Maranoa Regional Council Organisational Structure

Is this Restructure Value for Money? Believe council needs to be accountable, transparent and sustainable to move forward. These objectives would need to be accessed regularly. More information is required to comment - costings? What are they? Big pay checks do not equate to good results. Restructure is certainly needed however at face valve this model seems very top heavy. Would question? Are 8 Directors required when it could be done with 2/3 Directors. On this assumption the costings need to be made available.
A decision on this proposed restructure cannot be reached until all facts are presented, especially costings on the old and the new business structures in order to make an informed decision.

NB: At face valve it is preferable to talk to someone locally with their heart in the community. It is very embarrassing and frustrating to explain to the council receptionist in Roma that Mungallala is in the Maranoa!

I think it’s a great idea to be able to talk to a local person in your own town or district and not have to ring someone who has no idea about your problem or area .Has to be a good thing. It’s not going backwards it’s going back to when you had someone that’s local to talk to. And where is the million dollar figure coming from that is being thrown around in the local -not local media .There are lots of good people working in the council surely some of them would be promoted to the positions which I think would be ideal. There are too many negative people around! Let the mayor and councillors do their jobs. They were voted in by the majority

Look Forward NOT Backward Where would The Wages be coming from ????? Ratepayer Kathy Turnbull

I cannot understand why this is necessary, nor how it will benefit those in the Maranoa. I may have voted members of the unity party in but that does not mean I agree with this plan! Nobody I have spoken to does, and I cannot understand how council would move forward on this. Who thinks this is a good idea? We did not vote to spend upwards of a million dollars on directors. Which is what it will cost in wages as stated by councillor McMullen. Not to mention how are they even going to find director level qualified staff. This is only going to make the council more top-heavy, and increase division between those who live in different towns. And we the people won’t see a cent of benefit! I can see I’m not alone here and I really hope the councillors actually take the time to read this feedback and stop mindlessly agreeing with every word that comes out of Mayor Golders mouth!

I believe this restructure has to save council money in the long term. Bringing our workforce back home to their families will boost morale. I believe when people are working in their own area they will have more pride in their work as they can show off what they have achieved. I support the restructure.

I am not against changes but when these changes are being put forth with not costings for and against the changes. We need to see how much council expects to save with these changes and where they intend to spend the money saved. How much will it cost to implement such changes. As far as I see the smaller communities of this shire work extremely well and its is the larger centre of Roma that lacks any direction. Also will council be using existing employees to fill these positions or will they be seeking people from out of the community. With changes does this mean more employees in each town which to me means spending more money and do we have the machinery already in Council to allow machinery etc to be placed in each area or will it be each area has to apply for the machinery to be in their areas at certain times. With my road only being graded once a year and living close to Roma its appalling how do you intend to make this better. As a council I always believed that each councillor was elected on their own individual merits never have I seen a party put forth. It is very concerning that some people of this party make no decisions on their own. I would like to see individual councillors go out into the community on their own and speak to ratepayers on their own and tell us how they see these changes will A. be better for the shire or B. not good for the shire. Isn't it better to move forward rather than two steps backwards. If it ran so good years ago why was it changed. I feel more research needs to be taken to fully establish if this is a step in the right direction or a slide back to the past.

Overall, I think a one page organisational chart is not enough for informed public comment. A thorough business case should be undertaken to see if is feasible, practicable and economically viable to undertake the proposed changes. My concerns with the proposed changes are: 1. It has been over 10 years since amalgamation and significant money, time and effort has been spent getting the Council to where it is now. It would be interesting to see a comparison of this embodied cost to the cost to complete these proposed changes. 2. Splitting workforces tends to create "silo" mentality where individuals are reluctant to share and processes diverge to create inefficiencies. 3. It has said that no employees will lose their job during this process. If for instance a position is moved to another town and an employee is unable or unwilling to move, will this result in job losses? 4. Council does not have the capability to provide one of every resource to each community. How will the sharing of resources/equipment be managed (especially large pieces of plant)? 5. Is it appropriate to use the old shire names? Do they hold any relevance today or is it just opening old wounds and rivalries? 6. Will the operational regions be drawn along geographic shire boundaries? For example Orange Hill, the Roma Gun Cluband Dargal Road subdivisions are all in the historic Bungil Shire Council. Will these be managed from the Bungil team who will presumably be located in Injune? Bungil after all was a donut council that surrounded Roma Town. Or will the Bungil team be split between Roma and Injune? If the boundaries are redrawn different to the historical ones, will there be community consultation for this process? 7. Of the current 3 directors positions, one has been unfilled for over a year. I expect it would therefore be very difficult to fill the additional 4 proposed director positions with high calibre candidates. Peter Stanford

Can you please provide a cost v benefit case study. What will the cost of extra directors and 5x new position of overseers be and where will the savings for these positions be from? You cant just say that council will be able to be more efficient in other areas to provide this money, please provide the documentation to show this. Where will you find 5 new people that are up to 'director' standards when you have havent been able to fill the infrastructure position with a suitable applicant? Or are you just going to use existing people currently in council who would not have the skills to adequately fit the position description and give them a massive pay rise with no benefit for the extra money? Do we need 'directors' in all the towns? Have you done a case study of just an 'overseer' instead of a director? If the issue is roads as mentioned in other feedback, why does everything else have to be changed as well ie libraries, customer service, tourism?

I am hoping with the restructure we have accountability, transparency and cost saving. We may get back in our smaller communities what we have lost in the amalgamation process.
We seem to concentrate on the negatives within council, or maybe they are more vocal.
After having worked for council, now being a ratepayer and a resident of this shire I have witnessed a massive amount of waste and lack of accountability on a lot of fronts. With the new structure let’s hope we have a plan that suits our town and our people. Not have one of the Mitchell gangs have to go to say Wallumbilla and camp
or travel to complete a job that someone there could do or vice versa. Someone approachable, with a plan would be great!

I understand why many people are finding it difficult to provide feedback given the absence of costings etc; however I also know that this is what residents in small communities outside Roma requested & what was promised by the Unity group of Councillors so I feel the Council & support staff need to find a way to make it happen...

After comparing the old structure with the new I must say I’m a little concerned about the direction that the council is taking and certainly more questions than answers. On top of wanting to see a costing for the change I would love to hear from anyone who worked for the council pre-amalgamation and continued to work afterwards and on all levels of employment, about what the work environment was like. What was the relationship between towns like and how do they think it will go if each town has to share plant. If the new structure is going to include full plant foe each town or does it still work on the same system as now??The best feedback you can get is to listen to the people who worked through the change
Not to mention that 200k/year for 5 new directors equals a lot of plant for each area as well as staff to operate it
I would hope the people we elected to do the best for us as a community would ask more questions around costing and how this is going to be paid for before voting, you can never have enough information about how this change is going to impact not only staff but residents as well

Under the Local Government Act 2009, a Councillor (including the Mayor) has a responsibility to provide high quality leadership and be accountable to the community for the local government’s performance. After following the Council meetings concerning the organisational restructure including agenda, minutes, and news articles, and now reviewing this draft structure; it is difficult to see how the decision to implement this proposed structure could be seen as a Councillor meeting their legal responsibilities under the Act.

In the QLD Audit Office Report – “Managing the sustainability of local government services” (tabled in the QLD Parliament 25/9/2019) recommendations are provided to Council’s to manage their costs and performance to be sustainable in the long term. The top two recommendations of this report were:

“all councils, especially those with a focus on improving sustainability consider whether:
1. they include sufficient details about their services within their existing planning documents or consider developing individual service plans:
Details about services should be scaled to the size and complexity of council and include:
• how the service aligns to council’s strategy
• the service level (for example, operating hours)
• the assets used to deliver the service
• operational risks for the service
• operating costs and overhead costs.
2. all existing services meet their community's current and future service needs and they deliver them at affordable levels by developing and undertaking regular reviews of existing services”

It is disappointing to see that the information put out to the public surrounding this issue through meetings and this draft consultation does not meet these requirements to demonstrate the due diligence that would be required of such a significant decision to change how Maranoa Regional Council will deliver its services into the future.

It is difficult to provide community feedback on a proposed Council organisational restructure based on a one page PDF document with no context outside of an organisational chart. As there is no publicly available business case to support the need and cost for the restructure, comments from community consultation may be based on conjecture and assumptions. Therefore, outside of the one page organisational chart, I have based my feedback on the recorded Council meetings, agendas, minutes, and news articles.

In the news article "Biggest change to council in 12 years widens councillor divide" published by The Chronicle on 16 October 2020, the Mayor was referenced as stating about the proposed restructure:

• "… it's the "most exciting opportunity" for the Maranoa community since amalgamation."
• It’s about the “efficient running of the local government, creating competitive local business and improvement of services delivered on the ground locally.”
• "This I believe is the option that has been tested with the community, this consultation has happened and now we're just moving the motion to proceed to consultation into a different sphere,"
• "This ticks all the boxes … and that's why I'm bringing this forward today."

Unfortunately the proposed structure document does not provide clarity how this new structure will best serve the community through efficiencies, competitive local business, improvement of services, and previous community consultation that initiated the required structural change as per the Mayor’s comments. I also find it difficult that such a decision should rest on the the statement that the majority of the community voted for the Unity Group, therefore it should go ahead. Councillors should assess each issue based on the merit of its facts, opportunities, and risks, not on a majority vote that occurs every four years.

In comparison to the current Council organisational structure as displayed on Maranoa.qld.gov.au, the main changes of the organisational structure seem to be:
• The addition of the 5 new director positions based on the names of the pre-amalgamation shires; and
• The restructure of the Infrastructure Services Directorate (being renamed to Engineering) and taking on what appears to be the strategic management of infrastructure services.

It is disappointing that such a significant decision is being based on such little information that is being released to the public. Understandably there would be confidential reasons to not release certain information due to the industrial relation issues a restructure creates, however, there is little to no information outside of the Mayor’s comments, as to why a restructure is required in the first place. At a minimum I would have expected a public report by way of an agenda item to include a thorough business case identifying the initial need for a restructure, which would have included:
o The need for the organisational restructure
o The benefits of the organisational restructure
o The impact on the community, businesses, and Council staff as a result of the restructure
o The costs of the restructure, including initial costs and ongoing costs
o An analysis of how the proposed benefits outweigh the costs of the restructure, now and into the future.

Unfortunately without this level of detail, I am left with more questions and concerns than confidence that this proposed restructure is based on quality leadership for the benefit of the region, these questions include:
• It has taken since 2008 (time of amalgamation) to arrive at the current organisational structure and for us to move forward as a region together, as one region, not five. By naming each region the previous shire names I fear this would only further divide the region in a fight for resources inside one organisation.
• Is it financially sustainable to employ five new director positions at a level one under the CEO to manage the resources of smaller regional towns? Could this be better managed through a different organisational structure model or by other means that may be reduced in cost?
• As the region is facing difficulties in recruiting suitably skilled staff, how does Council intend to recruit suitable skilled professionals to fill these roles in rural towns? Will the Directors have to live in their assigned town? Or will they be able to commute? If suitable candidates wish to commute from Roma, how is this different to the current centralised organisational structure model?
• The restructure has been purported in media as increasing efficiencies that will reduce costs with no job losses. How is this possible through this model? For example, If 100 staff have to do 100 tasks in 1 year, and efficiencies are introduced to improve the delivery of services, and the same 100 tasks are now completed in 6 months, with the same amount of materials used as before, the only cost savings would have to come from a reduction in staff and job losses.
• As the new structure would increase the independence across the region (with the new director positions), what new governance structures will be put in place to ensure this new level of independence is used correctly and sustainably? For example, what impacts will the new restructure have on the the utilisation of Council’s plant assets and the purchase of new plant to deliver services within each region – noting the Maranoa’s below median asset sustainability ratio across the resource sector Councils (See QAO 18/19 financials audit report). There may be a potential risk that a decentralised service model may lead to the decrease of plant utilisation and the purchase of additional assets further putting the asset sustainability ratio and efficient delivery of services at risk.
• The proposed restructure of a CEO and 8 directors seems outside of the norm compared to other executive team structures for comparative rural Councils, and even larger metropolitan Councils. Without a business case, what is the justification for the top heavy executive team compared to the 5 example Councils listed below.
o Murweh – CEO and 3 directors
o Balonne – CEO and 3 directors
o Western Downs – CEO and 3 directors (general managers)
o Toowoomba Regional – CEO and 5 Directors
o Brisbane City Council – CEO and 6 Directors

In summary, I can understand some potential benefits of the proposed restructure (primarily that of increased accountability for each part of the Maranoa region), however, it is my opinion that the cost of the proposed restructure will not outweigh the potential efficiencies that may be gained from such a restructure. As a community member, I would prefer to see such a major change for the delivery of Council services to be supported by a robust and transparent business case to answer the questions I have put forward in this feedback response. Without such information to analyse the costs and benefits to the Maranoa community, I would encourage each elected Councillor to not support the motion of the proposed restructure.

Shane Sellars - 4th generation resident and business owner in the Maranoa.

This restructure resembles the structure that was in place pre- amalgamation days. We have to work with what we have got now, & not be spending ratepayers'
money on such an expensive outlay. Do councillors still retain portfolios? I gather not; I thought they were a great idea for contact reasons.
No feasibility study has been done & no benchmark set for the productivity of the new directors. There is still much development that could be done as well; road upgrades, to say nothing of the Roma Pool. What about the work that needs to be done there to bring it up to a high standard? Change rooms need to be upgraded, the pool floor badly needs repainting, the tiles surrounding the pool at water level need replacing. All expensive work I admit, but the pool is used by all age groups. What is the old saying about "a stitch in time"? Council owned infrastructure should have high priority when decisions are made about how ratepayers' funds are spent. This restructure is not value for money, & I urge the council to reconsider this change.
Jennifer S.

I am an employee of Council. I am also a member of the Maranoa community.

I don’t understand how employing five new Directors (at about $200k EACH) and five new Overseers (at about $150k EACH) makes council more efficient, more productive or provides more “bang for buck” of our Ratepayers money.

To show UNITY of the one Maranoa Regional Council team, referring to (as example) MARANOA SOUTH instead of old shire names would be more inclusive. Let’s move forward, as one team, rather than move 100years back.

The Mayor has promised all employees will retain employment with Council. If the SAME employees, do the SAME job, with the SAME resources (plant, materials) we will have the SAME outcomes. How does a restructure that simply adds MORE top level executives get MORE done, or improve any performance?

Why? What can Council and especially our community expect to see, that can be measured as an improvement on the current structure?
Are there any benchmarks set now, that are expected to be surpassed by this proposed organisational restructure? How do you know, if you don’t measure?
How will our community know that the investment of 10 additional senior staff was a good idea?

The Mayor and Unity Maranoa were elected to our council with one of their election promises to put LOCAL back into the towns. To stay true to that, the employment of the proposed 5x Directors and 5x Overseers should also come from LOCAL, from within each town, with LOCAL knowledge being the most relevant skill. Is this achievable?
Or will we end up with 10 fifo blow-ins, who only last a couple of years in the bush?

It is important to note that the Mayor/Councillors have NO part in the employment of staff, only their CEO. So is filling these additional roles something the Council just expect the CEO to magically deliver, or are they setting her up to fail?

My suggestion.
Put the same money ($1.5million each year) into additional plant and additional operators (with families) and you WILL achieve more.
Councillors receive $68k and more (Annual Report 2019) to do a job, to represent and work with the community. YOU are LOCAL. YOU are the solution.

Not very forthcoming with information for something that will affect a lot of people. Is there a reason we are not being shown coatings etc?
Why so top heavy?
Looking forward to more information before the vote.

This structure seems to add an unnecessary level of management without any justification. Bring back councillors having portfolios, that way, anyone with an issue can contact the person who holds the portfolio. It doesn't matter which former council area you live in, you get to speak to someone in the know.

I fail to understand how the councillors can make such an important decision with so little information. When I downloaded the proposed organisational structure I expected to read more than just a chart.
We are talking about a multimillion dollar organisation making an extremely important decision with very limited information. I would expect to see a feasibility study including financial implications.
The council must have a staffing budget, will the new positions be covered by this, and if so, where will the savings be made? If the budget has to be increased where will the money come from? Does that mean that some departments will have their budgets reduced? Will the new directors come from existing staffing or will they be recruited from outside the organisation? As a rate payer I am concerned that this change is being rushed through with very little knowledge of what the implications are.

I cannot understand why this is necessary. Nor can I understand how this will increase savings or efficiency. I believe it is imperative that there is a thorough business plan looking at the economic viability to support the decision before it is voted on.

I also struggle to comprehend why a council as small as the Maranoa needs 8 Directors, when councils like the Western Downs and Toowoomba don’t even have that many. Who can tell me they honestly believe we need as many directors as Brisbane council? It is ludicrous! I believe it will make the organisation more top heavy and cause more disparity within the different regions in the Maranoa, not less. I understand that the smaller towns of the region may feel that they need a voice, but I don’t believe this is the way to provide one. After travelling through many small towns in QLD this summer, I think that the smaller towns of the Maranoa present quite well.

It has taken us over 10 years to get to this point, and I believe it will be at least another 10 to untangle this mess, and help further the region if council moves forward with this decision. I believe that if this council really wished to act in the best interests of the residents of the Maranoa, they would put this organisational restructure aside, rather than spending unnecessary additional funds on Human Resources and focus on tangible economically viable and sustainable infrastructure and facilities. These are the things that will last and further the region. To the councillors and the Mayor, I implore you, please don’t do this.

Robyn Sellars, Roma

Restructuring organisations attracts uncertainty especially for staff. Providing staff have been informed we see the organisational restructure as an excellent opportunity to deliver worthwhile outcomes. Each director being accountable for their area ensures delivery of services to the rate payers. We endorse completely this proposal and congratulate all involved.

I agree we defiantly need more info on what our Mayor is trying to archive and how he is going to make it work what will be the coast is this just a road thing or is it an overall structure change defiantly more info is required before we can make an informed decision or comment
ideas and change can be good and we need to try to do things better but these ideas need to be workable and achievable so show us your business plan