Maranoa Regional Council Organisational Structure

I don’t believe that this restructure is the best way forward. As a Mitchell resident, I understand feeling left out, but I also am old enough to remember that things were not perfect back when we were seperate councils. We had to amalgamate, it wasn’t our choice, but I don’t think that separating out again is the answer. I think it’s taken 10 years to make our current system, and while I know it’s not perfect either, I worry about how long it will take to develop and implement another new system. It doesn’t seem worth it. To me, this doesn’t seem like a well thought out, cost effective plan to bring local back into our communities. We could have an awful lot of local ground crews and on the ground people in our little towns, for cheaper than a few more higher ups who will come out for the cash for the short term but won’t be invested in our communities. How do you propose we attract and afford qualified directors? It’s no good having a you-beaut strategic plan unless it’s actually practically possible.

I think councillors should be more concerned with infrastructure, roads, sewerage, and waste management. Have councillors actually looked at the dumps recently for example? The yuleba tip is a health hazard and an eyesore! Had to go to the Roma dump for the other day and couldn’t believe my eyes- you nearly have to jackknife your trailer just to get around there- why?

I also worry about attracting and keeping good staff. I’ve never seen morale so low among council workers... and agree with others. Council used to have a name as a good employer- now nobody wants to go near the place! I don’t think this talk of restructure has been good for many council staff from what I’ve heard, and after all aren’t they the ones who have to implement it? I Just don’t think this is the best way to bring local back to our towns, but I can see this new restructure causing many more problems than it will fix.

Not sure whether this is helpful or not. But it’s my two bob.

I believe the new proposal would be a much fairer system for the whole Maranoa Region, by giving power back to the local Communities to help make the decisions in their area. Thereby giving more ownership to the local staff to improve their communities.
This proposal was campaigned on by the Mayor at the last election.
The supporting Councillor's were elected with the highest number of votes.
All higher levels of decision making are centred in Roma, by decentralising the structure would allow better outcomes for smaller towns in the area.
The system in place, is not working to benefit the whole region, therefore a new structure has to be found to improve efficient delivery of MRC services to the whole community. RA

It is clear the Councillors and Mayor in favour of this restructure are not listening to the majority of staff, ratepayers or residents.

As business owners would you not want to see a cost analysis? Further research? Achievable milestones and the benchmarks of success? Your not only restructuring an organisation - what you vote on will send ripples through each community and family in one way or another.

Surely addressing the regions declining population, advancing tourism and economic stability is higher on the things to do list than checking a box to say you delivered something. Look to restructure the Road Crews if the issue is roads, then go and find some more money because maintenance and building roads are expensive and your pool of revenue is getting smaller after you heavily discount rates and natural gas accounts for business owners.

Please do not do this. We do not live in the past and must look forward to the future. Ratepayer, resident and business owner.

Dear Mayor and Councillors,
Firstly, I would like to commend you all on your dedication and commitment to the Maranoa and our communities.
However, I agree with others who have commented that far more due diligence should be completed before such a major change is implemented and that it appears to be a step backwards by only increasing the bureaucracy in each are at the expense of the workforce.
I am amazed that we were not given more financial information and options considering 3 were developed. We were provided with more options and costings when asked for our input on relocating a waste outlet at an Injune Café then we have been provided with now on changing the total way the Council operates and how staff will be affected in the whole Maranoa.
For those of us that voted for you Mayor Golder and members of your Unity Team, I expected that your team, who stated that they were like-minded members of the team with similar visions, would still do the appropriate due diligence when considering your motions. I have suggested to a couple of councillors that perhaps they should get you to write a spiel for them so at least it looks like they are part of the discussion. It became obvious that they do have to vote on party lines, as when prior to Christmas, due to a decision going against you, a hastily organised special meeting had to be convened to overturn that decision.
A couple of questions I have are:
Will these directors be able to make decisions or will they still need to refer to the Council for approval? If so a Councillor responsible for each district may be a better option.
Will these directors be able to make decisions or will they still need to refer to the CEO? The CEO would still be responsible for their oversight and budget adherence.
What is the total cost per location? Director on $200,000 and, as has been said elsewhere a $150,000 overseer at each location and I assume additional secretarial support? Together with housing and additional motor vehicles. What budget, staff and equipment will they need?
The main benefit that has been mentioned continuously is to have someone in each town that can see little things that need doing and get them done.
A far better option would be to amend the job descriptions of the existing Community Development Officers and Business Development Officers in each location to allow them to look for these little things and then to employ additional workers in each location to do these little jobs at say $60,000 each. I would suggest say 3 in each location to start with.
I would like to know more about the cost savings as these have not been provided.
I hope that you will consider our comments.
GR

I do not support this restructure, I do support change but only change that will make a difference to the area that requires attention. This structure is just more top heavy with the introduction of a 5 new Directors and 5 new Overseers. During the election process Unity Maranoa ran on the going local platform. Why is Injune the only area that will not have a Director, Overseer and road crew located in their town. Unity Maranoa promised to bring staff to the smaller areas, increase economic stability. Why have they chosen Injune as the only larger town that will not get this? Are the old shire residents going to expect and receive the same service they got previously (see Mitchell comments)? Is the olden days as golden as they remember? Are the Injune Staff going to be expected to drive across to Muckadilla to mow the lawns, is more equipment/staff going to be budgeted for to allow this to happen. How is this saving money, there will be still camp out rates, still vehicles on the highway everyday coming out to the north, still machinery being lifted across the shire. Where is the costing plan for all these expenses. From where I sit these 10 new positions will cost the council closer to $2M dollars then the $1M figure given. From my understanding of council and from watching the meetings it is Council that set the Strategic Direction of council and the Directors enact the Strategic Plan and Budget down the staff. How then is when a grader driver suggests to a new Director 'if we bought a you beaut grader I could get this job done in half the time, therefore save money'. The Director cannot just run out and order a new grader. We have seen over the previous months that council rarely take recommendations from staff anyway, when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Staff can only operate as fast as council processes reports and with some meetings in previous months laying up to 20 reports on the table till the next fortnight, I'm not sure the fault all lies with the org structure.
Council needs to take a harder look at how council currently operates. Actually have workshops with the officers on the ground. Council is losing good staff all the time.
With the cessation of Portfolios, the dismantling of Advisory Groups, the forbidding of all councillors to speak on council business to the media and the introduction of 10 new staff members in senior positions I'm starting the believe the majority of council do not wish to be held accountable or be required to speak to or listen to the ratepayers. I cannot believe with so many business people sitting around the table the majority are not asking to see a budget, the benefits, the cost savings that are going to be achieved, where the budget could blow out with this structure. Where is the transparency promised at election time?

Going back to ‘Local’ has been a statement that has been thrown about fairly liberally for the past 4 years or more, and yet still there is no clarity about what this actually would mean or look like in ‘real life’!

Please as Elected Members (Mayor & Councillors), have the respect for the people who voted you in, and also the ones that didn’t, to do meaningful consultation by providing open and transparent, and factual information in this matter, and others that would have a huge impact on communities but internally for Council as well. Sending out a ‘high level’ draft organisational structure without any detailed information, financial implications or even just base costs, or importantly clarification and factual information of where ‘savings’ will actually be achieved, and the validity of the sustainability of this beyond one moment in time, when these director positions and changes are to be implemented at a Cost Unknown!!

What will be the impact on staff and positions, although the statement about ‘no sackings’ is in print, where is the trust and surety around any sort of internal restructure to accommodate these positions, and further that if a valid position became vacant due to someone leaving, that it will not simply just be crossed off the structure with the swipe of a pen!

In regard to the new Director positions in the relative areas, regardless of what they get named, what will their actual authorisation ability be, considering as a Council the Budget is set through appropriate meeting processes, and any major decisions or changes usually should have come to a meeting for full consideration. Who will make the decision on what the budget will be for each Director in the new proposed structure as each area (if deemed to be as pre-amalgamation areas) is not the same size or have the same issues or problems, and what impacts will this have in regard to work crews, machinery, timing of work schedules etc, and will the Directors have the authority to utilise the machinery or spend $ outside the budget allocation if they feel this is necessary for their area? What implications does this structure have for the CEO in regard to staff positions generally, as well as potentially if one Director identifies their area as needing ‘more budget’ , does another Director’s area then have to get less? Someone or something somewhere will have to take a financial hit as at the end of the day the income and available dollars for any spending is from the set Annual budget delivered by the Mayor & Councillors....unless there is a ‘magic bucket’ to pull extra $$ out of?

History has shown that even as a Councillor trying to advocate to make changes to policy and ensure they still fit with legislation and budget considerations, or get modifications made to maintenance schedules or infrastructure changes has not been an easy task, and far more complex at times then people wish to understand. If the current council truly wants to make changes for the betterment and inclusiveness of all communities and rate payers, then start with continuing reviewing, or even starting to review some of the things, like rural roads amongst many others that communities are still waiting for resolutions on, that previous Councillors had put a lot of time and effort into but these never got completion or even made it to the meeting table, and use your current position of responsibility (not power) as a Mayor & Councillor, to truly look at what is working and leave it alone, and identify what isn’t and actually why, not the imaginary why, and make legitimate meaningful changes to assist the whole of the Maranoa Regional council area ..not divide it by putting forward meaningless information and ideas for changes with no validation for what the outcomes will be, or even if any improvement on the ‘trigger issues’ will actually happen, and pretend this is Consultation!!

Concerned we will be all chiefs and no Indians. My understanding is we already have local town contacts in each town. What would be more valuable is ensuring they are the best fit person with good communication skills with an improved process to respond. Many times these reps solve problems without fan fanfare. I can't see how 5 directors roles won't add over $1m annual operating. Really is this the only way? Filling vacancies is tough enough. Many problems occur when key roles are left vacant for extended period as other staff are trying to fill 2 roles in the interim. Council should aim to be a good and attractive employer but reputation is diminishing as just a place to burn out good people. That is not sustainable. Councillors are nothing without the council team to make it happen. You don't employ smart people and not consider their advice. Please more detail. We are.a democracy and can find the best solution but creativity not condemnation is where the innovations can come from to resolve persistent problems. I would hope there is strong evidence supporting claims current processes are not adequate.

Having been involved in the Mitchell Community for 20 years, I feel strongly that going back to local roots, and being represented by local directors similar to a CEO position of the old Booringa Regional Council in each community is essential. This ensures that each community will feel it is being heard and is a part of important MRC decision making. They will have a representative who has listened to the very people who live in these communities and who will feel the impacts of these decisions.
It will instil a sense of pride and accomplishment and will watch over local services and events to make sure they will be executed to the benefit of the community & MRC.
The MRC will then have a delegate that has an intimate understanding of the community they represent and therefore able to convey the wants and needs of the people in that area.
This way the MRC will be able to direct services and needs to these communities that are required and not what they ‘think’ it needs. In the long run saving time, funds and services that may not be required.
A community that is neglected and ignored breeds discontent. How is a community to thrive and prosper if the very organisation who is supposed to represent them are not listening?
Centralization after amalgamation has not benefitted the Mitchell & surrounding communities. Equipment, services and the workforce has systematically been removed. Over the years since amalgamation businesses have slowly been leaving taking with it families. Our towns are dying, and locals are feeling despondent.

I don’t think we need anymore “chiefs” but would benefit from some of the areas of council being localised.

The restructure was part of council policy put forward before the elections. If the restructure allows for more localised decisions together with utilising a locally based workforce the restructure would be a positive move. Greater accessibility to council staff to respond to the needs of the community would also be positive.

To bring more structure and direction to the smaller Communities can only be a good thing it would have to be more efficient than the method now in place, less hands to go through and those on the spot will be more conversant with the problems. If each Community had its own workforce and plant work would have to be done more cheaply than same coming from other areas. So much was lost with Amalgamation and very little given back. I support the Restructure.
Julie Birkett

The proposed structure appears to have no costings, identified savings and no budget so therefore how can it be adopted.
My concerns with the proposal are:
Too top heavy(council this size should have no more than 3 Directors).
Lack of flow from local through to the regional aspects.
Loss of teams - which is currently working well. Some of the teams are Libraries, Local Development Officers, Rural Lands and Customer Service. Prior to 2008 they worked in isolation so to speak being one of a kind in a shire. They are now part of a team that can come together to complete a project, host an event, receive training, be there to backfill and provide professional support for each other. These teams report to Team Leaders/Managers that have experience in their fields.
What will happen with the current managers when their contracts expire?
Workload would differ between Directors.
Sourcing Directors to come and work and live in the smaller communities.
If miraculously this extra money can be found why not increase staffing levels and plant in the roadworks and town and surrounds teams and have more accomplished on the ground. This would also create more benefit at a local level by having more staff employed and living in the smaller communities.

I am a proud resident of Mitchell and my observations since amalgamation is that we have lost more than we gained.
The small towns and surrounding rural areas seem to be overlooked in a lot of areas. Having a local based direction surely will be advantageous as local concerns can be raised and considered through people with an invaluable knowledge and pride in our area. I support this restructure wholeheartedly.

Could you please let us know how this is supposed to save money? Employing 5 new directors seems to me to be very top heavy, as I'm guessing each will need support staff. Why were the staff so concerned before Christmas if there won't be any job losses? As Pauline Hanson would say, "please explain!" How are we supposed to give proper feedback when we have nothing to go by?

Reading many of these comments has further convinced me that this is not a good decision for the region. Aside from the fact that I just cannot fathom why we would employ so many directors, at such a cost, as well as the cost of their support staff which will be astronomical no doubt... I just don’t believe that this is a good idea for the Maranoa. I don’t understand how this can be brought forward without any economic planning to see if it’s really viable. You cannot just say that it’s going to create savings through efficiency eventually... If you are going to lead you need to do it properly. Show us facts and figures please, we aren’t supposed to just have to take you at your word.
I understand that councillors may feel they have to do this given their election promises, however there are many ways to decentralise council and go local without restructuring and creating such a top heavy organisation. As someone who did vote for current councillors I am concerned. I don’t appreciate a lack of transparency, why for instance are the public not trusted with seeing all of the possible options that were put forward? Personally Im starting to feel like councillors and the mayor have gone in with a specific mindset, and even when they are faced with reason and new information that they were not aware of prior to election- they still won’t shake from that original path. I thought I was voting for people who wanted what was best for the Maranoa, and I don’t think that this displays wisdom. I miss councillors having portfolios, I think it promoted accountability and helped us know who to talk to when we had concerns. I am not supportive of this restructure and hope that these comments are taken on board.

As a retired resident of one of Maranoa’s small towns, who has served as a councillor for all or part of each of the first 3 terms of MRC, I have the following thoughts or concerns about the proposed restructure.
• This feedback request is basically insulting as it is not accompanied by the detailed information we need to make an informed response – in particular the costings, the source of the supposed savings, a detailed explanation of what and how current positions are being changed and the real impact on each staff member.
• The massive increase of top-level management positions will increase the bureaucratic requirements of administering a local govt entity that has to constantly demonstrate equity, transparency and financial viability. It will also increase the daily intricacies of communication, decision making and interaction including, but definitely not limited to, needing to have 8 Directors available (preferably in person) for each Council meeting.
• The increased financial cost of the 5 new directors is an increase we ratepayers will have to fund for a minimum of 3 years, whether this format works or not – ie we will have to meet the terms of the contracts, which are usually for a 3 year term, with this probably being the minimum any worthwhile applicants for the positions would be prepared to accept.
• I am concerned that two of our stand alone business sections – Airports and Roma Saleyards - have been placed under the control of the Director – Roma. Both of these entities are self-funded, with separate Reserves maintained to meet future financial requirement, and must meet stringent and complex external regulations and reporting requirements. They have been ably managed by the Director of Corporate and Community Services and should not be put at risk by placing them with an unknown and untested prospective employee.
• It is also concerning to see Regional Events Attraction as an add-on to the Director – Roma, area of responsibility. Despite the brakes applied during 2020 this focus area for council had already proven worthwhile and should be one of the major components of our economic development going forward. Other local areas should not be going cap in hand to Roma to seek support for their events.
• There is no information provided about how efficient links are to be established and maintained between the Regional areas of responsibility, including Facilities, Rural Services and Arts and Culture and the local directorates, which have been given the immediate control of swimming pools, libraries and local development. One area previous councils fostered was a team approach for our stand alone staff, with opportunities for shared planning and inservicing. A return to a silo approach will make this strategy – which I know was popular with the staff concerned - harder to maintain.
• We need much more information about what is intended by placing both rural and urban roads into the new directorates. I realise that some residents will interpret this as keeping local staff ‘at home’ instead of working in mobile groups with frequent camp out periods. However this specialised teams strategy was developed to enable Council to maintain employment, as no one area has the financial capacity to keep road work staff fully employed. It also enabled Council to invest in our road work staff, upgrading their skills so that Council could regain DTMR approval to tender for RMPC jobs. Tendering for and gaining external roadwork contracts have been a significant factor in Council being able to both maintain employment and gain extra income for our own roadwork needs. (Note – amalgamation meant the additional roadwork funding provided to designated ‘small councils’, which all of our pre-amalgamation councils were, was stopped. We are not getting it back again, no matter how small we dice our region.)
• A number of previous respondents have commented on the lack of Portfolios in the current Council. I had a number of Portfolio areas during my terms and I found them invaluable in enabling me to gain deeper understanding of the complexities of each area. This in turn meant I was able to better understand the detailed reports staff provide, to question more precisely and to occasionally be an ‘interpreter’ between residents and staff. I think it is a great loss to our current councillors that they are not being given this opportunity. Equally I was very disappointed by the summary cancellation of all of Council’s Advisory Boards, which provided ongoing opportunities for ratepayer input to significant areas.
• The proposed names for the new directorates are obviously designed to wave the flag for deamalgamation but they are meaningless, in terms of clarity, to most people. I am greatly interested in history, and am pleased that my suggestion for Warroo’s history to be included in the redevelopment of Surat’s Lion Park was implemented so well, but if this goes ahead we need names that are specific and clear, not names that need clarification/explanation.
Wendy Newman

Local Governments are elected for the good rule and government of their Local Government area. That has been a fundamental principle of all iterations of the Local Government Act since it's inception. Electors within those areas get to pass their opinions at each election on how well that principle has been observed. When the last elections were held less than 12 months ago, the proposed move back to local management formed a central and clearly articulated policy plank of a number of the proposing candidates. The subsequent polling results clearly indicated two salient points - (a) there was strong community support for an organisational restructure which delivered on the local management promise and (b) there was little community appetite for "more of the same" when it came to the overall operation of Council. That is the democratic process.

Organisational restructures are the tool of choice to improve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. Centralization has not been great for the former Booringa area, a situation which may well be shared by the other outlying communities. Aside from the frustration residents feel with waiting for requests to process up and down the decision chain, the absence of local knowledge from decision and planning processes doubtlessly adds time and cost to many outcomes. Were those decisions to be made locally, much of that could be avoided. At the end of the day, Councils are striving to make decisions that are timely, cost effective and fit for purpose. Local decision making is definitely more aligned to those goals.

The retention of the old Shire names is also a positive move. Amalgamation stripped the smaller communities of so many things, e.g workforce, equipment, representation and decision making ability, but the former names live on in many areas. We see comments like "look forwards not backwards" but it is hard to successfully progress forward without a solid base to build on. In Maranoa, that base has been provided by all of the member shires (with their individual contributions being a matter of public record), and preservation of their area names is certainly justified.

We note also, comments/questions around additional costs. Obviously, these are legitimate questions and only time will tell whether or not they present tangible problems. The concept of "Cost Vs Value" is however, often overlooked when new proposals are mooted. In bringing this restructure to the table therefore, Council is not only honouring an election commitment but making a serious effort to improve the way in which it delivers its services and discharges its duties. The restructure may not be perfect in its first iteration but as Tom O'Toole famously says "The secret to getting ahead is getting started."

Thank you for the chance to comment, I am currently a contractor to MRC with wet and dry hire machinery. Im grateful to be rated a 5 star local for 8 years now. Even though I reside in Mitchell, the bulk of vendor panel requests I tender for and receive the jobs for are Roma or other outlying towns based, I think this is due to the fact Mitchell plant have mostly enough equipment to be self sufficient and I do receive occasional contracts locally though and am always grateful for those . I am concerned that this restrucutre and going back to local would change the ability for a contractor to tender for Maranoa wide machinery hire?

I would be more than happy if it was just local hire for the area in which I reside, but there isn't enough work around our little town to support that. Look forward to hearing how Council are going to proceed with contractors and Maranoa wide contracts with wet & dry hire, plumbing, electrical, handy man etc. Thanks for your time.

Leading up to the elections, policies were put forward by nominees, including the Unity Group. These nominees were elected on their policies. It is not hard to understand that a majority was attained by these Councillors, we've been through a democratic process where policies were clearly articulated, the people voted and now we have our elected members! I believe the 'going back to local' promise was what got the majority of these Councillors elected and so I endorse this proposal and congratulate those involved.

I find it difficult to understand how the Maranoa Regional council can justify having more paid directors within its work force then the Gold Coast city council. I believe that their is no current budgeted workforce plan to cover (which is fully costed) and therefore will send the rate payers broke over the coming years. Usually when a business or a company embraces an organisational restructure there is a requirement for a fully coasted business case and an organisational change plan to evidence the need and cost of such a decision. In the total absences of these documents a mob of sole traders who do not fully understand their role or how to provide corporate governance to a multi-million dollar public sector entity. It is also noteworthy the complete lack of vision when the only thing our elected members can focus on is taking the Maranoa back 10 years.