The previous guest posts I have discussed the ills of Auckland Council focussing upon their wasteful and inefficient approach to the control of their costs. I, along with many commentators believe that Auckland Council's costs are totally out of control.
One of the key reasons they are out of control is the Council's failure to measure and monitor their own performance particularly in relation to providing ratepayers relevant useful services at an affordable cost.
Policy debates are all well and good, but just as “a picture is said to be worth a thousand words”. So here, in this piece I offer two examples of how things are done up here …at a grass roots level … but result in getting things horribly and (more to the point) un-affordably wrong.
The first little vignette-example on how things are done around here relates to the feather bedded operations of the universally discredited Auckland Council sinecure called our Local Community Board. The story came to me from a fellow local government commentator and his battle experience with “our” Council which runs like this:
“Our Local (Community Board) …which costs well over $600,000.00/yr, has almost as many hangers-on as elected members, namely:
1 Senior Board Advisor,1 Less Senior Board Advisor, 1 PA (Liaison),1 PA (something else), 1 Relationship Manager,1 Democracy Advisor,1 Manager Local Board Services Dept (That's a bloody laugh! … it doesn't provide any services)
... and maybe a couple more not yet on my radar.
None of these jobs existed before amalgamation. Just jobs for the girls and boys many of whom shun jobs in the private sector'. Because the bureaucracy is so unwieldy a Board 'Liaison' person has to deal with an AT 'Liaison' person to conduct business. They can't go direct. No wonder f...k all gets done, messages are lost or confused “in transmission” and no one is responsible. In our previous Council days I 'phoned the person who might do something. This system is designed to deflect 'incoming”'.
Says it all really and most people living up our way would agree. (The Rodney North “breakaway” Court hearing by the way is scheduled for March - if any clearer example of the level of local discontent should be needed).
The second example is my own and relates to the grossly wasteful and largely unneeded service levels for keeping our small (3 acre) local Domain in a tidy and useable state - that’s tidy and useable not to Kensington Gardens standards.
Whereas before amalgamation our Council used one or two local contractors to keep the playing fields mown, rubbish picked up and disposed of and toilets serviced, now daily we witness with amazement a small army (sometimes up to 5 or 6 vehicles a day each with a number of AC staff aboard) who arrive to do the various “Domain Maintenance” tasks. A number of these jobs include planting and gardening of expensively landscaped gardens, gardens introduced by the AC might I add without any community input or thought as to the added maintenance costs.
And of course no thoughts have been given also to doing this task more cheaply by using local contractors although a (very) small amount of Landcare voluntary labour does turn out bi- annually to assist in some minor beautification projects. Any more than this, by way of cost controls though, seems to be beyond the wit or terms of reference for Council managers to achieve.
Furthermore, adding to these Parks and Reserves budget-costs, (it always is an “add”!) the service level and volume of the multi-service-tasks have never been negotiated or agreed to by the locals ... in spite of the fact that it is we, the locals, who pay for the inefficiency and sheer extravagance of all of these activities. So what is wrong with these two pictures? … and what are common to both?
There are many problems that these two examples display. Specifically for the two examples firstly it is the huge staff cost and overheads of useless administrative tasks, the second records the sheer waste of District wide Parks and Reserves maintenance contracts as are currently in place.
Take for one the huge travel costs of 5 vehicles daily to Puhoi from bases as far away as Takapuna, particularly when local firms would give their eye teeth (and lower cost structures!) to accomplish the same tasks. As is likely, these excesses of contracting will be repeated over the literally hundreds of such AC contracts … so just imagine the potential for cost savings … if they could be bothered that is.
Common to both examples is the Auckland Councils overbearing culture of … “We know best”. And here is why. A small army, (another one) of Council managers owe their padded office chairs to “Contract Management” activities, so why would they risk losing their posts by rationing (or rationalising) within their empires? Fat chance.
The Council seldom, if ever to my knowledge, gives our local communities the option of doing things both differently and in a more economic fashion. “Oh No … We know best” … they then go right ahead and do it according to their default position … a charge up and high cost basis with no thought given to the effect on rates … which incidentally are scheduled to increase in 2015 -2016 by over twice the rate of inflation.
The Auckland Council is failing at every turn for these grass roots-local citizen’s-based concerns. What is worse is their failure to conduct independent public satisfaction surveys of their ratepayer’s wants and needs. This failure further clouds an already murky picture.
The Council continues to display the very worst of NZ local government performance, (expensive and unresponsive) instead, as we had hoped for … the best. Wellington and other amalgamating regions beware. You have been warned.
Larry Mitchell is a local government financial analysist. The views are his own and do not necessary reflect those of the Taxpayers’ Union. Larry can be contacted vai [email protected].
