13 October 2021
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Council organisational realignment
Enquiry
Enquiry included formal LGOIMA request + questions for comment
Questions submitted under LGOIMA:
- “ET” is referred to in the docs [see HERE] – checking, is that executive team?
- Have the outcome areas and final functional groupings been changed since June 2021? Have they changed?
- Which role previously oversaw council strategy – presumably the strategy group manager? Is that correct?
- Who is responsible for this now?
- Can the council please provide an organisational/role hierarchy? Who is effectively second in charge, third in charge and so on and which roles report to which? A diagram may be useful.
- What does a ‘dotted line’ responsibility mean?
- What are the respective budgets for each DCE area and how many staff report to each?
- Page three, eight, 14, 21 of the March 2021 staff presentation (attachment 8.1) is that a video or redacted? If a video can you please provide me with the it? If redacted can you please specify the legislative reason.
- Page six attachment 10 – it says the LTP budget identified funding and resources required to support the delivery of the strategic direction of the council. Can you please point me to the specific place in the LTP (if it was in the final version) where it says this and how much it was?
- When specifically were [the DCEs] appointed?
- Is the organisational realignment still under way? What other changes have been made? Page seven attachment 10 says its likely new roles will be created – has that happened and if so, what are the new roles?
- What is the cost to date of the organisational realignment? Is it the final cost or will there be more? How much more is expected?
- Does the communications manager report to the DCE CEG?
- Why is reputational “risk management” not part of the communications manager role but instead the DCE chief executive’s group role?
- Do the ‘outcome areas and final functional groupings’ act as job descriptions? If not, do the deputy chief executive positions have job/position descriptions yet? If so, can I please have them – if not, will they and when?
Questions for comment
- The functional grouping for the DCE chief executive’s office group states it “manages the political interface” with the mayor and deputy mayor - what does “managing the political interface” mean and why is a council officer involved in this?
- Is page 14 of the March 2021 staff presentation (attachment 8.1) the rationale for the organisational realignment?
- As the corporate planning and governance manager was not a member of the executive team, was that the only final deputy chief executive who did not take part in the development of ‘Preparing for Our Future’, or did that person also participate in its development as well?
- Why were the deputy chief executives appointed before internal consultation began? (It appears the first time staff were made aware of the concept was March 25 and on March 29 they were told the DCEs had been appointed.)
- Why did the deputy chief executives receive and process the staff feedback on the changes to their own roles? Did the council not view this as a conflict and if not, why not?
- Why did the deputy chief executives (perhaps bar one – see question above) participate in the development of a change proposal they were subject to?
- How can/did the council ensure fairness and transparency in its internal consultation process if the original feedback (if anonymised) received is not shared? If it’s not shared with the public, was it shared with RLC staff? Who was it shared with?
- If the changes to roles are not significant enough to trigger a formal restructure and recruitment process, in what way are they expected to be significant enough to make a significant impact on outcomes for the council?
- What was the picture of penguins about in the chief executive’s presentation to elected members (attachment 12) about?
- When did the chief executive become aware the council had sent the media the wrong information regarding salary raises (the $40,000 minimum rise) and why did the council not provide proactive clarification of the misinformation it had provided? Was this point ever clarified to staff?
- Did the council ever have any kind of communications plan to make the public aware of the changes, prior to when the media began to ask questions about it?
Response
LGOIMA responses
- "ET” is referred to in the docs – checking, is that executive team?
Yes - Have the outcome areas and final functional groupings been changed since June 2021? Have they changed?
No they have not changed - Which role previously oversaw council strategy – presumably the strategy group manager? Is that correct?
Strategy development sits across all parts of Council with the Chief Executive (CE_ holding overall oversight. The strategy team within the Strategy Group led development of over-arching strategies like Vision 2030 - The Rotorua Way, the Spatial Plan, Housing plan and Climate Action Plan. Strategies like the Infrastructure Strategy and Sport and Recreation Strategy are developed by the relevant teams that work in these areas. - Who is responsible for this now?
Strategy development sits across all parts of Council with the CE holding overall oversight. - Can the council please provide an organisational/role hierarchy? Who is effectively second in charge, third in charge and so on and which roles report to which? A diagram may be useful.
- Deputy Chief Executive’s (DCE’s) report to the CE - DCEs stand in as CE’s representative in his absence if/as required, with the DCE of the CE’s office generally stepping in as acting CE - Third tier roles report to DCEs See the attached leadership structure diagrams for reporting lines for each outcome area. - What does a ‘dotted line’ responsibility mean?
Reports to a primary manager but also dotted line to another manager responsible for the person’s work or aspects of it. - What are the respective budgets for each DCE area and how many staff report to each?
Below is the opex and capex split by DCE.
The opex cost doesn’t include the revenue budget or the allocated costs such as depreciation and internal charges.DCE Group DCE Name Opex Budget
(Excl Revenue and Allocated Costs)Capex Budget Chief Executive Craig Tiriana 1,829,781 - Community Wellbeing Currently vacant 28,008,753 61,715,737 District Development Jean-Paul Gaston 14,176,690 22,287,500 District Leadership and Democracy Oonagh Hopkins 3,979,635 250,000 Infrastructure and Environmental Solutions Stavros Michael 38,514,799 53,305,269 Organisational Enablement Thomas Collé 17,138,063 8,401,800 Te Arawa Partnership Gina Rangi 767,032 - Total 104,414,753 145,960,306
FTE data per DCE group as at 30 September 2021:Area FTEs CE/DCEs 7 Chief Executive Group 4 Community Wellbeing 153 District Development 8 District Leadership and Democracy 16 Infrastructure and Environmental Solutions 47 Organisational Enablement 100 Te Arawa Partnership 4 Total 339 - Page three, eight, 14, 21 of the March 2021 staff presentation (attachment 8.1) is that a video or redacted? If a video can you please provide me with the it? If redacted can you please specify the legislative reason.
These are all videos:
P3 – 2018 BA5 Presentation (5:45)
P8 – Vision 2030 (2020) (2:30)
P14 – Penguins – The Power of Strength (1:20)
P21 – DCE videos (2:38)
If you would like a Powerpoint copy of the presentation to view the videos, please contact me and I will arrange for a copy to be made available to you. - Page six attachment 10 – it says the LTP budget identified funding and resources required to support the delivery of the strategic direction of the council. Can you please point me to the specific place in the LTP (if it was in the final version) where it says this and how much it was?
This refers to the LTP in its entirety. The LTP sets the direction and the budget needed to fund the direction that has been set. - When specifically were [the DCEs] appointed?
The appointments came into effect 29 March 2021 - Is the organisational realignment still under way? What other changes have been made? Page seven attachment 10 says its likely new roles will be created – has that happened and if so, what are the new roles?
The realignment process is still underway. See the attached leadership structure diagrams for outcome areas that show new roles. - What is the cost to date of the organisational realignment? Is it the final cost or will there be more? How much more is expected?
No change to information previously provided: $51,842.35 to date. Final cost not yet confirmed. - Does the communications manager report to the DCE CEG?
No - Why is reputational “risk management” not part of the communications manager role but instead the DCE chief executive’s group role?
The CE has overall responsibility and the DCE, CE’s Group, assists the CE in his role. - Do the ‘outcome areas and final functional groupings’ act as job descriptions? If not, do the deputy chief executive positions have job/position descriptions yet? If so, can I please have them – if not, will they and when?
Job descriptions are not yet finalised.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Publication of responses to LGOIMA requests
Please note: Our LGOIMA responses may be published on the Rotorua Lakes Council website after they have been responded to, with requesters’ personal details withheld. If you have any concerns about this please contact the Council on info@rotorualc.nz
Comment
From CE Geoff Williams:
The organisational realignment is progressing. The aim is to ensure RLC is in the right shape to deliver on the direction and outcomes set in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan, which focuses on addressing significant and unprecedented local challenges including housing, infrastructure, economic recovery and climate change. There is increasing pressure on councils to provide local leadership on issues spanning social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeings, as well as dealing with the impacts of COVID-19.
Our organisation is being asked and expected to do more and deliver more and this requires exceptional leadership and a different approach and way of working. For example, as in housing where rather than just enabling housing through planning and consenting, we are working directly with Central Government, iwi and other landowners, developers and property owners to address Rotorua’s complex housing challenges.
We have moved to a new structure based around six key outcome areas: Community Wellbeing, District Development, District Leadership and Democracy, Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Organisational Enablement and Te Arawa Partnership. The Office of the Chief Executive has been renamed to Chief Executive’s Group.
Deputy chief executives have been appointed to lead each of these areas and deliver the strategic outcomes sought. The DCE titles reflect the high level of accountability and responsibility for delivering significant outcomes and provide the mandate to represent our organisation in leading this important work with our partners and stakeholders.
The model for the organisational realignment – ie the outcome areas (based on the direction and outcomes set in the LTP) and the change from group managers to DCEs – was set by myself, as chief executive, with guidance from an HR expert in organisational change. We have had guidance from both internal and external HR expertise every step of the way to ensure everything is done properly and that the process is robust. It has been a highly consultative process with every level of the organisation having input.
Some new roles are proposed to support the delivery of outcomes and details for recruitment are being finalised with roles to be filled over a period of time.
Recruitment for a new DCE Community Wellbeing, to fill the vacancy left by Jocelyn Mikaere, is also getting underway. We want to fill this role as soon as possible to ensure continuity of the work that sits within this outcome area.
The realignment has provided an opportunity to create a more adaptable and responsive organisation that is capable of delivering real value for our community in a highly uncertain environment. I’m incredibly proud of the work that is being done by our organisation for the betterment of the district and the people who live here.
Re “The functional grouping for the DCE chief executive’s office group states it “manages the political interface” with the mayor and deputy mayor - what does “managing the political interface” mean and why is a council officer involved in this?”: This is about helping the CE to maintain the relationship between the organisation and the mayor and deputy mayor. It is not a political function.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Council website changes
Enquiry
Enquiry included formal LGOIMA request + questions for comment
Request submitted under LGOIMA:
- All feedback from the public regarding its website (rotorualakescouncil.nz) since it launched in its new layout/format, including but not limited to formal feedback (if applicable), complaints, emails, suggestion box items and feedback received by phone (phone call recollections).
- All internal feedback from council staff and or contractors regarding its website (rotorualakescouncil.nz) since it launched in its new layout/format, including but not limited to formal feedback (if applicable), complaints, emails, suggestion box items and feedback received by phone (phone call recollections).
- How much the website cost, including the cost of the platform/format and including how much it cost to transfer data onto it. If this was done by staff, please provide an estimate of how much time that took.
Questions submitted for comment:
- Please provide details of how the new website was created - ie the council used x software or platform and transferred information etc - just some background details on the process.
- Why that method was selected?
- How the website renewal programme worked to avoid 'dead' links (ie ones that when clicked on lead to a 404 error page, screenshot of example attached). How many of these dead links does the council estimate are on its website since the new website was launched?
Response
LGOIMA responses
- All feedback from the public regarding its website (rotorualakescouncil.nz) since it launched in its new layout/format, including but not limited to formal feedback (if applicable), complaints, emails, suggestion box items and feedback received by phone (phone call recollections).
There has been no feedback sought or recorded, only notifications of broken links. Any received by the customer centre (by email or phone) were passed on to staff who manage the website to correct. The Customer Centre did not keep records of notifications regarding broken website links and there were no formal complaints lodged. - All internal feedback from council staff and or contractors regarding its website (rotorualakescouncil.nz) since it launched in its new layout/format, including but not limited to formal feedback (if applicable), complaints, emails, suggestion box items and feedback received by phone (phone call recollections).
There has been no formal feedback but a few staff who have given verbal feedback have been positive about the change. - How much the website cost, including the cost of the platform/format and including how much it cost to transfer data onto it. If this was done by staff, please provide an estimate of how much time that took.
No cost.
In June 2021 RLC transitioned to a new underlying platform that was introduced by its website provider Datacom and has a different look. It is not a new website. Datacom decided to retire the previous underlying platform it was using for the website. This was not at Council’s request.
Work undertaken by Datacom to lead and support the transition to the new platform was covered by existing contracted support hours.
Council staff time related to migrating content to the new platform was part of the day-to-day work of those involved and has not been recorded separately.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Publication of responses to LGOIMA requests
Please note: Our LGOIMA responses may be published on the Rotorua Lakes Council website after they have been responded to, with requesters’ personal details withheld. If you have any concerns about this please contact the Council on info@rotorualc.nz.
Comment
From Oonagh Hopkins, DCE District Leadershhip and Democracry:
- Please provide details of how the new website was created - ie the council used x software or platform and transferred information etc - just some background details on the process.
This is not a new website. It is an updated platform that has been introduced by Council’s website provider, Datacom, and has a different look and some changes in terms of navigation for users. Datacom decided to retire the previous underlying platform that it had used for Council’s website and this necessitated the change to the new platform. As the website provider, Datacom led the process to migrate content to the new platform, in collaboration with Council staff. Datacom also provided training for Council staff who manage the website. Other councils that contract the same website provider have gone through a similar changeover process. - Why that method was selected?
As above, Datacom decided to retire the previous underlying platform it had used for the Rotorua Lakes Council website and this necessitated changing to the new platform. Datacom led the migration of content. - How the website renewal programme worked to avoid 'dead' links (ie ones that when clicked on lead to a 404 error page, screenshot of example attached). How many of these dead links does the council estimate are on its website since the new website was launched? Overall, we have been pleased with the transition to the new platform.
Broken links occur for a number of reasons and dealing with these is part of the day-to-day management of any website.
These are unavoidable following a platform change such as ours, given the number of links on the RLC website.
Considerable effort went into cleaning up and redirecting content prior to migration. However, Datacom advised there would be remaining broken links after migration was complete, due to the sheer amount of content and factors such as the time it takes Google search results to update.
As part of the transition, council monitored and resolved broken links within its control, prioritising high volume hits. There is also a feedback form presented on 404 to enable the public to report and for council to provide access to requested information if necessary.
Datacom has estimated that of the approximately 800,000 links on the website, there are approximately 5000 broken links, so less than 1% of the total number of links. Many of these are due to previous domains no longer working as a result of the changeover (eg the old website address before council’s name change to Rotorua Lakes Council, and the authoring site for the previous platform).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Council magazine
Enquiry
Enquiry included formal LGOIMA request + questions for comment
Questions submitted under LGOIMA
- The total cost, from September 2020 to September 2021, of the Tatau Tatau magazine, broken down by issue. For each issue, please break down to component costs including but not limited to content creation, design, printing and distribution.
- The total number of households reached with each issue.
- What kind of material is the magazine made of - including the ink - and if it is recyclable in Rotorua (ie through Rotorua's recycling system, which may have different capabilities compared to other TLAs' services)?
- If it comes in any kind of weather-proofing wrapping, what is the wrapping made of and is it recyclable in Rotorua?
Questions for comment
- Can you please comment on these costs, what budget stream they come from and what impact it has on the council's finances.
- What is the council's view of the magazine's impact, reach and use?
- Can you please comment on how recyclable (or not) the magazine is?
- and a general comment on what feedback, if any, the council receives from residents about the magazine and its use.
Response
LGOIMA responses
- The total cost, from September 2020 to September 2021, of the Tatau Tatau magazine, broken down by issue. For each issue, please break down to component costs including but not limited to content creation, design, printing and distribution.
Issue Printing
($ excl. GST)Distribution
($ excl. GST)Contributing writer Reach
(number of households)September 2020 $13,921.07 $3,046.32 27,248 December 2020 $13,921.07 $3,049.79 27,267 April 2021 $13,985.60 $3,068.58 27,256 August 2021 $14,386.37 $2,908.60 $750.00 25,483 - The total number of households reached with each issue.
Refer to above table. - What kind of material is the magazine made of - including the ink - and if it is recyclable in Rotorua (ie through Rotorua's recycling system, which may have different capabilities compared to other TLAs' services)?
The magazine is printed on uncoated FSC certified paper which means it comes from responsible forestry. See more about FSC certification HERE
It is printed on modern offset technology which uses LED UV technology. The ink is solvent free so there is no solvent to evaporate, meaning no environmental pollutants are formed. The ink dries instantly in the print process so no sealants are required. It also uses less power than traditional print technology, helping to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
Both the ink and paper are recyclable, so the magazine is recyclable through Rotorua’s recycling system. - If it comes in any kind of weather-proofing wrapping, what is the wrapping made of and is it recyclable in Rotorua?The magazine is not wrapped.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Publication of responses to LGOIMA requests
Please note: Our LGOIMA responses may be published on the Rotorua Lakes Council website after they have been responded to, with requesters’ personal details withheld. If you have any concerns about this please contact the Council on info@rotorualc.nz.
Comment:
From Oonagh Hopkins, DCE District Leadership and Democracy:
The work and decisions of Council affect everyone in our district and as people seek and receive news and information in different ways, we need to use various ways to communicate with the community.
Council has made considerable efforts to increase engagement with the community and increase the reach of council information. New channels introduced in recent years include livestreaming of meetings, a dedicated online consultation tool (Let's Talk - Korero Mai), a weekly e-panui people can subscribe to and the Tatau Tatau magazine. Council has also increased its use of social media and its use of community-based publications as a way to reach more people.
The magazine celebrates people and work in our community, as well as providing details about upcoming events, and information and updates about council services, projects and partnerships. It enables us to reach nearly 27,000 households throughout the district, with copies also available at Rotorua Library and provided to about 60 local organisations and businesses, at their request. The magazine is also available in digital form on Council’s website.
Council receives occasional feedback about the magazine, both positive and negative – as would be expected. We are always happy to receive constructive feedback and suggestions that help us improve the provision of information to our community.
Allocated budget that was previously used for other things such as print media advertising was reallocated to the magazine, enabling us to go directly to more than 27,000 letterboxes. This allocation is part of the annual communications team budget.
The magazine has always been recyclable through Council’s recycling services.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Ministry for Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) consent applications
Enquiry
We've received the attached press release [from Restore Rotorua]. We would appreciate it if the council could:
- Confirm the details in the press release are true and correct.
- Provide comment from the Mayor regarding these events.
- Is the appointment of a commissioner an out of the ordinary process that's come about because of Restore Rotorua or something that would have happened anyway?
- Who appoints the independent commissioners and what's the timeline for this process?
Thank you for your help and time. We would appreciate it if this query could be responded to before 3pm.
Clarification provided for questions 2 and 4:
- Provide comment from the Mayor regarding the decision to appoint an independent commissioner and the role of Restore Rotorua in the decision to have an independent commissioner decide on resource consent for emergency housing made by the Ministry of Housing and Urban development.
- Who appoints the independent commissioners? What is the timeline for the process of appointing independent commissioners? What steps are involved in the appointment of independent commissioners?
Response
Comment:
At a meeting with Restore Rotorua Inc and their legal representation last week, Council suggested that a way forward could be to incorporate a notification hearing conducted by Independent Hearing Commissioners as part of the resource consent process. This would enable an independent decision on the notification path for each of the six Resource Consent applications currently before Council. A follow up letter to Restore Rotorua Inc’s legal representation outlined Council’s intention to proceed with that suggestion.
Notification hearings using Independent Hearing Commissioners are not usual process however, they have been used in the past to make notification decisions.
Council will engage and appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners. Once appointed, the commissioners will determine the final process and timeframe.
Process for commissioner appointment:
Council as consent authority appoints and engages the Independent Hearing Commissioners and delegates its decision making function under the Resource Management Act to them. That process looks like:
- Evaluation of credited commissioners based on expertise in notification decisions and other relevant experience.
- Checking the availability and interest of those commissioners.
- Council will then appoint and delegate from those available and interested commissioners.
For your information (not comment):
- As the Mayor has said previously it’s not appropriate for elected members to comment on operational matters. Elected members are not involved in the consenting process.
- A notification hearing is a process that enables Independent Hearing Commissioners to make a determination on whether a consent will be publically notified or not. Please note that the decision is not about whether a consent will be granted or not.
- The notification hearing process relates to the six Resource Consent applications currently before Council.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Westbrook Sport and Recreation Precinct concept
Enquiry
I'm working on a story about the Westbrook Sport and Recreation Precinct and the Springfield golf course.
I have some comments to supply to the council and mayor for right of reply if desired.
And a question for the council:
What is the expected/estimated timeframe for the completion of a Play, Active Recreation and Sport Plan should it get the green light from the council?
And related changes to the District Plan too, if that's different. [I realise it states in the report for the meeting "these actions will be completed over the next 1-3 years" but I'm after some specificity on those plans, if possible]
I am after a response to this question, and any comment from the council (and or mayor, as some of these comments relate elected members and their decisions) in reply to the below, by 3pm today please.
COMMENTS:
Springfield Golf Club president Paul Fox said the proposal was “pie in the sky” and “a hell of a lot of money and no guarantee [the precinct] is going to get any use”.
“This council are good at spending other people’s money but it’s got to be paid back.
“It’s going to become a white elephant.”
He said it was not just about saving the golf course, but green space in the city as well.
“We at Springfield Golf Club do not agree with what the council want to do. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.”
He said the club needed certainty on the future of the lease, which expires in 2027, and wanted the council to renew it ahead of time.
-
Saving Springfield president Robert Lee said Pitkethley’s report for Thursday’s meeting had come as a result of discussions with his group but the group was dissatisfied with it.
“They’re trying to push it out past the [2022 local] election so the councillors who support the proposal are not tainted.
“This report says ‘we need to do another report’. It's deferring discussion."
Lee said there was plenty to consult on already, and he wanted the council to focus on the “key drivers” of the proposal, which he described as a shortage of good quality fields and population growth.
He said both of those things were disputed.
“The basis is something [the council] have manufactured.”
Apologies Robert just called me back and added to his pov:
--
Lee said as the council ultimately, in June, voted against deferring the discussion about the future of Springfield golf course and to produce a report back to the Strategy Policy and Finance Committee in June, the funding for the Westbrook proposal should not have been included in the final, approved Long-term Plan.
"The council staff have gone rogue. They are acting beyond the authority given by elected members. The Westbrook Sports Precinct had all of these reports prepared to date and still ... elected members have not authorised the council to do all of these reports and investigations. There was no occasion where elected members voted in favour of exploring a sports precinct."
Response
The matter will be discussed at tomorrow’s committee meeting by the members. It is inappropriate for the organisation to comment prior to that. The information you’re seeking may well be covered in tomorrow’s meeting. If not, please feel free to come back to us after the meeting.
There is no comment in response to those that you’ve provided but thanks for checking.