Meeting of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Joint Committee
Date: Tuesday 24 March 2015
Time: 12.00 pm
|
Venue:
|
Council Chamber
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
159 Dalton Street
NAPIER
|
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict
of Interest Declarations
3. Confirmation of
Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group held on 20 June 2014
4. Matters Arising
from Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group held on 20 June
2014
5. Call for General
Business
Decision Items
6. Appointment of New
Controllers 3
7. Group Emergency
Operations Centres Review 7
8. Group Exercise
November 2015 11
9. Group Work Plan 23
10. Group Structure and Resourcing
Review 25
Information or Performance Monitoring
11. Proposed Councillor Roles and
Responsibilities Workshop 29
12. General Business 31
HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Appointment of New
Controllers
Reason for Report
1. Under
the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEM Act) the Civil Defence
Emergency Management Group Joint Committee makes appointments to the positions
of Group and Local Controller. These delegations are contained in the
Group Plan and as such represent a minor change to the Plan.
2. This
paper:
2.1. Seeks
confirmation of proposed changes to Local Controller appointments.
2.2. Proposes
resulting changes to the HB CDEM Group Plan.
Appointment of Group Controller
and Alternate Group Controllers
3. Under
section 26 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 only the HB CDEM
Group Joint Committee can make appointments to the role of Controller.
4. Attachment
1 is the relevant page to the Group Plan that lists these appointments.
Changes are needed to the list of Local Controllers due to staff resignations.
Decision Making Process
5. The
Committee is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of
the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the
requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item
and have concluded the following:
5.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the CDEM service provision or affect a strategic
asset.
5.2. The use of the
special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
5.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s
policy on significance (for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group this is the HBRC).
5.4. The are no
persons affected by this decision.
5.5. There are no
other options as the appointment of controllers is a requirement of the Act.
5.6. The decision is
not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
5.7. Given the
nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the
persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made,
Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting
directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
Confirmation
of the appointments of Local and Alternate Local Controllers
6. Each of the Territorial Local Authorities currently identifies Local
Controllers and Alternate Local Controllers.
7. Each Territorial Local Authority was asked to confirm current titles
and the names of the appointees so that the Joint Committee can be informed and
if necessary make any amendments to the Group Plan.
8. Correspondence from the Territorial Local Authorities confirm the
following changes are required:
8.1. Wairoa District Council
8.1.1. Delete
Des Jane (retired). Not proposed to be replaced.
8.2. Napier City Council.
8.2.1. Delete
Alastair Thompson (retired).
8.2.2. Delete
Fiona Green (resigned).
8.2.3. Appoint
Antoinette Campbell as the Primary Local Controller.
8.2.4. Appoint
Richard Munneke as an Alternate Controller.
8.2.5. Appoint
Paul O’Shaughnessy as an Alternate Controller.
9. To formally complete this process the Joint Committee must agree to
an amendment to the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Plan as proposed above.
|
Recommendations
That the Committee:
1. Agrees
that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria
contained in the adopted policy on significance and that the Committee can
exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local
Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring
directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have
an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue
to be considered and decided.
2. Resolves to make the appointment of
new local controllers as outlined in section 8 of this report.
3. Resolves to make amendments to Appendix
5: Key Appointments of the operative Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan as
outlined in section 8 of this report.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
Key
Appointments
|
Attachment 1
|
HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Group Emergency
Operations Centres Review
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of
this report is to inform and seek the endorsement of the CEG’s decision
to change the structure and functions of the emergency coordination centres
(Group Emergency Coordination Centre and local Emergency Operations Centres) in
the Group.
Background
2. In late August
2014 the CEG requested that a review of the existing CDEM EOCs and ECC be
undertaken. The purpose of this review was identified as:
To identify a control and
coordination structure appropriate for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group to
successfully lead and coordinate the response to an emergency event or
disaster.
3. This project
was scoped in September and the following project objectives were approved by
the CEG:
· Defining the capability and
capacity required by the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group to effectively and
efficiently control and coordinate an effective response to an event or
disaster. This may include consideration of:
o The type/level of response
appropriate to the Hawke’s Bay based on the Hawke’s Bay
Hazardscape.
o The liaison
capability/needs of partner agencies such as the emergency services, lifelines
and welfare groups.
o The ability to participate
and coordinate a response in support of a national emergency (or to support
another CDEM Groups).
o Resourcing and personnel
constraints.
o Triggers for activating the
ECC and EOCs.
o The capability to
coordinate the recovery.
· Identify the existing
capability and capacity of the ECC/EOCs in the Hawke’s Bay Group to
achieve the desired level of service. This could include consideration
of:
o The responsibilities and
tasks of individual Group members in response to an event.
o The suitability of
facilities.
o Whether the centre can be
staffed in order to achieve its expected roles, tasks and
responsibilities. Including the ability to operate 24/7 and the
capability to staff a 2nd and 3rd shift.
o The capability of staff to
undertake their role in the EOC or ECC (without using essential council staff
who will be involved in business continuity).
o Whether the centre is
appropriately equipped (e.g. IT and communications equipment).
o The ability of the existing
structures to control and coordinate a timely well coordinated and effective
response to events of various levels of impact.
o Transition to Recovery
requirements.
· Identify an appropriate
control and coordination structure for Hawke’s Bay in responding to a
multi agency event. This would include consideration of:
o The ability of the existing
structure to efficiently and effectively achieve the desired response control
and coordination level of service.
o The systems and processes
required to control and coordinate a sustained response.
o The capability to employ
appropriate levels of leadership and personnel to carry out the functions and
process required in the control and coordination of the response to an event
consistent with the national coordinated incident management system (CIMS)
model.
o The physical space and
appropriate locations of EOCs/ECC.
o The equipment required to
control and coordinate a response in a multi–agency and complex
environment.
o Whether Service Level
Agreements (as and where required) with councils to staff and equip EOCs are
appropriate.
4. A project team
was brought together consisting of:
· Ian
Macdonald, Group Controller/Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group.
· Tim
Allan, Emergency Management Officer Wairoa District Council.
· Jamie
Keenan, NZ Fire Service (Emergency Services Representative).
· Peter Grant, Group
Recovery Manager & Alternate Group Controller (CEG Representative).
· Andrew
Hickey, Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management
5. The project
team met in October 2014 and completed a series of interviews in with all
councils and where appropriate partner agencies in late January 2015.
6. With the local
EMO, the team also reviewed the capability of each council’s coordination
centre using the headings of Place, People and Processes.
7. At the CEG
meeting it was decided that the current structure was unsustainable in terms of
the staff required to man the facilities and the level of training and
expertise needed to effectively mange an emergency which was of long duration
and/or of significant impact.
8. A brief
presentation on the team’s findings and the option confirmed by the CEG
will be given at the meeting
Discussion
9. The CEG
decision was to maintain a “footprint” at each TLA and the
HBRC. The size of the incident management team at each location
would be scaled back with some of the CIMS (Coordinated Incident Management
System) functions (eg. Intelligence, Planning and Logistics) being centrally
managed at a larger facility based at the Emergency Management facility in
Hastings.
10. These facilities would not
have a local controller as defined under the Group Plan. However there
would need to be a control function at each location.
11. It was also decided to
investigate developing a more diverse and better trained group of Group
Controllers. If a Group Controller was appointed in each TLA area as well
as a small Group of centrally based Group Controllers, more effort could be
given to increasing the expertise of this team. A primary Group
Controller would also need to be appointed to ensure there were clear levels of
control and delegation of powers. This group could number between 8-10
people.
12. Consideration was also to
be given to developing a “go-to” EOC team covering all of the CIMS
functions. This could be drawn from all councils and partner
agencies. This team would have a higher level of training and experience
and would be deployable across the Group area and possibly nationally.
13. The CEG has asked the
Project Team to develop an implementation plan for this option.
Decision Making
Process
14. The Committee is required
to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government
Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in
Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the
following:
14.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
14.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
14.3. The decision does not fall
within the definition of the Administration Authority’s (HBRC) policy on
significance.
14.4. No persons are affected by
this decision.
14.5. The decision is not
inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
14.6. Given the nature and
significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons
likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, the
Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting
directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
|
Recommendations
That :
1. The
Committee agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Administration Authority’s adopted policy on
significance and that the Committee can exercise its discretion under
Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make
decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and
persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due
to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. The
Committee endorses the CEG’s decision of a centralised regional
ECC with local EOCs with reduced functions as the response command and
control model for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Group Exercise November
2015
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of
this report is to gain the endorsement of the Joint Committee on the decision
of the CEG to conduct a Tier 3 exercise for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group in
November 2015.
Background
2. The National
Exercise Program (to which the HB CDEM Group is a signatory) identifies The
Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group is committed to facilitating a Tier 3 (inter CDEM
Group) exercise every three years. The Nation Exercise Program Charter
and the Directors Guideline on exercises set the criteria, operational
expectations and reporting requirements.
3. Hawke’s
Bay has historically conducted a “region-wide” exercise every three
years dating back into the 1990’s. Since the establishment of the
Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group in 2005 two “region-wide” fully
integrated exercises have been conducted “AshBay” in 2006”
and “BayVac” in 2009. It has therefore been 6 years since the
last Group exercise has been held.
4. As an outcome
of the review of CDEM Group Plan hazard analysis and ranking process in 2013,
earthquake was confirmed as the greatest hazard risk in Hawke’s
Bay. It was therefore decided that an earthquake should be the
scenario for our next Group Tier 3 exercise. At the 2014 meeting for the
NEP Governance Group the scenario (earthquake), title (Te Matua-a-Maui) and
date were confirmed into the National Exercise Programme Calendar. The dates
for Exercise Te Matua-a-Maui are 11, 12 and 25 November.
5. The conceptual
design for the exercise is to allow staff to practice their roles and
responsibilities in a learning rather than testing environment. This was
seen as important considering the lack of exercising at the Group and local
level over the last 6 years.
6. For this
learning/practice environment to occur it has been decided to commence
operational activities in what is termed the second operational period.
The reason for this is that in most exercises staff are only involved in the
initial “mad minute” where the focus is largely on the first
responders (Fire/Police/Medical) carrying out their contingency plans and
trying getting some understanding of the situation before any informed planning
and coordination can occur. The intent is to run lead-in workshops and
training sessions where staff and the emergency services will explore the
hazard, examine the consequences and participate in documenting the scenario
impact, assessment and initial injects for the first operational period.
7. The second
operational period of the exercise will then focus on the intelligence
analysis, planning and resulting operational plans. This is to ensure
that coordination centre staff get an opportunity to experience or implement
the full range of their responsibilities in a sustained way.
8. It is also
intended to run a recovery exercise on 25 November using the analysis and plans
developed during the earlier response exercise.
9. At a
Coordinating Executives Group meeting on 27 February the exercise aim,
objectives and project plan was approved. Attachment 1 is the Exercise
Purpose Statement approved by CEG.
Financial and Resource Implications
10. The Group Office budget
includes operational resourcing for the running of this Exercise.
Individual councils are responsible for covering the costs of their staff and
running their coordination centre.
11. The build up training and
running of the exercise will require the commitment of up to 4.5 days depending
upon the role and level of experience of the staff member involved.
12. This is a significant
commitment for all councils and partner agencies. This commitment is
extremely important considering the lack of exercising across the Group in the
last 6 years and the need to practice our response structures to ensure they
are capable of effectively responding on the day.
Decision Making Process
13. The Committee is required
to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government
Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in
Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the
following:
13.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
13.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
13.3. The decision does not fall
within the definition of the Administration Authority’s (HBRC) policy on
significance.
13.4. No persons are affected by
this decision.
13.5. Options that have been
considered include not running an exercise, however this option will have a
major impact on the provision of this service and is not consistent with the
strategic direction of the Group Plan.
13.6. The decision is not
inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
13.7. Given the nature and
significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons
likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, the
Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting
directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
|
Recommendations
That :
1. Agrees
that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria
contained in Administration Authority’s adopted
policy on significance and that Committee can exercise its discretion under
Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make
decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and
persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due
to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. That
the Committee endorses the decisions of the CEG with regards to the
planning and conduct of Exercise Te Matua-a-Maui.
3. That the Committee acknowledges the need for all councils
to commit to Exercise Te Matua-a-Maui.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1
|
Exercise Te
Matau-a-Maui Exercise Purpose Statement
|
|
|
|
Exercise
Te Matau-a-Maui Exercise Purpose Statement
|
Attachment 1
|
HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Group Work Plan
Reason for Report
1. The reason for
this report is to seek the endorsement of the key priorities of the Group work
plan approved by the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) on 27 Feb 2015.
Background
2. The Group Work
Programme is being developed following the completion of the Group Plan and was
requested as a result of the CEG workshop on 14 November 2014.
3. This work commenced
in December 2014. This involved discussions with various partner agencies and
two EMO one day workshops. A draft work programme based on this work was
produced and an initial review indicates that this programme is feasible.
This was discussed at the last CEG meeting and decisions were made on the
programme priorities.
Discussion
4. The following
priorities were decided by CEG:
|
CEG
Priority
|
Activity
|
|
1
|
Contingency
Planning
|
|
2
|
Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs)
|
|
3
|
Emergency
Response and Civil Defence Centre Facilities
|
|
4
|
Exercises
|
|
5
|
Coordinate
Training
|
|
6
|
Training
Resources
|
|
7.
|
Community
Response Plans
|
5. A short
presentation will be given at the CEG meeting to explain each of these activity
areas.
6. Once the
priorities have been confirmed, further detail will be needed to provide for
detailed project plans. At this stage this would be by a focused workshop
with emergency management staff experienced or skilled in the relevant
areas. Where appropriate partner agencies will also be asked for more
detailed input and advice.
7. It is requested
that the Committee endorse these priorities. In doing so it needs to be
noted that 2015 is a very busy year with the Monitoring and Evaluation process
being conducted in May/June and a major exercise being planned and run in
November.
8. This item needs
to be viewed in conjunction with the next agenda item on the Group structure
and resourcing. That report outlines a change in resourcing to enable the
Group to implement a Work Programme that includes the work streams proposed in
the timeframes proposed.
Decision Making
Process
9. The Committee
is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local
Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements
contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have
concluded the following:
9.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
9.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
9.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of the Administration Authority’s
(HBRC) policy on significance.
9.4. No persons
are affected by this decision.
9.5. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
9.6. Given the
nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the
persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made,
the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without
consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the
decision.
|
Recommendations
That :
1. The Committee agrees that the
decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Administration Authority’s adopted policy on
significance and that the Committee can exercise its discretion under
Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make
decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and
persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due
to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. The Committee endorses the Group work programme priorities as outlined in this report.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Group Structure and
Resourcing Review
Reason for Report
1. The
purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of recent changes to the
staffing structure of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group approved by the
CEG. The Committee is asked to endorse these changes.
2. The
decisions made by the CEG at its’ 27 February 2015 meeting fall into two
areas being the structure of all the emergency management staff across the TLAs
and the Group office, and the capability and resourcing of the Group office.
Background
3. The
structure and resourcing of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group has been an ongoing
debate over the last four years. At the end of 2014 the Group
commissioned an independent report to identify gaps in capability and
resourcing, and recommend a structure which considers the needs of
Hawke’s Bay.
4. The
process involved a number of one on one interviews with emergency management
staff, the members of CEG and Joint Committee members.
5. Two
workshops were held with the CEG with the final workshop on 14 November
2014. At this workshop CEG decided to hold over a decision on the review
until a Group work plan had been developed. The development of a Group
work plan has now progressed to a point where the key work streams and
resources needed to complete them have been identified and this could then
inform the discussion on the Group’s structure.
Strategic Considerations
6. The
following readiness objectives of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan are
relevant to this paper:
REA2:
Ensure CDEM Group members have the capability to respond to
emergencies in their area and promote the need for capability within emergency
services and other partners.
REA3:
Continue to improve coordinated and integrated emergency
management between local authorities and with other CDEM partners.
REA4:
Enhance the capability and interoperability of the Hawke’s
Bay CDEM Group through well planned, needs-based professional development.
REA5: Improve community preparedness
through strong leadership and commitment to CDEM at political and
executive levels.
Discussion
7. Structure.
At its’ meeting on 27 February the CEG discussed three options being:
7.1. The
status quo with the majority of local EMOs reporting and being employed by
their respective TLAs.
7.2. Employing
all civil defence emergency management staff under one organisation
(Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group) while still locating a local EMO at each TLA.
7.3. Maintaining
existing employment arrangements (most TLA employing their own EMO) but putting
in place arrangements were the reporting lines of local EMOs is clearly to the
Group Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM.
8. It
was decided to adopt the last option. The key aspects of this option are
as follows.
8.1. Existing
employment arrangements remain until the end of the next LTP cycle (end of 2017
for mid 2018). As part of the 2018 LTP process remaining EMO positions not
employed under the Group would be moved under the Group Office structure and
funding arrangements established.
8.2. In
the interim the reporting lines for local EMOs would be directly to the Group
Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM. Very clear reporting lines would be developed
including agreements between the Group and the councils. This would make
it clear that the Group (through the Group Manager) is responsible for
implementing the agreed work plan and in doing so the local EMOs work directly
to the Group Office.
8.3. The
Group Manager would be responsible for setting and reviewing performance
objectives. This would be in consultation with the local TLA as the
direct employer.
8.4. Should
a vacancy occur this is an opportunity for the Group to directly employ the new
local EMO through the Administrating Authority (HBRC). Any recruiting
process would be managed by the CDEM Group Manager.
8.5. Developing
and agreeing to a detailed Group work plan.
8.6. Implementing
this work plan by providing adequate resourcing.
8.7. Rural fire remains separate at this stage.
9. The
reasons for choosing this option were as follows:
9.1. Local
EMO staff would be working to an experienced and qualified emergency management
second tier manger, rather than a manager for whom CDEM is likely to be a small
part of their role.
9.2. Better
clarity in the lines of communication between CEG and the local EMOs (the Group
Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM is accountable to the CEG through the CEG
Chair).
9.3. Helps
to remove any ambiguity for partner agencies such as the emergency services
around roles and responsibilities for CDEM in Hawke’s Bay.
9.4. A
more unified approach to implementing the objectives the Group Plan and a more
effective CDEM office.
9.5. Allows
for the implementation of a change process as part of the 2018 LTP that does
not impact on the 2015 work program which includes the monitoring and
evaluation process and a major exercise.
10. Some of
the identified risks with this option which will need to be monitored and/or
addressed include the perception amongst local authority staff that they are no
longer responsible for CDEM. This can be mitigated by being clear that a
local EMO will still be located in each council and each council is a member of
the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group. While the EMOs may report to the Group
Manager Hawke’s Bay CDEM, local authorities will still be required to
ensure their lifeline services are maintained during an event and that suitably
trained staff are able to staff a local or regional control centre.
11. This perception
can also be avoided by ensuring the CEG discuss and approve the Group work plan
and budget on an annual basis. This would allow for local considerations
and needs to be considered and if appropriate addressed.
12. Funding
is another issue which will need to be addressed. Currently the Group
operates a rate targeted to each property through the HBRC rates. The
TLAs generally fund CDEM out of their general rate and this amount varies
between councils. This means that the contribution to fund CDEM varies
greatly between ratepayers depending upon which TLA area they reside in.
13. A number
of options exist to address this issue range from funding CDEM completely from
the Group targeted rate or recovering some of the CDEM expenditure through a
pro-rata levy on each council. The exact model would need to be agreed to
by councils through the Joint Committee with CEG advice.
14. Resourcing.
The review report found that the Group Office was
under-resourced based on the scale of activity indicated in the Group Plan and
the breadth of activities needed to be done by the Group Office.
15. Due to
the lead-in times for securing funding through the LTP process, officers have
already proposed funding changes to the HBRC to enable the additional
resourcing of up to 2.4 FTEs to occur.
16. Some of
the proposed additional funding is sourced from a mixture of utilising existing
reserves and redirecting some existing operational funding and savings in
overheads. An increase in the CDEM target rate is also proposed in years
2 and 3 of the LTP to make up any difference.
17. This
additional funding has been included in the draft LTP by the HBRC and will be
publically notified as part of this process. If the funding is approved
it is proposed to clarify the existing roles and responsibilities of the
existing Group office staff and recruit the following skill sets:
18. Emergency
Management Coordinator - Community Resilience (1 FTE). This position
would be responsible for:
18.1. Leading
the development and coordination of community resilience projects across the
Group
18.2. Developing
and implementing a CDEM Community Resilience Plan which identifies the
Group’s approach to enhancing the resilience of Hawke’s Bay
communities.
18.3. Enhancing
resilience in the Hawke’s Bay community through the coordination and
guidance of local level activities such as Community Response Planning and
education programmes.
18.4. Providing
specialist advice and support to local emergency management staff in the
implementation of their community resilience projects.
19. Additional
Readiness Resource (1 FTE). This exact nature of this position needs to
be considered in the context of existing position descriptions. However
the following areas identified as part of the proposed Group Work Plan need to
be addressed as part of developing any new position descriptions:
19.1. The
development of control centre response job descriptions (eg intelligence,
planning, logistics, operations staff) and skills needs analysis for these
positions.
19.2. Developing
and implementing a Group Training and Exercise Directive.
19.3. The
coordination of Group wide training including volunteer training.
19.4. Contingency
planning for major hazards.
19.5. Coordination
of Hawke’s Bay Lifelines Group.
20. Emergency
Management Administration Officer (.4 FTE). This position would provide
administrative support to the Group including maintaining training records,
maintaining the Group contacts database, warning system and file management.
Financial and Resource Implications
21. In terms
of individual TLAs there are no immediate changes to budgets beyond an as
appropriate pooling of operational expenditure to achieve Group wide outcomes.
Decision Making Process
22. The
Committee is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of
the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the
requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item
and have concluded the following:
22.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
22.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
22.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of the Administration Authority’s
(HBRC) policy on significance.
22.4. No persons
are affected by this decision.
22.5. Options that
have been considered include no change to the current structure, however the
preferred option will have a positive impact on the provision of this service
and is consistent with the strategic direction of the Group Plan.
22.6. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
22.7. Given the
nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the
persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made,
the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without
consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the
decision.
|
Recommendations
That :
1. The Committee agrees that the
decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Administration Authority’s adopted policy on
significance and that the Committee can exercise its discretion under
Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make
decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and
persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due
to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. That the Committee endorses the
decision of CEG with regards to changing the structure of the CDEM staff and
resourcing of the Group Office.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HB Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
Subject: Proposed Councillor
Roles and Responsibilities Workshop
Reason
for Report
1. The
purpose of this report is for the Committee to discuss the matters to be
covered in a combined council workshop on civil defence emergency management.
Background
2. At
the last Committee meeting it was requested that a combined Hawke’s Bay
councillor workshop be run focusing on matters such as roles and
responsibilities during a CDEM emergency.
3. A
date and location has been identified. It is proposed to run the workshop in
the Hastings District Council Chamber on 11 May 2015. Invites have been
sent to the respective councils and should now be in everyone’s diaries.
Discussion
4. The
following topics are proposed for this workshop:
· Introductions (all EMOs to
attend).
· Legislative background
(necessary but as brief as possible).
· The Hawke’s Bay CDEM
Group – structure and how we work together.
· Work the Group does to achieve
the 4Rs (overview of the work programme and the
work priorities).
· Key activities in 2015 –
the monitoring and evaluation and the exercise – high level overview.
· Roles and responsibilities of
elected officials during (the largest bit):
o Reduction
o Readiness
o Response
o Recovery
5. It
is intended to structure the workshop in such a way that it is interactive as
possible with plenty of time for discussion and not heavy on detail.
6. It
is also intended to “pre-load” some reading with the distribution
of the two pamphlets developed for elected officials after the last elections.
7. Any
feedback on the proposed workshop agenda is requested.
Decision Making Process
8. Council
is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the
Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements
contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have
concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be
made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not
apply.
Recommendation
1. That
the Committee receives the report of the Group Manager Hawke’s
Bay CDEM.
|
|
Ian Macdonald
Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay
Civil Defence Emergency Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HB
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday 24 March 2015
SUBJECT: General Business
INTRODUCTION
This document has been prepared to
assist the Joint Committee to note any General Business Items to be discussed,
as determined earlier in the Agenda.
|
Item
|
Topic
|
Member/Staff
|
|
1.
|
Monitoring and
Evaluation
|
Andrew Hickey
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
