Council Computerisation Reality Check

In April 2009, the Listener Magazine ran an investigative piece which considered the new National Government’s proposals to restructure Auckland local government. It was a good piece. And I wrote to the Listener’s Letter page shortly thereafter….

I trust that Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide reads your warning that he should hasten slowly in reforming Auckland Local Government.

This would be the biggest merger in New Zealand’s history with $23 billion in assets and the jobs of 6000 at stake, let alone the hopes and dreams of Auckland’s 1.4 million citizens. It is important to get this right…..

Last week Auckland learned the Royal Commission recommended without good reason the abolition of Community Boards, and for many good reasons the retention of existing City Council structures. This week we learned that Government intends the exact opposite by abolishing City Council structures and retaining Community Boards. Unfortunately, neither approach provides Auckland the critical mix of local scale to deliver big urban regeneration projects, balanced by local representation.

Undeterred by criticism so far, and determined to complete this reform before elections next year, Government proposes an Establishment Board with its own statutory power to force change.

Topping its list must be the job of getting eight council computer systems to talk to each other. This might be called the Integrated Council Information System. INCIS for short. Tread carefully, Rodney, because you tread on community dreams."

Did you say "INCIS" - what was that?

That last paragraph is the key one today – with news that upgrading Auckland Council’s new computer systems will cost ratepayers around $500 million.

In a previous life I spent ten years working on very large scale computer projects. Mostly in the UK, and even wrote a book about it: Computer Media, Published by Comedia in 1984 I think. You can still buy copies on Amazon. The behaviour of IBM was a core theme of my book. But I digress.

Almost 20 years ago New Zealand went through its last INCIS crisis. Only that time it was the Integrated National Computerised Information System developed by IBM for the NZ Government and Police. This was to deliver a single computer system with some 3,500 desktop terminals for a cost then of around $84,000,000. Supported by a business case of course – apparently Treasury believed it would save $300,000,000 through reductions in frontline staff.

After running for about 4 years, with the budget up to $130,000,000, and apparently 900 variations to the functional specification already documented as the scope grew, the Government pulled out of the project. Counter-claims and threats of legal action flew between New Zealand Government and IBM. There are some great bits of archive on the internet about this, starting with this summary of the Ministerial Inquiry into INCIS.

A key finding of that inquiry was this:

2.2.1 The scope of INCIS has never been satisfactorily addressed in the documentation. In the initial Information Systems Planning exercise the scope was defined as 'intelligence within the Police'. At no time were the boundaries set, or the role of INCIS defined and set in context within the Police.

Ring any bells here? For Auckland Council? NZ Herald’s report today suggests there’s no ownership of this amalgamated council computer project. It appears to have a life of its own. Mr Ford and the Transition Authority have washed their hands of it, Ex-Hon Rodney Hide has too, and even the Mayor (though - to be fair - he did inherit this can of worms.)

While abolition was playing out in the last days of ARC I did talk with technical staff. There were several council computer systems in Auckland that used the same SAP platform. So they could be integrated. It would require the others to be changed and integrated. But this didn't happen. There were clear favourite Councils in the transition process (ie some whose systems and staff were largely carried over intact in amalgamation), and others that were entirely abolished. I am advised the initial plan to "integrate" the 8 or so different council computer systems was to build a web-based front end, layer it over the old systems, and leave it up to this layer to interpret which database to update etc etc. What was to follow that in the longer term, and how successful that preliminary stage would be - nobody could say.

What is happening now is a predictable consequence of the approach to amalgamation that the Transition Agency favoured: disintegration followed by top-down rebuilding. This has led to massive institutional fragmentation. The consequences of this will be felt most sharply in parts of the organisation responsible for computerised information systems.

Auckland Council’s computer system development, its new INCIS, has the potential to get very out of hand, very quickly. Bad, early decisions, have very expensive consequences later on. Once Council commits to a development pathway it can’t easily change horses. So the CEO's comforting words that the expenditure of $450 million is "over the next 10 years" are not of any great comfort. Especially if it's good money after bad. At the very least we need to learn from the old INCIS which took years, great cost and wasted effort before the decision to cancel. There are benefits in maintaining separate computer systems: resilience; performance bench-marking, for example. In the days of distributed processing and extremely powerful desktop computing, one big central computer doesn't necessarily mean better.

Council's Governing Body needs some very good – and probably very expensive - advice now. This cannot be left to fester.

If you’d like to see how the previous New Zealand INCIS played out in media and among the discussion threads, check these bits of archive.

Super City Job "Lolly Scramble" not always sweet...

The Sunday Star Times had a bit of a scoop this weekend when it published information about the process the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) is running to staff up the jobs that will need to be filled at the new Auckland Council, and its CCO's, well before October this year.

The article states: "...nearly twenty times more applications received than positions available..." And contains interesting details about applications for the first three tiers of management. (By the way, other ATA documentation suggests that Auckland Council will have SEVEN tiers. That is a very hierarchical structure - see more about this below.)

The SST article states: "...by Thursday, when applications closed for 25 'tier 3' senior management jobs across the new Auckland Council, 390 people had applied. At the next level up, 100 people have applied for three 'tier 2' roles reporting directly to the chief executive. Another 28 people have applied for one job of Interim Chief Executive...."

What is interesting about all this, is that this hierarchical structure, and the way it is going to be populated, has been designed by relatively faceless people at ATA. Let's think about hierarchies for a minute: The Auckland Regional Council has a 4 tier structure today, though under the previous Chief Executive - Jo Brosnahan - it had a 3 tier structure. It was, and still is, a relatively flat structure. I am advised that one of the benefits of a flat structure is that it is attractive to creative and highly motivated staff who feel they are not simple cogs in a machine, and who appreciate the easy access to senior members of staff who themselves have greater responsibilities because teams tend to be larger and so on.

I understand - for example - that one of the consequences of the ARC restructuring (which followed Peter Winder's appointment to the post of CEO of ARC), was that several regional experts quit the ARC. Some of these are still in the region working as consultants, but others have moved on. Of course there will be split opinions about the precise reasons for these personal changes, but my understanding is that generally, the Jo Brosnahan era at the ARC was one which emphasised Excellence and Technical Leadership. The objective was to position the ARC as the thinking leader behind Auckland Region. And to an extent that objective was fulfilled. I was certainly very aware of that culture and that feeling when I was elected there in 2004, and was impressed with the calibre of technical staff there.

It is often said that Councils get the planners and the engineers and the scientists that are not good enough to be employed by the BECA's and the OPUS's and all the rest of the private sector expert consultancies. But it's only when you work with Council staff that you find out there are some extremely competent officers working for Councils. They are aware that could earn more in the private sector - rather than for a council - but they choose to work for a council for a range of other reasons including: job satisfaction (you get to do some very interesting work at a council); job variety (expert council staff get to work on a range of jobs at one time - which suits them - they can handle and enjoy that stimulation); part of a team (when I was at North Shore City Council I was particularly aware of the quality of work, thinking and creativity from the Environmental Protection Team, and from the Three Waters Team); and opportunities to work in new specialist areas.

Council project and service work was like a vocation for them. Their passion and commitment was evident. They repaid the freedoms that went with the jobs they had, with enormous energy, and sometimes hours above and beyond the call of duty. This kind of give and take goes with a creative structure and organisation, and one that is responsive to the needs of its staff.

I believe this culture is under serious threat with the structure that is being populated now by ATA. There is a chill in the air. Everyone is being very positive at the ARC where there are still many highly motivated and competent staff. Most of these would be at the tier 3 and 4 level of the proposed Auckland Council. I talk to some of them, and they are pretty talkative about the process they are going through now. One was part of a group of managers from all of Auckland's councils that were invited to a meeting at the Aotea Centre by ATA. The purpose of the meeting was for them to receive a presentation about the proposed structure, which also went into some detail about the jobs and positions that would be established. He told me it was a bit wierd looking around and seeing how many managers there were. He did a rough count. He also did a rough count of the jobs on the big screen. "Only about a quarter of us will get jobs", was his opinion.

And they all went back to their offices and sat down in front of a computer screen to "be mapped". This involves interacting with a computer program which asks questions about your skill areas, and asks you to self assess. What percentage of your job is X, what percentage Y and so on. Pretty anonymous and soul-destroying stuff. I appreciate that this method does enable a degree of self assessment, and that it is in reasonably common use when private sector companies have reshuffles and reorganisations.

In the case of Auckland Local Government, every organisation (with the exception of Watercare) is being abolished. Wound up. And this means that every employee is looking for another job. An enormously stressful experience for thousands of individuals.

I know it's not lambs to the slaughter, and that's not the purpose, but - going back to that SST article we read: "....According to a back-of-the-envelope calculation by the Public Service Association, the average redundancy would be about $18,000..."

People I know in the HR industry have described the processes that are typically experienced in organisations like Air New Zealand or Vodafone. Middle managers are treated extremely well during change. Instead of computer mappings, they are interviewed and assessed through human processes. They have access to skilled advisers. It seems to me that this a far cry from what Auckland council managers are being put through.

As one who is planning to stand for Auckland Council, and one who has a history of trying to get to grips with issues by talking with Council staff, I do wonder how easy it will be to do that with this massive and deep structure, wheels within wheels....

And I wonder how many of our very best people will walk away from Auckland Local Government. Either because they don't get mapped right, don't get treated right, or because they take a look at the job slot that has their name on it, and decide it doesn't offer the qualities that they have come to appreciate where they are now.

"Well", people say to me, "you can always change the structure when you get in there, can't you?" Yeah - Right. Imagine the new Auckland Council deciding it wanted a flatter management structure. Say - 4 tiers - to encourage innovation and team building. That sort of thing. There would be bedlam. Councillors wouldn't know where to jump. They'd say, "think of the costs... think of the union action... ATA's just spent millions recruiting for these positions - are you going to throw all that out the window?... what do you know anyway - they say this structure is the best for Auckland... we should really let it have some time to bed in..."

You can hear all that can't you. The truth is this structure - these structures - will become black holes, laws unto themselves - from a management structure point of view - almost impenetrable by those elected to govern them. Councillors won't be able to trust themselves to fix them. And while the only person they employ is the CEO, his or her ability to restructure the organisation beneath them will also be limited. So Auckland will inherit a structure which is concrete, and inflexible, but which will grow inexorably. This seems to be the common feature of very large bureaucracies. They grow.

The reason we are in this fix now, is fundamentally because there was a move to amalgamation. A move to merge. ARC led it with the rhetoric "the one and the many". This vision has become The One Bureaucracy (a dysfunctional entity of CCOs, Boards and a Council) and The Many Ratepayers. (I hasten to remind you that I was among those few municipally experienced ARC councillors who opposed these moves to amalgamate). The Government bought the vision (and now regrets it I'm sure). And those who think they will benefit the most continue to defend it (NZCID, Property Council and EMA).

So what is Plan B?

Auckland's Local Boards: According to ATA

On the 26th of February this year, ATA released its discussion document entitled: "Auckland council local boards". You can get it from the main page of their website at:
http://www.ata.govt.nz/web/cms_ata.nsf

The first media comment about it in NZ Herald (28th Feb) began like this:

"...Wanaka has more decision-making powers than what is planned for local boards in the Auckland Super City, says Queenstown Lakes District councillor Lyal Cocks.
The Central Otago Community Board, population 6000, has been delegated the maximum functions legally possible by its political masters in Queenstown.
The seven board members have been able to build a new sports facility, come up with a new water system for the small town of Lake Hawea and decide what roads will be sealed.
About all they cannot do is buy and sell land and set rates.
Mr Cocks, who chairs the board and is a member of the New Zealand Community Boards' executive committee, is unimpressed with the plans for local boards in Auckland....

Fairly damming NZ Herald introduction, but the report goes on to give a more comprehensive account of what is envisaged in the ATA discussion document. Then, The Hon Rodney Hide swung into action and ran an opinion piece in the Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629699), containing large chunks of the ATA document, and which defended ATA's document.

These are strange days indeed. Normally a Minister is advised by Departmental officials (in this case Dept of Internal Affairs), but here in Auckland the Minister is being advised by this unusual beast called the Auckland Transition Agency. Which, by its own account: "...does not make public policy, it is here to implement legislation..."

I think there is quite a lot going for the ATA discussion document on local boards. It is at its most interesting when it strays way outside current legislation, and moves into submission mode. A large hunk of this discussion document is advocacy. It is effectively advocating legislative change. So, while ATA might not be "making public policy" in respect to Local Boards, it is very definitely making a public policy case for change.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. In this blog I'll just draw attention to salient aspects of the discussion document, and comment.

In terms of non-regulatory responsibilities the ATA document suggests:

They will make locally based decisions on, for example, location and design of new local facilities, local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure, and local centre branding and marketing. In doing so, they will develop and reflect the distinct characteristics and needs of their local communities.
In allocating the non-regulatory activities, rather than asking "Why should local boards undertake certain activities?" the ATA has asked "why not?".

What is especially interesting about this is the reference to: "...local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure..." this clearly would include matters relating to roads and to sewers and to relevant service levels. Today, Community Boards on the North Shore get some involvement in these matters, but it's not alway certain. And I am aware that this pattern is not repeated across Auckland where in some areas there are no Community Boards, and others which have extremely limited scope to engage with local infrastructure matters. However, the obvious question now is: how will local boards be able to make such decisions... what is the mechanism?

Then we have a very interesting contribution to the debate from ATA in respect to regulatory responsibilities, which goes like this:

The ATA is not authorised to delegate regulatory activities to local boards, but to complete the picture on the role of the local boards we have considered which decisions in these types of areas may be delegated to them. The delegations to local boards will be decided by the governing body, once elected.

This section of the report then goes into the matter of regulatory activities for local boards. This is encouraging.

But probably the most interesting section of the discussion report is one headed: "Working with Others", and which addresses the vexed and controversial matter of CCOs - Council Controlled Organisations. The Exec Summary of the report states:

Council-controlled organisations will need a direct relationship with local boards both in seeking input to their plans and around day-to-day matters in local board areas....
For example, the legislation establishes a transport agency, Auckland Transport, to manage Auckland’s local government transport network. Auckland Transport will be responsible for footpaths, street furniture, signage and lighting, all of which contribute to building a "sense of place" and will be of key interest to local boards. Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards on these sorts of activities....
Effective working relationships will be essential to the success of this governance model....

Amen to all this.

But what is interesting is the language used here. It's all about "need". "Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards..." This language is really a submission to Government. Because - as we all know - it's one thing to have words like this in a document like this - a sort of aspirational statement - but it's quite another to be certain that this sort of behaviour will actually happen magically.

Unless CCOs are required to work with local boards, unless there is a formal process specified for CCOs to engage with local boards on plans and service delivery levels, then the minimum will be the norm. Why? Because meaningful engagement comes at a cost, and if you're a CCO whose SOI objective is something like: "deliver infrastructure services at minimum cost consistent with meeting environmental, economic, cultural and social objectives...", then the cost driver will lead to reductionist, do-minimum approaches when it comes to dealing with local boards.

Then we have:

This discussion document contains our thinking on the initial allocation of decision-making responsibilities to local boards, and on how local boards will fulfil their role. Once we have received your feedback, we can then undertake the task of allocating specific and detailed responsibilities to each local board, and determine initial budgets for the local boards....

It is useful to note ATA's emphasis here on this being the "initial allocation" of roles. It is a reminder that Auckland Council will have the ability to allocate more roles and responsibilities. But before I end this blog with a warning note, a little more from ATA's discussion document:

...These responsibilities will be significant. The Local Government Commission has proposed 19 local boards, many of which will represent communities larger than many district councils in New Zealand. The budgets and allocation of responsibility will be commensurate with this. Local boards will need good support from the Auckland Council organisation.
The structure already approved by the ATA includes a Manager Local Board Services at a senior level in the organisation. We are proposing that this manager will have dedicated staff to provide strategic and policy advice, and consultation and administrative support to local boards.....

And here is my warning.



The ATA document is silent on how Local Boards will be administered and staffed and advised. There is no information on how Local Boards functions and services will be staffed and delivered locally, though the document is at pains to state: "...local boards will be effectively supported from day one...". The document appears to be suggesting that the staff available to support local boards will be located at offices of Auckland Council which will be located: "...across the region.." I read this to mean that Local Boards will share staff with other Local Boards. There appears to be no commitment to the establishment of locally managed and resourced Local Boards. There is nothing here about the building of Local Boards - and by that I mean as local institutions, housed locally, and with local staff, local resources, local relations and partnerships in the same buildings with - eg the library, CAB offices, and other locally specific services and agencies. This is both a missed opportunity, and a loss for the community.



There is no point having Local Boards that exist on paper, and on ballot papers, without also having Local Institutional structures including bricks and mortar and dedicated staff.



This is the big gap in the thinking.

Proposed Auckland Transport Agency

On Friday 20th November, Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) released a "draft organisational structure" for Auckland's Transport Agency. This short document can be downloaded from the front page of: http://www.ata.govt.nz/

A few thoughts strike me. The first is this....

The draft contains "the top three tiers" of the Auckland Transport Agency. Looking at this structure plan, with all of the boxes and all of the activities, I was reminded of a typical Council Traffic Engineering Department. It's mainly about roads: planning new roads, project specs for new roads, planning options for new roads, assessing new road options, designing new roads. And of course I appreciate and understand that roads are part of the transport system.

However, in established and built up cities, new road projects are thin on the ground. Because there's no land left for more roads. Instead emphasis is on re-allocating space on existing road reserves, providing much better share and quality for pedestrians and cyclists, and very much improving the look and feel of road edges, so that local economic development and economic activity is stimulated and thrives and flourishes.

Auckland needs to move to that way of thinking if it is to ever climb out of its current sprawling, energy and transport time wasting habits. And it needs institutions that reflect that need. ARTA - what we have now - does reflect that need. Its emphasis is travel demand management. Its driver is a Regional Land Transport Strategy which - while recognising the role that roads play in transport - calls for the delivery of multiple objectives and co-benefits.

There is very little balance in this proposed Auckland Transport Agency structure. It reflects colonial times - roads, roads roads - and roading infrastructure construction priorities.

The second thought that strikes me is driven by one of the "guiding principles" that apparently have guided this draft structure.

It goes like this: "The Auckland Transport Agency will be the subject of legislation which will set out its accountabilities and reporting relationships with Auckland Council as a council-controlled organisation (CCO)....."

So. The Government has yet to show its hand in respect of how the Auckland Transport Agency will be governed, and also who will govern it.

As a systematic sort of person, I go with the general idea that form follows function. That means when you design something, you first of all figure out what you want it to do. That would be a reasonable guiding principle.

But here, with this draft Auckland Transport Agency we have what amounts to a stand alone Traffic Engineering Agency, without any understanding as to how it will be accountable to SuperCity (let alone the New Zealand Transport Agency or to Central Government), nor any understanding as to the governance arrangements around such planning matters as: project prioritisation; budget allocations across activity classes (ie split in funding between roads, public transport, sustainable modes, land use stimuli - such as stations, undergrounding and such like); relative emphasis on demand management rather than supply management; marketing and communications; modelling....

Planning matters. And so does the governance of planning. It includes strategic planning. It includes funding. It links with important tools such as developer levies - both at regional and local levels. And it very strongly links with regional land use planning.

A great deal of careful thought was put into these governance and accountability matters when ARTA was established a few years ago. And while there may have been complaints, the model has worked well for the Auckland region.

My third thought....

ATA's proposals for the Auckland Transport Agency look very like Watercare. This organisation has operated independently for almost a decade, largely free of public scrutiny, implementing strategic infrastructure, its pumps one of the biggest consumers of Auckland electrical energy. And while Watercare has successfully built a number of large scale projects, it is way behind the eight-ball when it comes to best practice for water and wastewater. Auckland's trade waste record is abysmal. The fact Watercare is determined to dump biosolids in Puketutu reflects badly on Auckland's reputation. The fact Watercare obstructs initiatives to enable non-potable reuse of significant amounts of highly treated wastewater is another example.

Watercare may be viewed as a success by some. It has been a successful business. It has supported a substantial water and wastewater infrastructure industry sector. But it represents old thinking, and it resists efforts to achieve the broader co-benefits that arise from integrated planning. It is driven by supply management objectives - not demand management objectives. That is a major risk of the proposed Auckland Transport Agency CCO also.

As a contender for role of SuperCity Councillor, I view with growing concern the ability of the SuperCity to shape the future of Auckland through the tiny lever of Annual Statements of Intent of a plethora of powerful, independent, narrowly focussed CCOs.

(I thought CCO meant "Council Controlled Organisations")

Questions: ATA's Structure for Auckland Council...

Good to see something from ATA that's more substantial than a suggestion we need a competition to design a SuperCity logo....

There is a lot to digest in this 30 page document which covers:

• draft organisation change;
• draft scope of workforce change (?!);
• draft protocols and processes....

I've skimmed it, and what follows is my take about the bits that jump out, plus a few questions that beg to be asked along the way. I understand that submissions from Auckland's Councils are expected before 24th November. First - the immediate questions, then the points that arise, and throughout a few scenario thoughts....

Q1: When will Auckland Council (AC) - the organisation - actually start? It appears from this document that the new Auckland Council will be up and running well before the election on October 30th 2010. This is probably not a surprise. So. When?

Q2: What other CCOs (other than Watercare, Transport Agency, Waterfront Agency), are being proposed?

Q3: Where does the policy and management around stormwater go (document is silent)?

Q4: What date does ATA think the Auckland Council service delivery restructure - assumed to happen sometime after 1 November - will be completed?

Q5: The document states: "...the Auckland Council will not simply replicate the current practices...within existing councils". How does that square with another statement: "...it is likely that .... the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." ?

Q6: What additional CCO's does ATA consider would be appropriate for Auckland, and has it sought a government mandate to implement those new CCO's?

Q7: Where is it proposed to relocate the Auckland Transport Agency? Will Watercare remain located where it is? What about the Waterfront Agency? Is ATA interested in ensuring there is good communication and dialogue between Auckland Council and its CCO's, or is it keen to put as much distance - control-wise and every-other-wise - between Auckland Council and the CCO's it is being set up to govern?

Draft Organisation Change

(1) Interesting that it is proposed that "AC's Interim Chief Executive" will have direct control over: communications; human resources; risk (undefined) and emergency management. These functions will not be reported to a General Manager. The document states: "post-transition it is expected these arrangements would be reviewed..."

(2) Probably the most revealing.... "while preliminary planning is underway, it is likely that upon establishment, the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." So. The SuperCity restructure is really about governance restructure, and not about service delivery restructure. Thought so. But here it is in writing.

(3) The reason or excuse for (2) has already been publicly stated and that is that service delivery should be "seamless after 1 November". Wow. So it's change - but no change... It's change to governance, but no change to service delivery... The document goes on to state: "... service delivery will change following the development and adoption of consistent and integrated service strategy and progressive integration of systems...". All that some time after 1 November 2010. No date given.

(4) A bouquet though .... at page 9 and 10 is set out the planning role of Auckland Council in regard to the roles and responsibilities of the Local Boards (or community Councils).

Scenario Thought 1: North Shore's sewer management How will this work under SuperCity? The structure has a "Manager of Infrastructure and Utilities" under the "Chief Operating Officer", so I guess that's where councillors might get quarterly reports about overflows at North Shore pump stations - from Watercare. I say: might. Then there is the strategy division under the "Chief Planning Officer", who has a "Manager Regional and Local Planning". Nowhere is there a "Manager Water and Wastewater". Either under "Planning" or "Operations". And under "Chief Finance Officer" there is "Manager Local Board Services". Would that person be responsible for ensuring Local Board concerns about regular dry-weather overflows, or wet weather overflows, were dealt with? And - in terms of setting strategic priorities for Watercare in relation to network management - where would that sit in the proposed structure?

Draft Scope of Workforce Change

5) The Draft Scope of Workforce Change is an interesting section, which deals partly with systems and also with staff. It notes at the outset that: "... the integration of the IT and other systems and processes which support local government activities will take time..." (Probably the understatement of the century that one - and one of the reasons why wholesale abolition was always an irresponsible option), and interestingly that: "...government policy decisions are needed, regarding ATA's mandate in dealing with existing or the creation of new council controlled organisations...".

6) The discussion document makes a strong disinction between services "where there are systems constraints", and services where there are none. Basically, the document suggests that services that are easy to change, should be changed before 1 November. These include: "strategy; policy and planning; Maori relations; HR; Communications;..." etc. That leaves services that depend on systems services like: call centres; information systems; planning; consenting; rating and payment; and - while it does not explicitly say so - this must include water, wastewater and transport infrastructure - which (I know) are heavily tied into very explicit computer information systems. Interestingly, the document notes that: "...particular priority will be given to systems changes required for the separation of transport functions and the integration of water and wastewater services..." (NB: No mention of stormwater.)

7) The document indicates that ATA "does not intend generally" to review staff numbers or roles, "...whose jobs are specific to particular operational work in .... social housing; local community development and funding; youth,safety and other community programmes... or in infrastructural services such as stormwater, transport and water services..." It notes though, that: "where this work is located may change..."

8) However the document notes: "staff whose primary functions relate to strategy, policy and planning are likely to be involved in significant change as these functions will generally be centralised..." So that's a change. An expected change.

Scenario Thought 2: Management of Transport How will this work under SuperCity? A simple change in this term of ARC is illustrative. Last term, the ARC's Transport Policy Committee dealt with ARTA. It did the Statement of Intent, Administrative Budget, Annual Plan and Priorities, and it received the Quarterly and Annual Reports, and it had ARTA into committee when matters of public interest arose. This term it's been different. Why? Because it was decided at start of this term, that Finance Committee would deal with CCOs - SOIs, Reporting, Budgets, Board Appointments etc - and it has led to a disconnection between transport policy and transport delivery. That should be fixed. The way I read the proposed structure for Auckland Council, there is separation and disconnection with bells on. For a start there is no Transport Strategy Manager. And, like Scenario 1 above for wastewater, there is poor connection between management of local board services (which I presume must include their concerns - eg about road surfacing, bus shelters, traffic lights.... the list is long), strategic transport planning, and "operations" under that hard-working "Manager Infrastructure and Utilities" - all in different divisions. So come on guys. How about illustrating your structure with a few real scenarios. Convince yourself that it will work with some typical infrastructure plans, priorities, budgets, services, reporting, accountability. Then tell us.

Draft Protocols and Processes

9) This is a really interesting one. It notes that, under law, "...ATA is required to develop a change management plan.... for the transition of staff to Auckland Council, the Auckland Transport Agency, and the Waterfront Development Agency...". It also notes that existing Councils: "remain responsible for the employment of their staff", but that: "they are also required to cooperate with the ATA... to facilitate the re-organisation." Apparently, "ATA is not bound to consult with councils, or with employees of those organisations regarding the transition process...". The document concludes: "consultation obligations remain the responsibility of existing councils as employers of the staff...". (Talk about a poison chalice. ATA designs without needing to consult, and councils have to make it happen. Fantastic accountability there...)

10) In contrast though, as the ATA document notes: "...Watercare must plan and manage the integration of water and wastewater services..." (Which is part of the explanation that stormwater has got lost in translation) and: "the ATA must approve and oversee this process..." (So it's one process for Council staff, and quite another for Watercare. Must be who you know, rather than what you know....)

11) This section explains the rather awful, but necessary process of "mapping" where existing employees will be shown a "map" of the new, and the old, with arrows (presumably) showing the route options open to them. Job changes, location changes, criteria for consideration, and then other options for down-sizing staff ranging from: attrition; alternative appointment; voluntary redundancy and compulsory redundancy. At least this part's all pretty clear.

So that's my take on what this discussion document tells us.
Interesting, but has a bad feeling about it. Lots of unanswered questions.
Still feels a bit like a train wreck in slow-motion.

Scenario Thought 3: More, or Less, Integrated Planning? How will this SuperCity structure deliver integrated planning and service delivery? There is an interesting diagram in the discussion document. It lists "centralised" and "distributed" services with quite a lot of overlap. More work to do on that one.... One of the main objectives of this whole destructive restructure of Auckland Governance, was to deliver integration. But I fail to see how this can happen in the proposed structure (the diagram), the apparent lack of ability to govern the CCOs, and the suggestions that the CCOs will be located some physical distance from the heart of Auckland Council (Watercare is already separately located, and the document suggests that ARTA should relocate "to make room for" centralised staff). ARC went to considerable lengths to ensure that the core of ARH and ARTA were co-located with ARC's core at Vodafone House. This was not so that Councillors could "meddle", it was to ensure very good communications and contact between left hand and right hand. I am keenly aware that certain interests would LOVE Auckland's water and transport CCOs to be a million miles from their governors, and the key staff who will be responsible for making that governance work. And I know about internet, telephones and email. There is a lack of public accountability and political reality in what increasingly looks like a corporate-designer institution whose bureaucracy and core functions are structurally - by design - separated from Auckland Council and Auckland Councillors.

Isn't Aisling's death a stormwater wake-up call for Auckland?

There's been a little bit of news coverage of what Waitakere City Council - councillors and staff - must be going through after Aisling was found drowned in one of Waitakere's stormwater pipes.

There but for the grace of God go many of Auckland's Councils I think.

Stormwater has always been the "poor relation" of Auckland's waters.

This gives a good idea of what happens when a stomrwater pipe surcharges in heavy rain (shower gone past in this picture, but overland flow continues as land drains). The bulge of water will be surging from a stormwater pipe below ground. Here, there is an overland flow path above the pipe.

So far, in Auckland's restructuring, stormwater is running through the cracks...

Stormwater manhole lids are locked into place by lugs. The lids turn to lock. But in my experience stormwater lids routinely "pop off" or "pop open" under the pressure of stormwater when pipes are surcharged (full).

Who will control this infrastructure in Auckland's SuperCity?



This diagram gives a good idea of what a stormwater pipe looks like, and its connections to manholes and manhole covers above. (This image is actually a sewer pipe, but the principle is the same...). The diagram also shows some of the problems that arise, like cracks in the pipes, like tree roots getting in. All of these problems need to be managed. The pipes go where water goes.

Under present arrangements, stormwater pipes are controlled by Auckland's councils. Some Councils have integrated the management of stormwater infrastructure with that of water and wastewater. Three water strategies are what the modern world does. It is working reasonably well. But obviously not perfect as the Waitakere experience clearly demonstrates.

But under present proposals, Watercare will ONLY pick up water and wastewater. Nobody has said anything about what will happen to stormwater infrastructure.

So who will?