome.

36. The key themes from the views expressed by local boards regarding engagement were:

· support the changes to the policy to reflect a changing and diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

· support the simplification of existing text to make the policy more user-friendly

· support the focus on ensuring safety of engagement for elected members, staff and community

· support the focus on fit-for-purpose engagement and a more localised focus on engaging local communities

· support the review of the Engagement Guidelines in order to provide best-practice engagement.

Finalising the policy

37. Following analysis of the public and local board feedback, staff recommend that the Governing Body adopt the updated policy as consulted on.

38. Some of the feedback received will be helpful in developing the Engagement Guidelines and the guidelines around non-strategic assets. No further changes to the policy itself are needed for this to occur.

39. Once adopted, the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 will then be used as the basis for key decision-making and consultation processes from March 2022 onwards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

40. Accepting the proposed changes to the policy allows for a fit-for-purpose and contemporary significance and engagement policy that will encourage a richer engagement process during future consultations around climate change issues.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. Staff have sought feedback from council-controlled organisations (CCOs) throughout this policy refresh and will continue to do so especially as it relates to the CCO Accountability Policy.

42. Separately from the Significance and Engagement Policy, the CCO Accountability Policy must identify or define any strategic assets in relation to each substantive CCO and set out any requirements in relation to the organisation’s management of those assets. CCOs must comply with that policy when making decisions on strategic assets under their control.

43. The current CCO Accountability Policy includes a list of strategic assets that reflects the 2014 policy. If adopted, the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 will contain an updated list of strategic assets, some of which will be held or managed by CCOs. There will accordingly be inconsistency as between the strategic assets identified in the CCO Accountability Policy and the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 until the CCO Accountability Policy is next amended.

44. The CCO Accountability Policy may only be amended as an amendment to the council’s long-term plan. Therefore, the CCO Accountability Policy will be revised at the next long-term plan amendment to reflect the updated list of strategic assets in the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022.

45. If the Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 is adopted, council staff will write to affected CCOs to notify them of the updates to the list of the strategic assets as identified in the updated Significance and Engagement Policy, and to make clear council’s expectations of each CCO in relation to the strategic assets (as identified in the updated Significance and Engagement Policy) owned and managed by each CCO (or owned by council and managed by the CCO) for the avoidance of any doubt until the CCO Accountability Policy is updated.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

46. Local boards are responsible for identifying preferences and priorities for engaging with the communities, so have a key role in the delivery of this policy.

47. The change to enable more fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement for some asset-based decisions may provide local boards with greater flexibility to customise some engagement processes to better meet the needs of their community.

48. Feedback from local board consultation is outlined from point 31.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. The refresh of the Significance and Engagement Policy will strengthen the council’s capacity and capability to engage with, and meet the needs of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. This will be achieved through the delivery of tailored training initiatives and resources, which align to best practice engagement, and developing an engagement approach that responds to the needs of, and is supported by Māori.

50. The mana outcomes in Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau provide a foundation to build council’s engagement practice and approach. It includes initiatives already underway such as Te Matapuna 2 as a pilot for spatial-based engagement. Work on relationship agreements is progressing, and there is good support for capacity contracts. Further work is required to streamline engagement forums to ensure they are fit for purpose and respond to priorities from Māori.

51. Ongoing collaboration on the development of the Māori engagement practice and approach will inform the Engagement Guidelines. This will ensure council’s size and engagement reach is leveraged effectively, and that the guidelines reflect a te ao Māori perspective.

52. A focus on practice, capacity and capability will guide operational performance so that the aspirations for Māori engagement in Tāmaki Makaurau are progressed, aligned and achievable. Further work on Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance measures will be aligned with the engagement approach as it continues to be developed.

53. Initial feedback on the Significance and Engagement Policy supported the proposed refresh as being good for diverse communities and giving greater flexibility and visibility when engaging with Māori. Targeted consultation with Māori will be undertaken through the review of the Engagement Guidelines.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. The proposed changes to the significance section of the policy will assist in the assessment of significance and may reduce the financial costs of engagement approaches that are not fit-for-purpose.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

55. An unclear or ambiguous Significance and Engagement Policy could make it harder for the council to demonstrate compliance with the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. The updated policy more clearly references LGA legislation and this may mitigate any uncertainty around the policy’s application when it comes to decisions around significance and assets, and the associated engagement process.

56. The updated policy may also mitigate extraneous time and cost spent on engagement that is not fit-for-purpose or unnecessarily long decision-making processes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. Following the adoption and approval of the draft policy, staff will implement the final Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 from 1 March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Significance and Engagement Policy 2022	17
b ⇩	Consultation Document	43
c ⇩	Public feedback report	49
d ⇩	Local board feedback	57

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

Governing Body

24 February 2022

Local Government Elections 2022 - Order of Names on Voting Documents

File No.: CP2022/00069

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide the order of names on voting documents for the 2022 local government elections for Auckland Council.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

· alphabetical order of surname

· pseudo-random order

· random order.

3. Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4. Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5. The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.

7. Local board feedback is summarised in Appendix B. All local boards support alphabetical order of names except for the Waitematā Local Board, which supports random order.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note the feedback from local boards

b) resolve that the candidates’ names on voting papers for the Auckland Council 2022 elections will be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

Horopaki

Context

Options available

8. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2) Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3) If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4) If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

9. In 2013 the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order. From 2016 there has been no additional cost to use random order, due to changes in printing technology.

10. For the 2019 elections the following table outlines decisions of those regional and metropolitan councils whose data was available:

Council	Order
Auckland Council	Alphabetical
Bay Of Plenty Regional Council	Random
Environment Southland Regional Council	Alphabetical
Hawke's Bay Regional Council	Alphabetical
Northland Regional Council	Alphabetical
Otago Regional Council	Alphabetical
Taranaki Regional Council	Alphabetical
Waikato Regional Council	Random
West Coast Regional Council	Alphabetical
Christchurch City Council	Random
Dunedin City Council	Random
Hamilton City Council	Random
Hutt City Council	Random
Invercargill City Council	Random
Napier City Council	Random
Nelson City Council	Random
Palmerston North City Council	Random
Porirua City Council	Random
Tauranga City Council	Random
Upper Hutt City Council	Random
Wellington City Council	Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for 2022

Pseudo-random order and true random order

11. Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is true random order, which means the order on every voting document is different.

12. A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter.

Alphabetical order

13. The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar, easier to use and to understand. When a large number of candidates compete for a position, it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

14. It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

15. The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

16. An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

· The impact of ballot position on the number of votes received by candidates (i.e. the impact on the vote share) for local boards and wards

· The impact of ballot position on whether an individual was elected or not (i.e. the impact on election outcomes).

17. This analysis of Auckland Council elections data show that while there might be a small impact of being listed first on the percentage share of votes received in local board elections, there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last four elections. Given the relatively small sample size and variability in the data, these analyses may be less able to detect the real effects. Therefore, conclusions should be drawn with caution. That said, it is reasonable to conclude that results from the last four elections were not significantly affected by the use of alphabetical ordering on voting documents.

18. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of previous election results show does not exist.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on the wider group.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

21. A summary of the feedback from local boards is attached in Appendix B. All local boards support alphabetical order of names except for the Waitematā Local Board, which supports random order.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori and that such profile statements are contained in the candidate profile booklet in alphabetic order. Having voting documents in alphabetic order makes it easier for any voter to match the candidate in the profile booklet.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. There is no additional cost to the printing of voting documents if names are ordered using the random method.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. If names are ordered alphabetically there is the risk of perceived bias. If names are randomised there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias associated with alphabetical order is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. The decision of the Governing Body will be communicated to Electoral Officer, Dale Ofsoske, who arranges the printing of the voting documents.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ballot order effects and Auckland Council elections.	87
b ⇩	Local board feedback.	91

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Original Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report to the Audit and Risk Committee	97

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Original Enterprise Risk Management Activity Update – February 2022 report to the Audit and Risk Committee	107

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	117
b ⇩	Letter from Heritage Advisory Panel: Panel support for council’s approach to National Policy Statement Urban Development and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (MDRS)	125
c ⇨	Notice of Motion in relation to Notice of Motion – Compliance and Bylaw Enforcement - Kaipātiki Local Board Decision (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	An item in relation to Auckland Council’s submission on the Hākamangō-Martiatia Marine Reserve - Kaipātiki Local Board Decision (Under Separate Cover)

Governing Body

24 February 2022

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body
Forward Work Programme 2022

The Governing Body deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee. The full terms of reference can be found here: Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference

Area of work and Lead Department	Pūnga / Reason for work	Committee role (whakatau / decision and/or tika / direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2022
Area of work and Lead Department	Pūnga / Reason for work		Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Chief Executive’s Performance Objectives	The Appointments and Performance Review Committee has the delegation to recommend performance objectives. The Governing Body must then consider the recommendations and make a decision.	Decision to whakaae / approve performance objectives Progress to date: Setting the Chief Executives 2020/2021 performance objectives – Open Process Report 26 November 2020 Link to decision Update Report on workforce and full-time equivalents CONFIDENTIAL 25 March 2021 Chief Executives Performance Objectives for FY22-24 CONFIDENTIAL 24 June 2021 released 29 July 2021 Link to decision Decisions made at the Appointments and Performance Review Committee CONFIDENTIAL 28 September 2021 Link to decision / restatement Link to released report and attachments
Chief Executive Remuneration Review	The chief executive’s remuneration will be reviewed annually.	Decision to whakaae / approve a remuneration change. Progress to date: Report from the Appointment and Performance Review Committee CONFIDENTIAL 16 December 2021 Link to decision / restatement
City Rail Link	Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city	Decisions to whakaae / approve matter associated with City Rail Link Decisions to tuhi / note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project Progress to date: Appointments to board of City Rail Link 25 June 2020 Link to decision open process report Link to restatement Report on shareholder approval of major transaction 27 August 2020 Link to decision Report on Targeted Hardship Fund for C3 Works CONFIDENTIAL 26 August 2021	As and when required
Review of council- controlled organisations	Overview of and decisions relating to any council-controlled organisations review including the implementation of any resulting changes to council-controlled organisations	Decision on appointment of a council-controlled organisations review panel Whakaaroaro / consider draft report on the key issues, feedback from the community and stakeholders Decision on final report and recommendations Progress to date: 11 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop 19 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop Decision on the CCO Review 27 August 2020 Link to decision Report and proposal to merge Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) 27 August 2020 Link to decision
Annual Budget (Annual Plan)	Statutory requirement	Decision to whakaae / approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation Decision to tango / adopt Annual Budget Progress to date: Mayoral Proposal Items for Consultation 8 December 2021 Link to decision Kerbside Refuse Charging Policy Review 8 December 2021 Link to decision Other Rates and Fees Issues 8 December 2021 Link to decision Rating of Whenua Maori Changes to Financial Policies 8 December 2021 Link to decision		Consultation Material				Adoption
Annual Report	Statutory requirement	Decision to tango / adopt the Annual Report									Adoption
Committee Forward Work Programmes	Responsibility for oversight of work programmes of all committee of the Governing Body.	Decision to tuhi / note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme Progress to date: Report noting all committee forward work programmes 28 October 2021 Link to decision Update Report 16 December 2021 Link to decision
Terms of Reference	The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels. Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.	Decision to tango / adopt the Terms of Reference Decision to tango / adopt changes to Terms of Reference Progress to date: Terms of Reference approved November 2019 Link to decision Terms of Reference amended to include working parties November 2019 Link to decision Terms of Reference amended to include the Emergency Committee March 2020 Link to decision Change to membership of Appointments and Performance Review Committee 24 June 2021 Link to decision	As and when required
Standing Orders	Statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 27 Originally adopted 16/12/2010	Decision to tīni / amend standing orders Progress to date: Change in light of COVID-19 March 2020 Link to decision Change for Attendance by Electronic Link 25 June 2020 Link to decision	As and when required
Health, Safety and Wellbeing	The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.	Decision to tūtohi / receive quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing report
Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review	The Auckland Council conducted a Hauora (Wellbeing) review for its staff in early 2021.	Decisions and reporting as and when required.
Auckland Council Enterprise Risk Report	The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the enterprise risk report to the Governing Body every quarter.	Decision to tuhi / note the enterprise risk report and risk heat map Decision to tūtohi / receive quarterly reports
Audit and Risk Committee Performance Report	The Audit and Risk Committee will provide an annual report on its performance.	Decision to tuhi / note the Annual Report on the Performance of the Audit and Risk Committee.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views. The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.	Decision to whakaae / approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Decision to whakaae / approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements	As and when required
Governance Framework Review	The Joint Governance Working Party will make recommendations to the Governing Body on governance matters of mutual interest to the Governing Body and local boards	Decisions on Joint Governance Working Party recommendations Decisions on Service Levels and Funding Decisions on Governance Framework Review implementation as required	As and when required
BYLAWS
Freedom Camping in Vehicles	Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Report on next steps 25 March 2021 Link to decision Options Report 27 May 2021 Link to decision			Direction		Options
Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.											Recommendation
Signage Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision
Stormwater Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Approve statement of proposal 26 August 2021 Link to decision
Traffic Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Decision to whakaae / approve statement of proposal # Decision to whakapūmau/tīni/takahuri / Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: No decision required until 2022.

Completed

Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
Ark in the Park	Decision to appoint GB representatives to Ark in the Park.	Appointment of councillor representatives February 2020 Link to decision
Water Strategy	Monitoring drought situation.	Update from Watercare 25 June 2020 Link to decision Update on water matters from Auckland Council 25 June 2020 Link to decision Drought Restrictions Summer 2020/2021 24 September 2020 Link to decision Review of Drought Restrictions for the 2020/2021 summer season 26 November 2020 Link to decision Going forward this subject will be dealt with at the Environment and Climate Change Committee.
Review of Code of Conduct	Decision to adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct	Scope of the Review Report 26 November 2020 Link to decision Final report for adoption 25 May 2021 Link to decision
Decision-making Responsibilities of the Governing Body and Local Board	Decision to approve the policy and confirm any changes.	Report to approve 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Group Remuneration Policy	Decision to approve the policy.	Report to approve policy 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operations Plan	Decision to adopt Operations Plan and summary	Tango (adopt) DRAFT Operational Plan and Summary for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision Report to agree to Operational Plan and include in the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget) 29 Jun 2021 Link to decision
Annual Report	Decision to adopt the Annual Report	Adoption 27 September 2021 Link to decision
Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework	Decision to agree to finalise the framework.	This was reported to Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee 8 July 2021 Link to decision
BYLAWS
Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Legislative requirement	Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision Approve panel recommendations and adopt amended bylaw 25 February 2021 Link to decision
Alcohol Control Bylaw Review	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw # public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Legislative requirement	Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision Final decision report 29 April 2021 Link to decision
Navigation Safety Bylaw Review	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Legislative requirement	Approve statement of proposal 29 October 2020 Link to decision Bylaw Panel Report to adopt bylaw 24 June 2021 Link to decision
Construction Bylaw 2015	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Legislative requirement	Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse
Wharves Bylaw 2015	Decision to approve statement of proposal # Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Legislative requirement	Findings and Options Report 23 September 2021 Link to decision Note: Bylaw will lapse

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore
Councillors	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr John Watson
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Shane Henderson
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Tracy Mulholland

Date	Memorandum
22.12.21	Letter from Heritage Advisory Panel: Panel support for council’s approach to National Policy Statement Urban Development and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (MDRS).
17.2.22	Notice of Motion in relation to Notice of Motion – Compliance and Bylaw Enforcement - Kaipātiki Local Board Decision
17.2.22	An item in relation to Auckland Council’s submission on the Hākamangō-Martiatia Marine Reserve - Kaipātiki Local Board Decision

Date	Workshop/Briefing
2.2.22	Eke Panuku Strategic Partnership Opportunity CONFIDENTIAL

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Jim Stabback - Chief Executive