An Illawarra Independent Network website is now up and running under the name of iPATO, which is an incorporated association.

iPATO? From their website:

“… a non-political, not-for-profit association which promotes Inclusive Processes of Accountability, Transparency and Objectivity along with core values of respect and honesty in all levels of government and community activity.”

See:
http://www.illawarraindependentnetwork.com

And they are fast off the mark. Check out the report of a recent meeting with Wollongong City Council Administrators and GM at:

http://www.illawarraindependentnetwork.com/reports.php

Ordinary Meeting of Council
25 May 2010

GENERAL MANAGER’S OFFICE
ITEM 11 Community Consultation Policy Review (CM57/10)

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION POLICY REVIEW
Report of General Manager (JH) 15/04/10 CB-010.01.005

PRECIS
Council has sought an independent assessment and review of its Community Consultation Policy.

The following recommendations are being made as part of this report:

1 The community be consulted about the current Neighbourhood Forum boundaries

Concerns have been raised by members of a number of Neighbourhood Forums about the appropriateness of their current boundaries. It is therefore recommended that the community be consulted about the boundaries in the Neighbourhood Forum Charter. This is discussed in the attached Report on Implementation of Community Consultation Policy 2010.

2 Council consult with the community about the current definition of membership of Neighbourhood Forums

Members of Neighbourhood Forum 2 have raised concerns about the Neighbourhood Forum Charter as it is silent on matters relating to voting rights and quorums. It is recommended that Council consult all Neighbourhood Forums to gain a clearer understanding of the issue and work towards a solution and possible amendment of the Charter.

3 Council continue to support and promote Neighbourhood Forums

The Elton Consulting report recommends promotion of Neighbourhood Forums to hard to reach communities as current participation does not reflect a broad cross-section of the community, a trend which has been raised by Neighbourhood Forum Convenors in their feedback. Concern was also raised that not enough of the community know about the Neighbourhood Forums. It is recommended that Council partner with the Neighbourhood Forums in effective promotion. Some Neighbourhood Forums have requested administrative or secretarial support. Council is not able to provide secretarial support as resources are being dedicated to works and services. Council acknowledges that Neighbourhood Forums are volunteer groups and therefore proposes the following support to assist them. Council is committed to working with the Neighbourhood Forums and sends an Engagement Officer to ten (10) meetings per year and responds to action items from meetings. Council is also proposing to work with the Neighbourhood Forums to develop guidelines and processes that will assist Neighbourhood Forum in meeting their needs and minimising administrative pressure. Council will also offer training on effective meeting practices to Neighbourhood Forum Chairs and Co-Chairs which will assist in formulating these guidelines.

4 Council further develops e-consultation techniques

E-consultation is an emerging opportunity to allow inclusive consultation especially with groups that are traditionally considered hard to reach. E-consultation is an option in the current Community Consultation Policy. Council is currently making active use of its website as part of all consultation activities, with details of projects and plans and surveys being available online. Elton Consulting has recommended that Council continue to develop this opportunity with particular emphasis on moderated forums and possible presence on social networking sites. It is recommended that Council react proactively to this feedback and consider what types of e-consultation will meet both Council and the community’s needs.

5 Council update the Community Leaders Meeting with Administrators Charter to become the Neighbourhood Forum Leaders Meeting with Administrators Charter

The current membership of this meeting is not aligned with the Charter. It is recommended that the Charter be updated to reflect current practice as per Policy Impact Statement below.

6 Council promote Public Access Forums to encourage broad participation by community members

Elton Consulting recognises the Public Access Forum as a significant opportunity for community members to speak directly to Council and recommends promotion of the Forum to encourage broad participation. Council will actively promote the Public Access Forums and consider options for broadening participation.

7 The Community Consultation Policy be updated to:

- differentiate between consultation opportunities and support mechanisms
- be reviewed every two years

————–

Download full report Community Consultation Policy Review (2633 KB) from:

http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/council/councilmeetings.asp

As some of the issues may be of interest to others, here is an extract from an email to a correspondent regarding some aspects of the WCC review of its community consultation policy

My hope is that someone in WCC will show some intelligence and address these issues before the report to Council’s May meeting is finalised.

My general assessment of the community consultation review is that it is glib and superficial.

Bruce

——————–

NF SPEAKING AND VOTING RIGHTS

You may be interested to know, though, that issue of speaking and voting rights at NF’s was discussed and considered by CCNF/NF2 after the dogs on beaches Coledale forum and the decision taken was to ask WCC to include this key matter in the external review.

CCNF/NF2 also asked to see a copy of the scoping document for the external consultant (who was to carry out the external review) to ensure that this matter was included in the review before the consultant was engaged.

WCC never provided a copy of the scoping document.

I am unable to find any reference to this matter in either the internal or the external review or the report which is going to “Council” at the May meeting.

I asked WCC to for any comment about this prior to this week’s CCNF/NF2 meeting (where the community consultation review was on the agenda) Council having asked for NF members to consider it at very short notice and report back by 7 May). I very carefully outlined the steps which had been taken by CCNF/NF2 to work through the formal process.

I refer you to my email to WCC about this, below (which was also resent to WCC on Tuesday as a cc to a message informing the CCNF/NF2 Convenor).

There was no reply or acknowledgement from WCC about this matter.

I did get a response in relation to two other matters (1. the need to clarify the southern boundary of CCNF vis-a-vis the NF2 area in the map shown in the Charter and 2 the lack of community consultation and input in the review of Council’s community consultation process)

Having heard nothing back on this key speaking and voting matter from WCC by Wednesday i thought, bugger it, WCC are hopeless and this is a complete waste of my time. I have other pressing matters to attend to, and so did not attend the meeting on Wednesday night.

WCC have consistently refused to properly clarify the issue and they are unable (for whatever reason or lack of reason) to deal with it.

CCNF/NF2 did the right thing in working through the NF2 process to get this matter into the external review.

WCC completely dropped the ball.

I don’t know what CCNF/NF2 did in relation to this agenda item (Community consultation review) at the May meeting on Wednesday. That needs to be clarified.

LACK OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TO COMMENT ON REVIEW

I also raised a third issue with WCC during the week – the lack of public notification – by way of a media release or notice in Council’s weekly update, that the community consultation review was available for public comment on very short notice with responses by Friday 7 May.

They seem to think that people who don’t attend NFs are mind readers and putting the review materials on the WCC website (and sending it to the few NFs which meet early in May) is adequate.

I have said to WCC that, since there will not be another review of the community consultation process for two years, this one should not be rushed. The present reviews should put up for comment in an orderly way, with a media release and with notices in Council’s weekly update to inform the wider public – and with reasonable time for reading, consideration and response.

In the absence of elected Councillors until September 2012 it is crucially important that we get these community consultation matters as right as possible.

OTHER ISSUES

There are also other issues which need consideration, including:

1. the need for NFs to have the resources they require if Council expects them to be able to be a conduit for fast feedback on community matters (as is the case with feedback on this review) . This requires NFs to be able to reach as many people as possible in their area, and not merely those on their email list. All these other people need to be informed of what is going on (as far as possible). This takes real resources.

2. The need for it to be clearly understood that when we have street meetings with Council staff (as we just had at Cater Street re traffic problems) that the NF Convenor is co-ordinating the meeting, not Council staff. This coordinating role used to be the role of our elected Councillors, who had the clear standing and authority to keep good order.

When Council staff come into our communities, they need to leave their office-based games behind them and realise they are on our turf.

NEED MORE TIME TO GET THIS REVIEW RIGHT

The present review has been run as virtually a completely in-house affair with Council only feeding into briefing the consultant, and no opportunity for members of the community to see the scoping document.

I don’t doubt that a proper call for community input into the review of Council’s community consultation process would identify a wide range of important issues which this present review (trite and superficial as it is) has completely missed.

There was a questionnaire sent to NF Convenors (and that is good) but in these days of electronic communication another questionnaire should have been sent to all NF members and to anyone on WCC’s community consultation database, and (via media releases and Council’s weekly updates) to inform as many people as possible about the opportunity for them to ‘have their say’ about what are the important issues for community consultation in relation to Council’s community consultation process.

This present review process has been less than adequate

We should all take a little longer and try and get it right.

regards

Bruce Reyburn

—–Original Message—–
From: (brucer@reformwcc.info)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 1:57 PM
To: ‘Jodie Healy’
Subject: Failure of external review to include key NF issue.

Dear Jodie

As you know, you have asked NF members to respond to the review reports by 7 May. I need to clarify with your the facts in relation with a key issue before i take it to CCNF/NF2 which will meet on 5 May.

As you will recall from your attendance at the Coledale Neighbourhood Forum regarding dogs on beaches, the issue of who can speak and vote at a Neighbourhood Forum was a key issue to emerge during 2009.

People from Austinmer attended the large meeting of the CCNC/NF2 forum regarding WCC Dogs on Beaches policy. This forum was held in Coledale. People attending were told at the outset, by the CCNC/NF2 Convenor, that only people who were part of the CCNC area could speak and vote at the forum.

CCNC/NF2 discussed the issue and, noting that it was of importance for all Neighbourhood Forums across the city, sought through Council, to have it included in the external review of Council’s community consolation process as detailed below.

As you will see from the notes below, CCNC/NF2 requested that this key issue be included in the external review of Council’s community consultation process and we also asked to see a copy of the scoping document to make sure that this issue was included. We never heard that it was not to be considered.

QUESTION – Do you have any comment or correction to make as to why this key issue was not included in the external review?

Please advise

regards

Bruce Reyburn

NOTES FROM CCNF/NF2 MINUTES AND WCC ACTION REPORTS

Step One

MINUTES OF CCNF MEETING

Wednesday, 2nd September 2009

15.3 There was a question about who is eligible to raise questions and vote at CCNF meetings. It was agreed that Bruce Reyburn would put forward a proposal on this matter for consideration at a future meeting. Moved Danie Ondinea, seconded Dave Beswick.

Step Two

Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Forum

Minutes of Meeting held on 7th October 2009

3. CCNF meeting procedure proposal – Bruce suggested that who should speak and vote at NFs was an issue for all NFs and moved that the external Review of Community Consultation (including Neighbourhood Forums) should consider developing citywide guidelines. Seconded. Review to start in February/March 2010. Discussion included possible website voting process and the need for verification, questionnaires, need for confirmation of NF boundaries.

STEP THREE

4 November 2009 WCC CCNF action template (report back to CCNF)

Neighbourhood Forum Action Register

4 Community Engagement Policy Review

NHF requests that the scope of the external review of Community Engagement Policy include clarification or develop guidelines which advise if out of area residents can speak and or vote at NHFs.

Office of General Manager

The comments of the forum are noted and will be considered when developing the scope of the review.

STEP FOUR

3 March 2010 WCC Action Report

Action Register – Neighbourhood Forum 2

Meeting date 3/02/2010

Item 6 Community Consultation document

Forum seeks a copy of the scoping document regarding the Community Consultation review. As the review was expected to commence early 2010, an update on how the review is progressing is requested.

Division Communications

Response

The scope and methodology of the community consultation review is currently being approved. Forum will be kept up to date on review process.

STEP FIVE

To my knowledge, no copy of the scoping document was provided to NF2.

As far as i can see, the external review does not include coverage of this key issue (and neither does the internal report).

STEP SIX

Contact WCC Consultation person prior to May CCNF/NH2 meeting seeking clarification of why this matter not included in review.

No reply from WCC.

Tuesday 11 May 2010

The most recent Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) research into the NSW public sector indicates that local councils face a wider range of corruption risks than state agencies, but appear less likely to use the management controls important to sound corporate governance, making them more vulnerable to corruption.

The Commission’s Profiling the NSW public sector II Report 3: Differences between local and state government, released today at an ICAC outreach program in the Central West, finds that this arises from the number of high-risk functions councils perform, and the business processes used to conduct these functions.

The finding that local councils appear less likely to use the management controls that are important to sound corporate governance was observed across a range of management controls including audit mechanisms, risk management processes and fraud control plans. The report found that 58 per cent of councils had an audit plan, compared with 92 per cent of state agencies; 44 per cent of councils had a fraud control plan, compared with 62 per cent of state agencies, and 85 per cent of councils had a risk management process, compared with 95 per cent of state agencies.

The ICAC’s Deputy Commissioner, Theresa Hamilton, said that the findings suggest that local councils have increased vulnerability to corruption. “The report notes that management controls are arguably more important in an environment where many corruption risks abound because of a greater need to prioritise and organise the management of corruption risk,” she said.

However, there were several areas where local councils appear to use a greater number of specific operational controls relevant to corruption prevention, such as record-keeping, gifts and benefits, and codes of conduct, than state agencies. For example the report found that in relation to record-keeping, 41 per cent of local council staff surveyed were more likely to indicate that emails of business value should be saved to their organisations’ electronic systems, in comparison to 16 per cent of staff from state agencies.

Approximately 95 per cent of councils had a gift register compared with about 75 per cent of state agencies. Local councils were also much more likely to make gift registers publicly available (around 85 per cent), compared with state agencies (approximately 25 per cent). While almost all state agencies and local councils reported having a code of conduct, 100 per cent of council staff reported receiving a copy of their code, compared with 85 per cent of state agency staff. Eighty-one per cent of council staff reported receiving training in the code of conduct, compared with 51 per cent of state agency staff.

“The ICAC advocates a risk management approach to corruption prevention, which requires organisations to undertake a detailed analysis of specific corruption risks and the adequacy of existing controls,” Ms Hamilton said. “Further information to assist organisations in this process is available from the specific corruption risk areas detailed on the Commission’s website.” (http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/preventing-corruption).

Today’s report is the third in a series on profiling the NSW public sector, drawn from ICAC surveys distributed to NSW state and local government chief executive officers and staff in 2007. The first report (2009) presented results from the NSW public sector as a whole, while the second report (2009) compared results with those obtained six years earlier. The full reports, detailed information about the methodology used in the research and copies of the survey questions can be viewed on the ICAC website.

Link to report at
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/3620

“What councils are doing to stay honest
BY MICHELLE WEBSTER
12 May, 2010 Illawarra Mercury

Illawarra councils insist they are squeaky clean despite NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption findings which reveal councils are more susceptible to corruption than state agencies.

However, in the wake of the Wollongong City Council corruption scandal, the Illawarra’s councils say they have introduced substantial measures to tackle the practice, implementing a range of tough fraud-beating tactics.

…

Wollongong City Council general manager David Farmer said there had been several major improvements in the past two years, including the appointment of an internal ombudsman and an independent assessment panel.

“We have developed a fraud and corruption policy, procedures and plan as well as established an audit committee and the corporate governance committee,” he said.”

…

Full story http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/what-councils-are-doing-to-stay-honest/1827184.aspx

From WCC website:

Community Consultation Review

Council has conducted a review of its Community Consultation Policy.

An internal review took place to look at the variety of ways we work with the community. Council then engaged a consultant to review our policy and data and assess how we are performing.

A report on this review is proposed to be presented to the May Council meeting. The Engagement Team is seeking feedback on the report and proposed recommendations.

Copies of the following documents appear under the related documents section to the right of this page (see url below)

Implementation of Community Consultation Policy 2010 Report
Review of Community Consultation Policy Report by Elton Consulting
Proposed amended Consultation Policy
Proposed amended Community Leaders Meeting with Administrators Charter

Please send your feedback on the report and proposed recommendations to Council by Friday 7 May.

Documents on http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/consultationreview.asp

Submissions:

email – consultation@wollongong.nsw.gov.au

Mail -:Wollongong City Council. Locked Bag 8821, Wollongong DC NSW 2500 – Attention: Community Engagement Team