Maranoa Regional Council Organisational Structure

The one-page "Proposed Organisational Structure" document presented gives nowhere near enough information that is needed to frame an informed opinion for feedback. Give us more information: costs, benefits, SWOT analysis, a business plan - anything. The consultation period is too rushed and does not allow for wide-reaching, knowledgeable feedback.
Without any detailed information being presented in support, I believe the "pre-amalgamation" style model being proposed is not in the best interests of the Maranoa Region. Any motion to the "proposed organisational structure" should be defeated at the Council meeting.
Rita Jackson

Considering the cost of amalgamation, and the division of opinion and angst this action caused in the shires, would it not be prudent in the current economic environment to continue as an amalgamated council?
As an aside, giving Councillors the responsibility of defined portfolios would be preferable to the current situation.

1. What are the benefits of this change verses the costs?

This is an interesting concept that seems to be an attempt to "unscramble the egg" that is council amalgamation. The idea of installing another tier of management is duplication and ultimately expensive.
The current model of foremen managing a geographical area works. One person who is a "go to", on the ground and has an understanding of the problem areas with the staff and equipment to do repairs. This needs to be fine tuned but the concept works.
The majority of rural rate payers only want a decent road to access their property. Installing another level of senior management is going to be expensive to implement and operate. These funds would be much better spent on grading and gravelling roads.
The proposed model will create an unhealthy level of competition between the different regions. Amalgamation was unpopular when it happened, but it is what we have to work with now. Don't go backwards.

Maranoa Regional Council would benefit from creating a road users group. A community group of appointed ratepayers who can assist council with what roads need attention and where funds can be spent. Council would also benefit from input from older residents with local, historical knowledge. Things like gravel location, roadworks priorities and community sentiment.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feed back.

This is a an extreme waste of council resources and money. The council can not go back to town silos, if the mayor wishes to operate like this then each area needs to apply to become its own council again. This structure is too top heavy, and creates and an “us” and “them” scenario. There’s a reason smaller councils were amalgamated, do not go back in time. I do not wish my rates to be paying for this change.

Comparing the current organisational structure with the one proposed by the Mayor, there would seem to be many more positions to fill operationally and at a manager overseer level.
The current model has been developed over the time of amalgamated local government, and is the result of process and refinement.
To revert to a model very reminiscent of pre amalgamation days appears to be returning to a model which was recognised as being inefficient, costly, and cumbersome, with more "Management Staff" and fewer workers on the coal face.
It is interesting that the Community is being asked to comment on this model only, not the 3 options which were initially proposed to Councillors for consideration.
I think the Community should be advised of more detail on the proposal.
This detail would include:
Will staff be forced to move to a separate area of the Maranoa to make the new model work?
Will the required heavy machinery be duplicated in each area?
Has the cost of the duplication of such heavy machinery been budgeted for?
Will the new Directors be expected to reside in the respective locations?
Will Council be organising housing, a motor vehicle, etc?
Has Council/ Councillors been undergoing research on the availability of the required senior staff, with the required skill set , prepared to relocate to small rural towns? In other words, is the resource available?
Has Council prepared a cost benefit analysis of the new proposal compared to the current model?
Has Council shown or can it show how effiencies are to be gained in this process?
Has detailed planning been undertaken?
Without answers to these questions, the Community is unable to form a considered view.
I assume all of these aspects have been considered by Councillors, or at least the information will be available to the Councillors to be able to make an informed decision.
To create a change as large as this should not be considered because of an individuals desire. This proposal can only move forward if the questions posed here have detailed, fully costed responses, presented with an action plan detailing time frames, and the names of people responsible for action.
As Councillors cannot be involved in that aspect because it is operational, how will the change required be managed, and by whom?
When does Council intend to complete this process?
What operational systems will be in operation during the transition?
Unless Council is in a position to move forward immediately, this proposal cannot be supported as it stands.
There simply is too many questions that need answers first.
Too much detail which has not yet been considered.
No cost benefit analysis.
No budget considered.
No idea then on the costs involved, the benefits, the efficiencies, the availability of the staff required, the time frames or an action plan.
This proposal is the Mayors. He owns it. It is incumbent on him to provide to all stakeholders the detail required to make this new system work.
All the costs, all the benefits, the human resource research, the housing stock availability, and the efficiencies.
If any of that detail cannot yet be provided, then this proposal is not decided on until those issues are resolved.
This cannot be a half baked decision. The reasons are obvious.

Personally from a local government perspective I think this is going back to pre 2008 and avoiding the amalgamation issues from the past, I don't live in the area but a local government junkie since 1997. I think calling everyone directors at the level shown is going to cause a lot of angst and I also wonder if the two blocks below the ceo have senior managers or the ceo has to have all those reports. That seems very cumbersome. would love some feedback on the theory of this proposed structure (other than appeasing residents who are still dealing with amalgamation). Thanks for letting me contribute to the discussion.

It would be useful to see this in comparison to the current model as without the comparison it is hard to know exactly what the change is. However on face value this is my feedback.
1. How realistic is it to attract/hire this number of well qualified professionals to fill all of the director positions, especially considering how hard it already is to attract staff? And will these highly qualified people be happy to live in the smaller communities? What will happen if someone is employed and chooses to live with their family in Roma and commute? I think this is a real possibility. Will the small communities really be best served with this model?
2. I am very concerned that no business plan has been created to identify the cost of this model and how it will be paid for. Telling the community that you are cutting costs elsewhere by removing inefficiencies sounds good, but without a clear business plan how can this be believed. It seems very reckless to make such a big change without doing this as a minimum requirement.
3. Will services in small communities really be better off?Take the libraries for instance. Instead of all of the libraries being looked after by one central person with the specialist knowledge needed, instead it will be overseen by each individual director. If it isn't a priority for that director, things may be neglected.
4. I have difficulty seeing how a more top heavy and bureaucratic structure will help remove inefficiencies. On the surface it would seem to make things more complicated and less efficient. Very strong communication and very clear processes will be necessary to ensure operations run smoothly.

I feel that we need to do something and as long as no one loses their jobs or are demoted from the jobs they already have.