Agenda of HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint committee

Friday 19 May 2017

Subject: Appointment of Group Recovery Managers and changes to the Group Plan to provide for Transitional Notices

Reason for Report

1. To obtain the approval of the Committee for proposed amendments to the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan to implement changes in the recovery function resulting from recent changes to the CDEM Act 2002.

2. The report recommends that the Committee appoint Michael (Mike) Adye as the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Recovery Manager with Richard Munneke and John O'Shaughnessy appointed as alternate Group Recovery Managers.

3. It is also recommended that the Group Plan be amended to allow for a notice of Transition Period to be issued in the transition to recovery under the same delegations as declaring a State of Emergency.

Background

4. The CDEM Act 2002 Amendment Bill was enacted in November 2016. The Bill:

4.1. Established a legislative framework for recovery management, by providing a statutory requirement for Groups to appoint recovery managers (and alternatives) and carry out recovery planning, and;

4.2. Supported a seamless transition from response into the initial recovery phase, by establishing a transition period notice mechanism that will make some emergency powers being available for a specified period of time (local or national transition period) after a state of emergency has been uplifted.

5. With regard to appointing a Group Recovery Manager, this requirement takes effect from 31 May 2017, and as such the Group needs to give this appointment some priority.

6. At its last meeting, the CEG endorsed the recommendations of this report.

Discussion and Options

Appointment of Group Recover Manager and Alternates

7. The Act now requires that the Group appoint a recovery manager and at least one other person who can act as the recovery manager should they not be available (alternate recovery manager).

8. Attachment 1 of this report is Appendix B of the Group Recovery Strategy 2014-19 that is a job description for a Group Recovery Manager. This job description was used as a basis to attempt to identify a suitable person.

9. Upon the retirement of Mike Adye from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council an approach was made to see if he was interested in the position. Mike is currently overseas until the beginning of September. However he has advised he is interested in the position.

10. Mike has retired as the Group Manager Asset Management, a position he held for a number of years. He is a qualified registered civil engineer who has significant experience in major infrastructure projects and projects involving considerable community engagement, such as the current development and implementation of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

11. Mike was also the primary incident manager for the HBRC over a number of years. This included managing the HBRC response to a number of flood events. The Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group office was also part of Mike’s Asset Management Group until the appointment of a full time Group Manager/Controller 5 years ago. As such Mike has a very good understanding of comprehensive emergency management under the 4Rs.

12. Mike also has a very good understanding of the wider Hawke’s Bay environment and has contacts across a wide range of diverse community groups. As the Group Manager Asset Management he has significant experience in contract and project management.

13. It is therefore recommended that the Committee appoint Mike Adye as the Group Recovery Manager.

14. The Act also requires the Group appoint an alternative Group Recovery Manager. After discussions with the CEG it was thought that the best persons for this role were the senior resource management planners in Hastings and Napier. Both Richard Munneke and John O'Shaughnessy are qualified and experienced resource management planners and project managers.

15. They are regularly involved in managing large development and policy projects which involve multiple disciplines such as asset management, engineering, finance and community development. Both have a number of existing relationships with both government agencies and private business and have extensive experience in public engagement and consultation.

16. It is therefore recommended that the Committee appoint Richard Munneke and John O'Shaughnessy as alternate Group Recovery Managers.

17. Despite these appointments, a recovery manager specific to an event and/or area can still be appointed by the Committee during or after the response. Territorial Authorities will still need to identify suitable local recovery managers.

18. In terms of options, there are no real alternative options other than changing the recommended appointees. Given the nature of the recovery manager roll and the long and at times difficult process of identifying a suitable person, the persons recommended are the best options for these roles.

19. It is therefore recommended that the Committee change Appendix 5: Key Appointments of the Group Plan to insert the appointments of Group Recovery Manager and Alternatives as outlined in Attachment 2. It is also recommended that under the Plan these appointments are delegated the transitional powers under the CDEM Act where a transitional period is in place.

Providing for a Transitional Period

20. The Act now introduces the ability to give notice of a local transitional period. Notice of a local transitional period can be made at the Group or local level (an area, district, or wards affected by an emergency). The authority to issue a transitional notice is the same as a state of emergency in that the person must be an elected official.

21. A local transitional notice is generally made after a state of emergency ceases, however with the approval of the Minister a notice can be made where no declaration occurred.

22. In deciding to issue a notice, the delegated person must be satisfied that invoking the powers to manage, co-ordinate, or direct recovery activities is in the public interest; and necessary to ensure a timely and effective recovery.

23. A local transition period ends 28 days after the time and date on which the period comes into force, unless extended or terminated earlier.

24. The effect of a notice is to give the Recovery Manager powers to carry out all or any of the following:

24.1. Works;

24.2. Clearing roads and other public places;

24.3. Examining and marking any property, animal, or any other thing;

24.4. Removing securing or disposing of, dangerous structures and materials;

24.5. Provide for the conservation and supply of food, fuel, and other essential supplies;

24.6. Disseminate information and advice to the public;

24.7. Require any person to give information.

25. The following powers are given to the Recovery Manager and a Police Constable to preserve human life:

25.1. Direct the evacuation of any premises or place, including any public place;

25.2. Close a public place or road;

25.3. Require the exclusion of any persons or vehicles from any structure or place, including any public place.

25.4. Enter any structure or place for the purpose of saving life, preventing injury, or rescuing and removing injured or endangered persons; or permitting or facilitating the carrying out of any urgent measure for the relief of suffering or distress.

25.5. Direct any person to carry out or stop an action to prevent or limit or reduce the consequences of the emergency.

25.6. Direct the owner of a structure to obtain an assessment of the effect of the emergency on the structure.

26. The provision of a transitional period are as a direct result of the learnings from the recovery to the Canterbury Earthquakes and provides for some significant powers during the recovery from an emergency. A good example of the use of a Transitional Period is in Wellington post the Kaikoura Earthquake. In this case the transitional powers were used to ensure buildings were properly assessed in a timely manner by their owners to ensure public safety both inside and outside of impacted buildings.

27. The above powers are wide ranging and similar to those given to a Controller and Police Constable during a State of Emergency. For this reason it is recommended that Joint Committee approves a change to the Group Plan to allow for transitional periods using the same delegations structure put in place for declaring a state of emergency.

28. That is, the same person authorised to declare a state of emergency for the region, district, city, ward or area would also be authorised to give notice of a transitional period.

29. The only option open to the Committee is not to provide for Transition Notices. However given recent experiences and the need to effectively transition from the response to the recovery this option would remove an effective tool available to the Group in recovery.

30. It is therefore recommended that the Committee change page 45, Section Delegated Authorities, Functions and Powers of the Group Plan as outlined in Attachment 3 to this report to allow the same persons delegated the power to declare a state of emergency to give notice of a local transitional period.

Strategic Planning for Recovery

31. On 1 June 2018 the Act will be amended to require any proposed group plan sent to the Minister include strategic planning for recovery from the hazards and risks the Group has identified. The Ministry intends to issue a Director’s Guideline for recovery planning later this year.

32. As the current Group Plan is operative until 2019, a proposed plan will not be sent to the Minister until the plan is reviewed at this time.

33. In the interim however, the operative Plan includes sections on recovery including setting goals and objectives. One of these objectives was to develop a Recovery Strategy which was duly completed and approved by this Committee in July 2015. This Strategy and the tools it contains was tested during the recovery planning for the Havelock North Gastro Event and was fit for purpose. The Strategy has also been picked up by a number of other Groups and used as a template for their own recovery planning.

34. At this stage it is intended to await the guidance from MCDEM before deciding whether a review on the Recovery provisions needs to be done before 2019.

35. However the Group has undertaken significant steps in planning for recovery and there would need to be significant issues with the existing Plan and Recovery Strategy to warrant a review before 2019. Any review would divert resources from the existing Group Work Programme.

Financial and Resource Implications

36. There are no financial or resource implications from the recommendations of this report. Existing funding is available to contract a Group Recovery Manger for up to 30 days work a year.

Decision Making Process

37. Under Section 57 of the Act, the Group can make minor amendments to the plan if the Committee is satisfied that the amendment will have no likely effect on the rights or obligations of any person. In this case there is no obligation to give notice of a transition notice or indeed utilise the powers under it.

38. The Committee is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

38.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

38.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

38.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Administrating Authority’s policy on significance.

38.4. There are no persons who might be greater affected by this decision than the general public.

38.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

39. 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, 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 the Committee:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Administrating Authority’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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.

2. Appoints Michael Adye as the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Recovery Manager and Richard Munneke and John O'Shaughnessy as alternate Group Recovery Managers.

3. Amends Appendix 5: Key Appointments of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan as detailed in Attachment 2 to this report.

4. Amends pages 45 and 46, Delegated Authorities, Functions and Powers, of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan as detailed in Attachment 3 to this report.

5. Agrees that the requirements of Section 57(2) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 are fulfilled in that the proposed Group Plan amendments will have no likely effect on the rights or obligations of any person.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1	Attachment 1 - Recovery Manager JD
⇩2	Attachment 2 - Appendix 5
⇩3	Attachment 3 - Delegated Authorities, Functions and Powers

HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group joint committee

Friday 19 May 2017

Subject: New Group Method of Operations

Reason for Report

1. In 2014 the Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) instigated a project to identify a control and coordination structure appropriate for the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group. After significant engagement and consultation across the region, a decision was made by CEG on 1 May 2017 to adopt a new response structure. This structure has been named the ‘Hawke’s Bay Method of Operations.’

2. The purpose of this report is to explain and demonstrate how this method of operations works across Councils, and to provide context to how the structure was developed.

3. It is requested that the Joint Committee endorse the decision of the CEG to make these changes.

Background and Discussion

4. A review of the Group’s response capability was conducted in 2014/15. The results were reported to the CEG and Joint Committee in early 2015. The key findings of the review were as follows:

4.1. That there is a lack of staff to fill Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) functions – especially for medium to large events.

4.2. There was variability in training across the individual councils.

4.3. There is an excessive number of controllers and their level of training/ experience was inconsistent.

4.4. There is increased public/political expectations on what will be delivered on the day – and therefore increased expectations on our people.

4.5. In a large event support agencies such as Police, Defence and Fire cannot provide liaison into local coordination centres.

4.6. There is a wide range of response facility capability and technology between organisations.

4.7. The response needed to be responsive to a range of diverse local communities (rural and urban).

4.8. There was a wide variation in processes used in council coordination centres and many processes were undocumented.

4.9. There was a lack of training in some council coordination centres.

5. As a result of the review the Group office was asked to develop a new method of operations to respond to an emergency across the Group area. In principle the CEG sought a more centralised approach and directed staff to develop a model that addressed the concerns above while achieving the following key principles:

5.1. The new structure and associated procedures need to be simple;

5.2. There is to be increased interoperability across the Group;

5.3. Group members participate in response activities in a coordinated way;

5.4. The duplication of resources, facilities, and personnel are reduced;

5.5. The facilities (including Emergency Operations Centres – EOC’s) used for response are fit for purpose, technologically enabled and appropriately sized.

5.6. The new structure needed to recognise the need for the Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay District Councils to operate remotely.

6. With additional emergency management staff being employed in early 2016 the project was able to proceed. However it became evident that there were a wide range of views on what was an appropriate structure.

7. The implementation team found that there was still a desire amongst a minority of controllers to maintain a more layered response structure. However in light of events since August 2016 it was confirmed that the existing layered approach is no longer sustainable and in fact was often hindering an effective response.

8. Consultation on the new model has been ongoing over the last 6 months. In particular the CEG, controllers, emergency management staff, emergency services, Lifelines and the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management have had input at various stages.

9. As a result there is now agreement between the controllers and the CEG as to the structure and staffing of the new method of operations.

10. The new ‘Method of Operations’ sees Wairoa District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council retain their EOC’s, while the Group runs an ECC which combines Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council under a single structure.

11. Overall, this sees a move from ‘traditional’ tiered response structure to a more collaborative and centralised model, reducing duplication of effort and increasing response effectiveness and efficiency.

12. One of the key changes is that the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group will always activate its coordination centre. This could range between light level support of Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay in a small local event to establishing a combined Group, Hastings, Napier coordination centre. This also makes best use of the Group’s emergency management staff who are specifically trained and prepared to respond.

13. The new model has now been tested using desktop scenarios. These were based on small to large events in different locations across the region. The new model will continue to be tested through exercises over the next 18 months, and adjustments made as required.

14. Line diagrams showing the new structure by scenario are attached and a more in depth explanation will be presented to the Committee at the meeting.

15. Given the considerable consultation and testing of the new method of operations against the background of review of recent events, it is recommended the Committee endorse the CEG decision to change the Group mode of operations during a response as outlined in this paper and attachments.

16. Should these changes be accepted there are flow on changes to Controller numbers and delegations. These are dealt with as part of Agenda Item 7.

Strategic Fit

17. The Vision of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group is A Resilient Hawke’s Bay Community.

18. The Response Goal related to this decision is Response Agencies Prepared to Provide Timely, Well Coordinated and Effective Response to an Emergency.

19. The review and subsequent recommended changes to the Group response structures was underpinned by the requirements of this Goal while mindful of the changing requirements of an emergency response.

Financial and Resource Implications

20. While no direct financial costs/benefits can be identified, the recommended structure does allow for more effective use of trained and experienced staff.

Decision Making Process

21. The Committee is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

21.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

21.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

21.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administering Authority’s policy on significance.

21.4. There are no persons affected by this decision. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

21.5. 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 the Committee:

2. Endorses the decision of the Coordinating Executives Group to implement a new emergency response method of operations including structural changes as outlined in this report and attachments.

Authored by:

Teresa Simcox

Emergency Management Advisor Response and Recovery

Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Method of Operations

HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group joint committee

Friday 19 May 2017

Subject: Amendments to the Group Plan Appointment of 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 Controller. These appointments and delegations are contained in the Group Plan and as such represent a minor change to this Plan.

2. This paper seeks confirmation of proposed changes to Controller structure and appointments and as a result, proposes resulting changes to the HB CDEM Group Plan.

3. This paper assumes the recommendations in Agenda Item 5 have been approved.

Background

4. In 2015 the Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) undertook a review of the Group operational control during the response to an emergency. As a result of this review a new more centralised command and control system was agreed to and the exact nature of this is covered in Agenda Item 5.

5. As a result of this change, the review of the Christchurch/Kaikoura earthquake and recent Whakatane Floods, the structure and numbers of controllers in the Group were reviewed.

6. Some of the key considerations in this controllers review included:

6.1. The need for interoperability between councils.

6.2. The need to select and then develop and train controllers to a higher level than previously.

6.3. The increased expectations of the Group response.

6.4. The increasing complexity of any emergency response.

7. Consultation on changes to the controllers’ structure was conducted with CEG, existing controllers and the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management. As a result the original model was refined and presented to the CEG at its meeting on 1 May 2017.

8. The CEG endorsed the changes and an amendment to the Group Plan is required to implement this change.

Discussion and Options Assessment

9. The Act requires the CDEM Group appoint a Group Controller and at least one alternative for when that person is available. The Group may also choose to appoint local controllers. Local controllers must follow the directions of the Group Controller in an emergency (note this is any emergency not just during a declared state of emergency).

10. The existing Controller appointments are listed in Attachment 1 to this report, while the recommended changes are listed in Attachment 2. These Attachments are based on the Plan as existed at the date of this report. If changes are made by the Committee in this meeting in relation to appointing a Group Recovery Manager (Agenda Item 4), the recommendations in this paper can be incorporated after the fact.

11. The model proposed retains Group Controllers, however the number is reduced to four. Four is seen as a minimum and attempts will be made to identify one or two additional candidates.

12. As a general principle it is not recommended that council CEOs be appointed as Controllers. The reason for this is that CEOs are responsible for overseeing the restoration of their entire council functions and services and are not well placed to also coordinate a wider CDEM response.

13. The four Group controllers proposed are existing controllers under the plan.

14. It is recommended that while local controllers are part of their local council, they be appointed for the entire Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group area. This will give more flexibility in the response and the ability to focus training and development.

15. Each territorial authority will provide two suitable persons. Moving forward the following principles will be used to select and train controllers:

15.1. Controllers will be selected based on their personal qualities, skills and experience.

15.2. All controllers will be expected to attend the week long national Controllers Development Programme.

15.3. All controllers will be expected to attend ongoing training and exercises.

15.4. All controllers will be expected to participate in and champion CDEM in readiness in their local council.

16. A process to support the above principles will be developed and used for selecting controllers into the future. This will be reported back to the Committee at a future meeting.

17. Each council has nominated two staff to be local controllers. These staff are existing local controllers. Hastings District Council has nominated three controllers to assist in the transition from a very experienced controller who is due to retire, to two new controllers.

18. The option recommended reduces the number of controllers across the Group from 26 to 13 (12 normal state). However those 13 (12) could work in any area across the Hawke’s Bay Group.

19. Of the 26 current controllers, most have not completed any controller training and have not been actively engaged in training and exercising in the last 2 years. In comparison of the 13 recommended;

19.1. Four have completed the national controller development course,

19.2. three are attending the course this year,

19.3. four are committed to attending the programme next year, whilst

19.4. the remaining two have significant response experience and/or equivalent training.

20. The 13 recommended have also attended the biannual Group sponsored controllers forum in the last 6 months.

21. It also needs to be noted that during a state of emergency the Act allows for the Group Controller to delegate their powers to any person. However the best outcome during an emergency is for staff who are trained and practiced to control the CDEM response.

22. The options for the Committee are to:

22.1. Accept the recommended structure outlined above and in Attachment 2,

22.2. change some of the names recommended, or

22.3. remain with the existing structure.

23. A number of the current named controllers have very little training or experience and as such could place them in a very difficult position in an event. In the Commission of Inquiry into the Canterbury Earthquakes Response, the controllers were questioned on their training and experience and the inquiry found that in a number of cases this was lacking.

24. Given the above and the new operational response structure, the recommended changes in Attachment 2 provides the opportunity to focus on training selected staff to a higher level and are recommended.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. There are no significant financial or resource implications that may result from this decision.

Decision Making Process

26. Under Section 57 of the Act, the Group can make minor amendments to the plan if the Committee is satisfied that the amendment will have no likely effect on the rights or obligations of any person. In this case no other person is adversely affected by the recommended changes to the Group Plan.

27. The Committee is also required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

27.1. The decision does not significantly alter the CDEM service provision or affect a strategic asset.

27.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

27.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Administrating Authority’s policy on significance.

27.4. There are no persons affected by this decision.

27.5. The decision is not inconsistent with Group Plan.

28. 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 the Committee:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council 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.

2. Amends Appendix 5: Key Appointments of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan as detailed in Attachment 2 to this report.

3. Agrees that the requirements of Section 57(2) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 are fulfilled in that the proposed Group Plan amendments will have no likely effect on any person.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1	Existing Controller Appointments
⇩2	Recommended Changes

Item	Topic	Member/Staff
1.
2.