Please note:  These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE Policy and Legislation Committee MEETING HELD ON 23 October 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 2

2....... Attendance. 2

3....... Public Question Time. 2

4....... Disclosure Of Interests. 2

5....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 2

5.1          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 25 September 2018. 2

6....... Reports. 3

6.1          REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED DELEGATIONS. 3

6.2          REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 234 - RISK MANAGEMENT. 8

6.3          REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 241 - BRANDS AND STYLE GUIDE. 11

6.2          REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 234 - RISK MANAGEMENT. 14

7....... General Discussion Items. 15

8....... Next Meeting Date. 15

9....... Closure. 16

 


Policy and Legislation Committee                                  3                                                                  23 October 2018

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF Policy and Legislation Committee HELD IN Committee Room, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 23 October 2018 AT 2.00pm.

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 2.04pm

2.               Attendance 

Presiding Member:

 

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Rob Bennett

Cr Kelly Hick

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer (entered the meeting at 2.19pm)

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mrs Tanya Gillett, Acting Director, Planning and Development Services (left the meeting at 2.18pm)

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services (entered the meeting at 2.11pm)

Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager, Governance and Corporate Services

Mrs Emma Heys, Coordinator, Governance Services

Miss Kate Dudley, Administration Officer, Governance Services

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

3.               Public Question Time  

                   Nil

4.               Disclosure Of Interests

                   Nil

5.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

5.1                                   Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 25 September 2018

COMMITTEE DECISION

PL1810/216            Moved Councillor R Paine, seconded Councillor K Hick

That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 25 September 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 5/0

2.11pm                At this time the Director of Finance and Corporate Services entered the meeting


Policy and Legislation Committee                                  3                                                                  23 October 2018

6.               Reports

6.1                                   REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED DELEGATIONS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Authorised Delegation of Power / Authority

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Planning and Development Support

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Delegation PDR1

Attachment b    Council Delegation MVA1

Attachment c    Council Delegation LCA1

Attachment d   Council Policy 043 Coal Mining Applications

Attachment e    Council Delegation PDR1 tracked changes  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider changes to some planning and related delegations. Two delegations are proposed to be rescinded and a relatively minor change to a third is proposed.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government Act 1995 (‘LGA’) provides for the establishment of local governments and confers a range of powers and duties on them.  There are also other Acts of Parliament that confer powers and duties on local governments. 

 

A local government is established as a body corporate, and must therefore necessarily act through its officers, employees and agents.  Each local government has an elected Council as a governing body.  The LGA also intends that the local government will have employees, being the CEO and the staff employed by the CEO, to carry out certain functions.

 

Within this framework, the LGA makes express provision for certain ‘delegations’ of powers or duties.  At the same time, it expressly intends that there will also be certain situations where a power may be exercised or a duty discharged on the basis of ‘acting through another person’ (see Section 5.45(2) of the LGA).  The question in any particular case is one of statutory construction to determine whether the Parliament intended that a power given to a local government might be exercised by another individual or body on behalf of the local government, or whether it is intended that the power be exercised by the Council or (where possible) its duly appointed delegate.

 

The Council’s power of delegation under Section 5.42 of the LGA applies to powers and duties under the LGA and also to certain sections under the Planning and Development Act 2005. Council’s power of delegation is subject to the limitations in Section 5.43 of the LGA.  Other legislation that confers powers and duties on a local government may or may not contain a power of delegation. Other legislation also contains related but different powers of ‘authorisation’.

 

The Council has recently reviewed the delegations it has made under the LGA, in accordance with an annual review required under Section 5.45(2) of the LGA.  This report is directed at a review of certain powers and duties under legislation other than the LGA, and considers the exercise of powers under legislation relating to –

 

·        Planning and development;

·        Firearms;

·        Prostitution;

·        Classified publications;

·        Motor vehicle sales and repairs;

·        Gaming and wagering;

·        Liquor; and

·        Mining; and

·        Petroleum.

 

Two existing delegations relating to motor vehicle repairs and liquor are considered unnecessary and are recommended to be rescinded, and a relatively minor change to the existing planning delegation is also recommended.

 

Note that an internal review of powers and duties in relation to legislation impacting on the delivery of ranger and environmental services is currently underway and a further report in relation to associated delegations is expected to be presented to the committee by the end of the year.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment relevant to this report is outlined below -

·        With respect to the power of delegation under Acts other than the LGA, regard is to be given to any power of delegation under those Acts.

·        With respect to the concept of ‘acting through’ (which is different to delegation) under Acts other than the LGA, the term ‘local government’ is defined in the Interpretation Act 1984 to mean a local government under the LGA.  This is not confined to ‘Council’, but is a reference to a local government being a body corporate acting through its officers, employees and agents.  Each provision of legislation must then be interpreted in its context to determine whether a contrary intention appears.  In doing this, regard will generally be had to the purpose of the legislation and whether there can be seen to be some purpose served by restricting the interpretation to mean ‘Council’ in a particular case.

·        Clause 82 of Schedule 2 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘the deemed provisions’) sets out that the Council may delegate powers under the City’s town planning scheme to the CEO. Clause 83 then sets out that the CEO may sub-delegate those powers. There is a current delegation relating to these powers – Delegation PDR1 (Attachment A).

·        Relevant legislation has been reviewed, and there are currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to firearms, prostitution or classified publications. As such, there is no need to consider whether any of those powers can only be exercised by City officers with a delegation first being established, and there are also no current delegations that require amending or rescinding.

·        There are also currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to motor vehicle sales or repairs. There were previously functions for local governments in both the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 and Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003, but the provisions setting out those functions have now been repealed.


 

             As such, delegation MVA1 (Attachment B), which relates to the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 is now clearly redundant and can be rescinded – and was unnecessary anyway, as the function that local governments previously had were clearly ones that involved provision of information, rather than discretionary decision-making.

·        Section 55 (3) of the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987 sets out functions for local governments in providing reports setting out whether gaming and wagering premises comply with health or planning requirements. Those functions, however, are clearly functions that involve provision of information, rather than discretionary decision-making. As such, there is no need for a delegation, and as no delegation has been established, there are no current delegations that require amending or rescinding.

·        Sections 39 and 40 of the Liquor Control Act 1988 identify functions for local governments in advising whether proposed licensed premises comply with relevant health/building and planning requirements – these functions involve providing what are generally known as ‘Section 39 certificates’ and ‘Section 40 certificates’. The decisions regarding whether to issue such certificates are not discretionary decisions. They are statements of fact about whether approval is required and/or if relevant approvals have already been obtained. Given the context and the drafting of the provisions, these are considered functions that can be exercised by the local government without requiring a delegation. As such, no delegation is considered necessary and, accordingly, Delegation LCA1 (Attachment C), which relates to Section 40 certificates, can be rescinded (there is no current delegation for Section 39 certificates).

·        There are various provisions in the Mining Act 1978 which enable a local government to be consulted with and/or express views on matters subject of the Act. It is considered those functions can reasonably be exercised by the local government ‘acting through’. The Council has adopted a policy setting out its approach to responding to applications where the target mineral may be coal (Attachment D), which would guide officers in their exercise of those functions. Note that this Policy will require review as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies, having regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017.

·        Relevant legislation has been reviewed, and there are currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to petroleum, other than a reference to local governments being notified about applications for a pipeline licence pursuant to the Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969, and there is not seen to be a need for a delegation to allow the CEO or other City officers to determine the course of action that should be taken with respect to such notification. The City also occasionally has a broader advocacy or communication role with respect to petroleum extraction proposals, and those functions can be exercised by the local government ‘acting through’ where necessary.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no relevant plans or policies requiring consideration.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications of the recommendations of this report.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no long-term financial plan implications of the recommendations of this report.


 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This statutory delegation review aligns with and supports the Council’s Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 – ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no significant risks associated with the officer recommendation.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation was not considered necessary in the preparation of this report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Following the review, rescinding of two delegations is recommended – i.e. MVA1 and LCA1. The reasons for that have been explained in the statutory environment section of this report, and there is not considered to be a need to discuss those changes further here.

 

A relatively minor change to the existing planning delegation is also recommended, which is to modify the second paragraph of part 6 of Delegation PDR1, which currently sets out that, in relation to ‘briefing and reporting’ –

 

As part of the agenda for each ordinary Council meeting (‘OCM’), a summary of applications received and determined between the closing date of the previous summary and a date as close as possible to the publication date of the agenda, shall be presented to Councillors as part of ‘Councillors’ Information Bulletin’ (‘CIB’).

 

Note that there are no statutory requirements for the provision of this information to Councillors, either in a Council agenda or in any other form, it is a requirement which arises because of the delegation.

 

The effect of the approach identified above is that it can be as long as 29 days, and regularly as long as 22 days, after an application has been received or determined before Councillors are provided with a summary listing an application. The time gap for some applications would be even longer during the mid-year break, or the longer break between the December and January meetings – the gap between meetings during that period can be as long as 8 weeks, meaning that it can be nearly ten weeks between the receipt or determination of an application and its listing in the CIB.

 

As an example, for Council’s 24 October OCM, the draft report for the CIB (for the draft agenda) would be produced on 5 October and published as part of the agenda on 12 October. That report would be expected to list applications received or determined up to 4 October. The Council’s next OCM is then scheduled for 14 November. The earliest applications to be listed in the CIB for that meeting’s agenda would therefore have been received or determined on 5 October and the agenda would be published on 2 November. That would mean that the earliest applications listed might have been received 29 days before publication, with the associated agenda briefing session then being a further five days hence.

 

A change to the above is proposed which would result in both Councillors and members of the public being able to access information about applications received and determined in a more timely fashion. What is proposed is that a list of applications received in the preceding week (Friday to Thursday) is listed on the City’s website each Friday.

Protocols could be agreed and varied over time to ensure that Councillors have an appropriate prompt to review the published lists, and could then forward requests for information to the appropriate officer (ordinarily the responsible Director). In the case of Fridays which are public holidays, publication may need to occur on the next working day. In all other cases, however, this would mean that the earliest applications listed would have been received or determined eight days prior to publication.

 

The following new wording for the second paragraph of part 6 of Delegation PDR1 is proposed -

 

Each Friday, or in the case of Fridays which are public holidays, the next working day, a summary of applications received and determined in the preceding period (usually the preceding Friday to Thursday) shall be published on the City’s website.

 

A tracked changes version of Delegation PDR1, illustrating the proposed change, is provided as Attachment E.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The recommended changes to delegations will rescind redundant delegations and improve the efficiency of reporting to the Council on development applications.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could not amend the delegations, or make additional or different changes.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The changes to delegations proposed would be implemented through amending the information published on the City’s website within one month of a Council decision consistent with the officer recommendation, and with the proposed changes to Delegation PDR1 being implemented prior to the end of November 2018. That would include informal agreement on the best form of prompt to advise Councillors of the publication of each week’s summary of applications.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

PL1810/217            Moved Councillor R Paine, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Council resolve to –

 

1.         Rescind Delegation MVA1;

 

2.         Rescind Delegation LCA1; and

 

3.         Amend Delegation PDR 1 by replacing the second paragraph of part 6 with the following –

 

Each Friday, or in the case of Fridays which are public holidays, the next working day, a summary of applications received and determined in the preceding period (usually the preceding Friday to Thursday) shall be published on the City’s website.

 

CARRIED 5/0

 

 2.18pm         At this time the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services left the meeting.


Policy and Legislation Committee                                  9                                                                  23 October 2018

6.2                                   REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 234 - RISK MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Risk Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

 Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Council Policy - Risk Management

Attachment b    Current Council Policy - Organisation Wide Risk Management  

 

2.19pm    At this time the Chief Executive Officer entered the meeting.  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents a revised Risk Management Policy (Attachment A) (the Policy) for Council approval, with the current policy having been amended as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies, having regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review (GSR) carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017.

 

The Policy, which has been moved into the new policy template and refined, including a small change in title, is considered to be of continuing relevance and importance and is therefore recommended for Council approval.

 

BACKGROUND

 

A policy in relation to risk management was originally adopted in May 2006, in order to demonstrate the City’s commitment to the development of a culture of risk based decision making aimed at the effective management of potential opportunities, and reduction of potential impacts of risk. Since then the current policy has been reviewed four times, most recently in 2016, with only very minor changes made such as updating Shire to City.

               

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 it is the role of the Council to determine the local government’s policies.  The Council does this on the recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with Section 5.8 of that Act.

 

In accordance with regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (Regulation 17) the CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to risk management, as well as internal control and legislative compliance.  The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review at least once every three financial years.  A report in this respect was last provided in October 2016.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems - the GSR.   Included in the scope of the review was the City’s policy and procedure framework with the following recommendations made:

 

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

 

In response a Policy Framework has been developed and endorsed by Council, setting out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures, and a Council policy template developed.  The Policy adheres to this framework and template.

 

As per the requirements of the Policy, the City has a Risk Management Framework which was endorsed by the Senior Management Group in December 2017.  The framework outlines the City’s formal risk management system and processes for the management of risks.  Specifically it outlines:

·    The definition of risk and risk management

·    The City’s risk reference tables

·    The risk tolerance levels

·    The risk management processes and procedures

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no additional financial implications. 

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no additional long term financial plan implications.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Policy links to Key Goal Area 6 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 and specifically the Community Objective 6.1: Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no risks identified of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers recommendation, with the Policy reiterating and maintaining Council’s strategic direction in relation to the management of risk.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No specific consultation was undertaken in relation to the review of the Policy.

 


 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The purpose of the Policy is to recognise the importance of risk management and Council’s commitment to a culture of positive and pro-active risk management through the development and maintenance of appropriate and effective risk systems and procedures.   

 

While Regulation 17 requires that the CEO provide a report in relation to its risk management systems (inclusive of systems relating to internal control and legislative compliance), this Policy serves to strengthen that direction by outlining requirements for the CEO to develop a risk management framework aligned to Standard AS/NZS ISO 3100:2009 and for communicating and establishing risk management process, defined as the systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to activities of communicating, consulting, establishing the context, and identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating monitor and reviewing risk.

 

The Policy also outlines the role of the Audit Committee in relation to risk management.

 

Due to the Policy being transferred into the new policy template a tracked changes version is not provided.  The current policy is provided at Attachment B for reference.  The key changes relate to removing operational aspects such as responsibilities of the Senior Management Group, the Risk Management Committee, management and employees.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Policy updates the current Organisation Wide Risk Management Policy and in doing so maintains Council’s strategic direction in relation to the development of a culture of risk based decision making directed towards the effective management of potential opportunities and reduction of potential impacts of risk.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could decide not to adopt the Policy and instead choose to take a different positon / approach in relation to risk management.  Council could also require further amendments to the Policy. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policy will be effective as of its adoption by Council.

 

After discussion the Committee agreed to discuss item 6.3 to allow staff time to provide more information before the committee members voted on 6.2.

 

2.29pm    At this time the Manager of Governance and Corporate Services left the meeting

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the revised Risk Management Policy as per Attachment A, to replace the current policy (Attachment B).


Policy and Legislation Committee                                  13                                                               23 October 2018

6.3                                   REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 241 - BRANDS AND STYLE GUIDE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Council Policy - City Branding Policy

Attachment b    Current Council Policy - Brands and Style Guide  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to present a revised Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B), with the current policy having been amended as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies, having regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review (GSR) carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017. The new Policy is focused more broadly on, and entitled, City Branding (Attachment A) (the Policy).

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council last considered a revision of this policy on 17 April 2018 as part of the process of updating policies to the new policy template and to incorporate changes that have occurred over recent years.

 

At its meeting of the 17 April 2018 the Committee resolved to defer the policy for consideration pending review and presentation of the City’s Style Guide, a referenced and related document, back to the Policy and Legislation Committee, with the Committee noting that the Style Guide may require further revision prior to consideration of the overarching policy.

 

While Officers agree that a review of the City’s Style Guide is required, it is the view of Officers that the Style Guide is administrative in nature and is a document which requires continuous refinement and review.  Further commentary in relation to the proposed direction of the Policy is provided in the Officer Comment section of this report.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 it is the role of the Council to determine the local governments policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with Section 5.8 of that Act.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems - the GSR.   Included in the scope of the review was the City’s policy and procedure framework with the following recommendations made:

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

 

In response a Policy Framework has been developed and endorsed by Council, setting out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures, and a Council policy template developed. 

 

This report recommends replacing the Brands and Style Guide Policy with a higher level, more strategic policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no additional financial implications.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no long term financial plan implications.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Policy aligns with and supports the Council’s Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically, Community Objective 6.2 ‘Council engages broadly and proactively with the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no risks identified of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers recommendation, with the Policy reiterating and maintaining Council’s direction in relation to City Branding.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No external consultation is required in relation to this policy review. The City will ensure its communication materials are consistent with the Policy.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Policy has been revised for the purposes of clarifying the development and application of the City’s branding, taken to mean the City of Busselton Brand, associated Brands, logos and emblems (City Branding).

 

The Policy replaces the Brands and Style Guide Policy with the Style Guide considered an administrative document; its purposes being to guide staff in the development and application of the City’s Branding. In accordance with the recommendations of the GSR, the Policy seeks to provide strategic direction with respect to key aspects of the City’s Branding.

 

Officers agree a review of the City’s Style Guide is required and acknowledge this is likely to be an on-going and somewhat incremental process.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Policy is a reflection of Councils direction to refine current policies; updated to ensure the relevance of the Policy continues; and seeks to make clear the differentiation between Council policy and administrative documents and guidelines.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could choose not to endorse the new Policy, or make additional changes to the Policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The revised Policy would be effective immediately upon endorsement by Council.

 

2.29pm    At this time the Manager of Governance and Corporate Services returned to the meeting.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the revised City Branding Policy as per Attachment A, to replace the Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B).

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

PL1810/218            Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor R Paine

 

That the Council adopts the revised City Branding Policy as per Attachment A, with an amendment to 5.6 to read “Any changes to the City’s Branding are subject to Council approval on recommendation by the Chief Executive Officer” to replace the Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B).

 

CARRIED 5/0

  

The Policy and Legislation Committee returned to item 6.2


 

6.2                                   REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 234 - RISK MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Risk Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

 Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Council Policy - Risk Management

Attachment b    Current Council Policy - Organisation Wide Risk Management  

The Manager of Governance and Corporate Services confirmed that more information on the new standard should and will be sought to confirm its application to the City.

COMMITTEE DECISION

PL1810/219            Moved Councillor R Paine, seconded Councillor L Miles

 

That the Committee defer the Risk Management Policy to a later Policy and Legislation meeting.

CARRIED 5/0


Policy and Legislation Committee                                  15                                                               23 October 2018

7.               General Discussion Items  

2.54pm                       At this time the Mayor, Grant Henley left the meeting.

2.56pm                       At this time the Mayor, Grant Henely returned to the meeting.

 

7.1             The committee had general discussion on Council Policy Fees Allowances and   Expenses for      Elected Members and specifically clause 5.25, 5.26, 5.27 and 5.28. Officers will bring               discussed amendments to that portion of the policy to the next P&L meeting for further      consideration.

 

3.01pm                       At this time the Director of Finance and Corporate Services left the meeting.

 

8.               Next Meeting Date

Tuesday, 27 November 2018.

 

9.               Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 3.06pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 15 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Tuesday, 27 November 2018.

 

 

DATE:_________________              PRESIDING MEMBER:_________________________