Some 'first principles' rerlating to the nature extent and ... data First Principles.doc · Web viewSome 'first principles' relating to the nature, extent and quality of the Long-Term

Some 'first principles' relating to the nature, extent and qualityof the Long-Term Council Community Plan, (ltccp) data…a forerunner to an Audit Guideline?

Disclaimer/Waiver: This study has been put together based on the views of the author alone. It has been prepared 'on spec', as a first discussion draft, to stimulate discussion and is addressed simply to 'interested parties although for its 'first cut' to the OAG. Throughout the text 'Projects' and ‘Issues’ and other matters are identified within footnotes. These contain ruminations relating to matters that should be taken up by various parties once a more precise scoping of this whole exercise is conducted.

Author’s note: I hope that any intemperance for my part in raising these matters does not just display my ignorance, the views I express are well intentioned. Many of the judgments stated in this study come out of years of personal experience in dealing with the data used for my 'Base Stats with Trendz' - 'NZLG Database' work. This has led me to the rationalizations even simplifications implicit in the judgments involved. This has been just a matter of common sense, particularly where other more rigorous techniques have in the past failed miserably. I am an unashamed disciple of the 'KISS' principle.

Part I

Introduction to and the purpose of this study

1.1 Scope of the study

1.1(a) The study, as its title suggests is focused upon the emerging issues surrounding the data that will be required for the ltccp's of New Zealand Councils. 'Data' (the terms data and information are used interchangeably) within this study is very broadly defined and covers for example:

the data associated with the ltccp framework, its relationship to outcomes affecting Community well-being, the data that will supplement the ltccp processes including that derived from Community

consultation and performance measurement, (service performance).

1.1(b) The study ventures upon largely uncharted territory within the New Zealand context. For whilst there is both research and experiential evidence available concerned with performance measurement, (that has where applicable been considered), the study does not confine itself to just discussion of performance measurement issues.

1.1(c) They are included, but the matters of ltccp data extend much further than the generic performance measurement questions.

1.1(d) This study draws firstly upon personal experience with the New Zealand local government sector and its attempts to date, (since the passing of the 1989 Public Finance Act and the relevant parts of the Local Government Act 1974), to implement performance measurement.

1.1(e) Recent personal experience with ltccp implementation and the use of other body's of knowledge including the 'KnowHow' series of publications have been used as evidential and reference sources.

Larry. N. MitchellLocal Government Finance & Policy Analyst 1

1.1(f) Secondly the study has benefited from the research references contained in the first two footnotes.1

1.1(g) This research material deals, in the main with issues concerned with performance measurement, for example the relationship of the accounting conceptual frameworks qualitative characteristics of information as they apply to performance measurement.2

1.1(h) Some of this material, such as the Auditor-General's Auditing Standard 4, 'The Audit of Service Performance Reports' 'AG-4' have an audit emphasis. Much of the practice guidance given within this study is more comprehensively covered in A-G 4.

1.1(i) Whilst there are many references in this study to audit matters the study by no means confines itself to the audit issues. The field of ltccp data encompasses many other interests and non-audit practitioners and as far as has been possible, these have been covered as well.

1.1(j) Finally the views expressed are those of the author. They are an attempt to initiate further discussion in the interests of the many parties vitally interested in the concepts and issues raised.

1.1(k) The objective of this initial study is to attempt to focus on the principles relating to ltccp data, involving its;

identification, selection, collection and its fitness for the purposes of use within the ltccp's of New Zealand Councils.

1.1(l) The data requirements of the relevant legislation, the Local Government Act 2002, (the LGA 02 or the Act) are far-reaching and include the provision of information to support meaningful decision-making including Community consultation within the ltccp processes.

1.1(m) To meet these statutory and other data-related requirements will involve the use of considered judgments by both standard setters and plan and report preparers alike, as judgments will be needed to 'operationalise' the ltccp data requirements of the Act and its processes in an economic and manageable fashion.

1.1(n) This study attempts to initiate the thinking necessary in reaching tentative positions on the principles associated with ltccp data.

1.1(o) Caveat:

This study is intended to comprise the conceptual thinking leading possibly to the development of more detailed guidelines that will be used to assist;

practitioners, including (ltccp) plan and report, preparers, Community and other interest groups contemplating consultation related to the ltccp's of their

Councils and 1 'Research Base' 'Streamlining non-financial reporting';

Paper, Ann Neal - Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, Wellington & Lyn Daken - Audit New Zealand, Wellington Public Sector Performance 2000, 'Improving Public Sector Performance Measurement, Accountability and Outcome Delivery' Wellington, New Zealand May 2000.

'Performance reporting for accountability purposes';Paper(s), Lessons, Issues, 9the) Future, Ann Neale, and Bruce Anderson Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, Wellington International Public Management Workshop Wellington, New Zealand March 2000.

'Triple Bottom Line summary';Triple Bottom Line Reporting in the Public Sector, Summary of Pilot Group Findings Summary Version 1.

'Reporting Public Sector Performance';Report of the Controller and Auditor-General Tumuaki o te Mana Arotake Reporting Public Sector Performance 2nd edition January 2002

2 Technical reference The framework for financial reporting as set out in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand (ICANZ’s) Statement Of Concepts For General Purpose Financial Reporting and the form and content of these statements as included in FRS 2: Presentation of Financial Reports. The framework and standard provide guidance to the preparers of financial statements, including service performance reports.


the regulators, including auditors and other state agencies with an interest in the ltccp's of New Zealand Councils.

1.1(p) Following the discussion and review of the concepts of this study, at a later stage detailed levels of the final practice guidelines can be written.3 The detailed guidelines would specify such matters as;

the content of the data sets4 of performance measures fitted to financial, economic, social and cultural outcomes,

the make up of the data content to meet specific needs from the varying perspectives of the users, data specifications that meet all legislative, conceptual and detailed specifications, including the

disciplines of describing the data to relational database software,5

data intended to meet specific user requirements and more precise variants of the ltccp data as they relate to Regional6 and Unitary Councils.

1.1(q) Note that this study does not attempt to address, (other than incidentally) the detailed questions, (above). There will be a major effort required to finalise the more precisely scoped ltccp data issues and its detail, as will become evident from the later commentary of this study.

1.1(r) The leader of these initiatives is the Office of the Auditor General, (the OAG). 7 For the circumstances of this study their involvement is entirely appropriate, as the OAG is the authority that the many groups and persons involved with ltccp's will look to, to determine the standards and specifications of data which in the OAG's view are fit for ltccp purposes.

1.1(s) S.94 of the LGA 02, 'the audit section' sets the criteria for the audit of the ltccp. This section establishes the basis of compliance and the quality of the information that must be used for ltccp purposes. The OAG as the New Zealand local government audit authority is therefore at the centre of the ltccp data development process, (its gatekeeper) and logically, in everybody's interests it must take a leadership role.

1.2 A 'mass of data' and a plethora of potential users of ltccp information

1.2(a) There is mass of data that might/could be associated with the ltccp's of the 86 Regional and Territorial New Zealand local authorities, (the 'LA's'). The identification of the relevant parts of the information resources of interest for ltccp purposes of this large amount of data is commenced by an identification of the various parties and persons who presently hold or have an interest in this information.

1.2(b) The data of importance to this study are contained within various identified and relevant areas of interest that is, the various so termed 'constituencies’.

3 Project;Guidelines containing the results of a properly scoped and comprehensive project could involve the Office of the Auditor General, (the OAG) and others? in defining the standards and practice relating to ltccp data and all of its complexities.4 Project;A project(s) should, at an early date identify the many stakeholders, for example engineering consultancies, (detailed later in this study), to begin to identify and accumulate the technical data of possible usefulness to the ltccp. For example water quality benchmarks, Community health standards, road safety statistics and the like. More detailed argumentation on this matter follows later in this study.5 Issue/Project;The matter of identifying suitable software tools to enable Councils to properly manage the ltccp process and its multi-dimensional data is a major issue. Very significant efforts will be needed soon, if particularly the small to medium-sized Councils are to rise to the challenge. Some may not cope in time, or at all. Both attitudinal and operational organization-wide change processes are involved.6 Project;The specific and different needs of these Councils and their different data sets for their circumstances may mean that their ltccp data issues are separately handled or are treated as 'add ons' to the main ltccp data project.7 Issue;The OAG must consider its role with respect to its and other's needs, relating to ltccp data. The OAG must clearly define its role(s) at an early date to enable projects, issues and work relating to the development of ltccp data to proceed. Whatever the outcome of the possible business modelling of this issue, the OAG will find itself 'at the centre' of these initiatives, at the very least in a leadership and facilitator posture. Budgetary considerations will be significant and win/win joint co-operation amongst many parties may be the only feasible models. More detailed argumentation on these points follows.


1.2(c) For example the more technical performance measurement data 'constituencies,' are held by agencies, firms and groups and they could become involved with the ltccp data issues, (subject to such commercial considerations as cost and intellectual property rights), by providing data to be used in the setting of benchmarks of local government performance.

1.2(d) These persons and groups will be the sources for essential technical data that must be obtained for performance measurement purposes. Such data is held by engineering, economic, statistical, environmental, social and other agencies and consultancies or can be obtained from within existing local government databases. An identification process of these groups and an evaluation of the data on hand will be necessary.

1.2(e) The difficulties faced with identifying available data are substantial. The tasks associated with the collection and then the management of the 'vast array' of potentially useful ltccp data are complex. The storehouses of this data are at present and will continue to be diversified and heterogeneous. Excellent management of these issues will be essential.

1.3 The OAG's leadership role

1.3(a) Instead of focusing on these difficulties concerned with ltccp data, (they are identified however);

this study will attempt to define the means by which the data identification and collection processes can be rationalized using the principles to be followed.

1.3(b) On a more practical level there is the question of the extent of the role that the OAG might directly play in these processes.

1.3(c) Managed properly and taking the lead and direction set by the OAG, co-operation can be sought from the various players who hold and manage ltccp data.

1.3(d) There might arise a sharing of responsibility for the collection and management of ltccp information amongst the different organizations and entities, and not just Council managed ones.

1.3(e) A precedent exists already in the leadership roles that have been played within the ltccp initiatives completed to date. Some central government agencies are currently working closely with local government associations and LA's themselve's, as also are Regional Councils who have already acted on behalf of their districts in developing co-operative initiatives relating to local/regional ltccp processes.

1.3(f) The OAG should take, (rather than might take for reasons described more fully later and relating to their position as 'arbiter' of ltccp data standards), a directing and facilitating role in further fostering and encouraging these groupings.

1.3(g) In fact, the OAG might consider going further with the provision itself of ltccp information from its own resources, for example by promulgating national and local statistics about health, the economy, social services and the like. The OAG is intending to develop its own database of statistics of this kind anyway 8

and their sharing of this information would have clear advantages of control, uniformity, economy and possibly cost-sharing.

1.3(h) There are complex cost-benefit issues involved here. The matters are raised for consideration as there is a need to determine overall the best means to achieve the necessary uniformity of content and quality of some ltccp data, particularly of the 'national' kind described.

1.4 The various 'constituencies'

8 Issue;Clarity of the OAG intentions given its wish to establish its own database of ltccp data is needed. Amongst the issues arising from this are ownership, control, project direction, stakeholders, users, delivery mechanisms and cost sharing.


1.4(a) As mentioned there are many parties that will be associated with supplying the future needs for ltccp data and many will take a hand in the processes involved in data management. All will benefit, irrespective of how the data is ultimately to be managed provided they are given a 'clear steer' on what is expected, that is, the standards and criteria of quality, completeness and accuracy of ltccp data.

1.4(b) In addition to the many potential providers of this information there are numerous parties who will prepare and use the information. Their needs are the most important in considering the adequacy of proposed ltccp data.

1.4(c) The users of ltccp data comprise an extensive list including:

Councils themselves, LA's communities and Community groups including Iwi, the regulators, including audit interests, departments of central government extending over 'numerous' interests and involvements with the

local government sector, business associates, trade associations of the local government sector including professional

consultancies and numerous special interests groups and individuals including local sub-LA level communities such as

submitters to their local Council's ltccp's.

1.4(d) The list includes both public and private sector, the diverse interests of for example:

the Ministry of Economic Development, the Department of Internal Affairs, Te Puni Kokiri… the New Zealand Police, Child Youth and Family, the merchant banking sector and finance industry… engineering and legal firms, environmental agencies, the local Tangata Whenua, District Health Boards, local economic and social agencies and consultancies, and many more… all of whom will wish to be informed upon the particular matters including the information of

relevance to their interactions with Councils or for doing business with the sector.

1.4(e) The identification of these 'constituencies' or communities of interest can be tentatively assessed within this study but the more precise needs analysis of the separate data requirements for these parties is well beyond the scope of this initial paper.

1.4(f) At some point however a better definition of the special information needs of these groups will need to be identified and rationalized. The focus of this study will be to determine the data needs for the principal parties concerned with ltccp data and this will largely be confined to the needs of the Councils, external agencies of central government and the Council's auditors.

1.4(g) By identifying and considering the needs of a more limited number of the many players, (the constituencies interested in ltccp data), the data problem is further constrained and made more manageable.

1.4(h) In a similar vein, in the interests of more simplified analysis, a more generic coupled with conceptual view of ltccp data and its users is taken within this study. Only incidental mention is made of the more precise uses for the data, for example the special and particular data needs of a Community supplying and receiving useful information to facilitate its input to the ltccp consultation processes, (as are outlined in S 82 [1] of the LGA 02).


1.4(i) It is likely that imminent developments involving the consideration of the data needs of Community groups will quickly emerge, because the Act places a great deal of emphasis upon the provision and facilitation of their information needs.9

1.4(j) The data needs of other constituencies no doubt will develop over time including for example market-driven provision of data to the merchant banking sector, engineering performance measures from engineering consultancies and financial ratios derived from private firm's survey data. All will over time greatly assist in developing better data although initially their needs are secondary to those of ltccp planners, report preparers and audit.

1.5 The need for (quasi) data standards and the 'principles' involved

1.5(a) Given the disparate interests of various groups in the ltccp data, it is important to develop some guidelines, (probably falling short of the strict criteria necessary to meet a 'standards' definition) for the data, so that the differing interests involved in developing data standards:

are made aware of the underlying principles relating to ltccp data and are able to manage their parts in the selection and collection of data properly and are able, both individually and collectively to do so with a level of consistency.

1.6 A standard of care related to the ltccp data

1.6(a) The ltccp data is important enough to warrant the efforts involved in developing standards and guidelines and where appropriate to manage the imposition of the disciplines associated with a set of ltccp data- related guidelines.

1.6(b) After all, given that the ltccp is built upon its data, if the content of the ltccp that is the data underpinning the plan is inadequate, then the actions of the Council based upon its defective ltccp could be judged as being unlawful. The ltccp data is therefore critical to defensible and effective plans and a high standard of care must be brought to its development.

1.6(c) The alternative to a rigorous and principled approach to ltccp data development is untenable for another reason as well. The reason, simply put, is that the problems associated with everybody 'doing their own thing' amongst the vast array of the potential ltccp data that is available would lead to variable quality and to suspect data. Some management, that is, 'shape' must be given to the ltccp data development process to avoid, as outlined, the consequences of an unmanaged alternative.

9 Issue/Project;Councils are tasked with much more demanding consultative processes for their ltccp than has for many in the past been the case. S. 91, 'The Process for identifying Community Outcomes', the cornerstone of the ltccp, contains provisions intended to address the problem of information asymmetry and Council-centric planning. The tools must be provided to communities to allow them to contribute but the manner in which they contribute, must be managed otherwise the whole thing could get out of hand. A project is suggested, to give a balance to a process that will resolve these difficult issues. It would probably include Community input templates fitted to the generic ltccp process so that Community groups do not end up providing just another 'squeaky wheel'-driven though updated 'wish list'.


1.7 Essential ltccp data that directly supports and informs outcomes…and the 'other' – more discretionary, data

1.7(a) There will still remain in the field other less directly relevant (or less essential) data to the ltccp. There will be large knowledge and information silos, that is, related data and information about Councils and their communities that will require the exercise of judgments as to their use.

1.7(b) This will usually involve Council-determined discretions associated with their ltccp data choices. These discretionary data areas are likely to be related to information that may well be supplementary to the major uses of ltccp data, which is principally the informing of the top-level outcomes of the ltccp.

1.7(c) Implicit in these observations are the judgments needed to draw the boundaries between the essential and the discretionary data. There is the need to set (quasi) standards for the former but also to give sufficient guidance for discretionary data so that its use is helpful and satisfactory. A-G 4 provides a great deal of guidance in these matters.10

1.7(d) The boundaries of the essential as opposed to the discretionary data-related judgments necessary must be drawn carefully by firstly identifying the data that is essential to informing the ltccp outcomes, (probably data that will be 'specified' by the regulators to the degree necessary) and consistent with allowing for if not a free rein then at least the creativity and imagination expected from ltccp preparers and reporters.11

1.7(e) Predominantly essential ltccp data that directly informs outcomes will be analysed in this study, this is the data that will be focused upon and connected with the underlying and guiding principles identified for the conduct of this study.

1.7(f) The selection of appropriate content and detail, and the issues surrounding the boundaries between essential 'outcome'-supporting and the less important supplementary, information, (if only of necessity) will be left for later, and to others.

1.7(g) The LGA 02 leaves no doubt as to the importance of questions relating to assurances over data quality and to content. The ltccp data forms the basis for all decision-making relevant to the ltccp. The ltccp is the central planning document that will give legal validity to the actions of Councils.

1.7(h) The information that informs and underpins the decisions taken in devising the plans is therefore of major significance. The integrity of ltccp information is vital to defensible and logical decisions. The parameters for its preparation and the data to be used assume a similar level of importance.

1.7(i) The same could be said for data content omission as the omission of important information could have the same 'unlawful' effect. A-G 4 again, gives good detailed guidance on these matters including the audit significance of the 'omission issue'.12

10 Project;A review of A-G 4 could be conducted and practice guide and other material contained in it of specific relevance to the ltccp could be extracted, promulgated and/or included in ltccp- specific guidelines.11 Issue;The demarcation between essential data that might be specified by the regulator, for example the compliance content of an ltccp or a standard set of national, regional and local district and city health statistics, (essential), compared to those that may be left to Council's discretion, for example a more detailed sub-set of its own residents (supplementary) health statistics… involves thinking around some 'nice' judgments.12 Project;Specification of the essential content for a complying, (compliant that is with S. 94, the audit section) ltccp, in addition to the black letter content of a 'Schedule 10 Part I' compliance checklist should be undertaken, S. 94 (1) [a] refers, re 'compliance'.


1.8 'Standards' setting and the demands of S. 94, the audit requirements of the ltccp

1.8(a) The governing legislation, the LGA 02 has, as has already been referred to, set a high 'standard' for the content, quality, appropriateness, meaningfulness and authority for the ltccp information as is contained within S.94 of the Act, the section referring to the audit of the ltccp.13

1.8(b) These quality and other demands for ltccp data extend to the 'information and assumptions used', the 'appropriateness of the framework' and its 'meaningfulness', (for the use of these and other similar 'terms' see Ss. 91, 93 and Schedule 10 Part 1 of the Act).

1.8(c) There is a high degree of subjectivity implicit in the wording of these sections, (for example 'meaningfulness'). The judgments involved will be linked to the standards set for ltccp data as well as to all of the other ltccp processes and content of the Act.

1.8(d) The 'audit' section, S.94 explicitly identifies the OAG as the 'arbiter', standard-setter and the authority that will make the necessary judgments concerning the quality and other characteristics of the ltccp data.

1.8(e) This is evident from S.94 (1) [a] & [b] as the Audit Report is to address;

'The extent to which the local authority has, (within its ltccp) complied with the requirements of the act in respect of the plan; and

'the quality of the information and assumptions underlying the forecast information provided in the plan'.

1.8(f) It should be particularly noted, because of the matter's significance and the associated timing issues, that these (audit related) clauses address the end results of the ltccp reporting process.

1.8(g) But!, they set the standards that must be addressed by preparers of plans at the beginning of the ltccp processes if the plans are to past muster.

1.8(h) It is therefore just an exercise of common sense that early in the process, both of developing ltccp's and their data standards, that as the 'arbiter' of ltccp quality, (a de facto appointment due to the effect of the S 94 provisions), the OAG should set the standards that they expect to see achieved.

1.8(i) These data standards and the associated concepts are the subjects of this study. They can be further considered and can be translated later, as already stated into more detailed 'guidelines' 14 and practice criteria relating to ltccp data. These will assist in developing and achieving authoritative, uniform and acceptable results.

13 Issue;If not already 'in the can', the OAG, as a result of its obligations under S. 94 should develop its own practice notes, training programmes, and obtain a legal determination of what this section means. Of the many issues that this section raises are; the nature of the 'opinion'? sought, or is it to be merely a 'report' as the section dictates?, what if any will be the qualitative judgments?, how will these be expressed?, what of performance improvement objectives, see S. 91 (2) [c], 'measure progress'? and who, (specially trained auditors/engineers/analysts?) will be competent to reach these lofty judgments? The use of terms such as 'quality', 'appropriate' and 'meaningful' in S. 94 presents some challenges!14 Issue;The notion of ltccp guidelines is more than just a good idea, they will prove to be essential if the whole ltccp process and its data are to gain credibility and currency.Already the KnowHow, MDH (Brian Sharplin), NRB 'Communitrak' 'satisfaction' surveys, the deprival statistics etc and the authors 'NZLG Database'/'Base Stats with Trendz' contributions are gaining de facto local government sector standard status. There are both positive and potentially negative impacts for the local government sector in these initiatives. They only have 'un-official' status but are in extensive use already. Much could be resolved with an 'official' authoritative handbook or guideline and the best of the resources from what is already available could be given attribution, support and managed improvements made. The imprimatur given already to the National Asset Management (NAM's) manual is possibly some precedent for this suggestion. The OAG's big (green) tick could have a similar impact upon ltccp data guidelines, (facilitated by the OAG and produced with the help of others).


1.9 Guidelines, their timing and some data- related 'KISS' – simplification suggestions.

1.9(a) The ltccp data-related criteria of the Act that can be codified within detailed guidelines would be taken into account by ltccp plan and report preparers. The guidelines should be used to 'guide' the thinking and emerging practice concerned with the collection and development of ltccp data.

1.9(b) There is an issue of timing involved, as the ltccp data standards and or guidelines must be produced before 'the horse has really bolted'. Whilst the 'early nine' ltccp project and the proposed ltccp data pilots are worthy initiatives, they will not be enough. The OAG as 'arbiter' must act soon, while the vital formative processes are happening, it will be too late 'after' and the consequences of a slow or late start could be disastrous.

1.9(c) In attempting to narrow down (simplify) the ltccp data problem, although it is axiomatic, it is worth stating that under the heading of 'ltccp data', this term relates to data associated with New Zealand Local Government functions in so far as this data informs or relates to New Zealand Council's ltccp processes.

1.9(d) Next in the process of simplification it is important to note that all ltccp data is principally, though not exclusively intended to inform upon the outcomes selected by the Council and its Community to measure the well-being of its residents. Any data that cannot be connected to these things can be disregarded.15

1.9(e) Well-being of Council residents is to be measured by the process of identifying Community outcomes, (S. 91):

' the purpose of which… is to provide opportunities for communities to discuss their desired outcomes in terms of the present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the Community'.

1.9(f) Fortunately, this outcome-related objective of the Act simplifies the ltccp data selection problem somewhat at the individual Council level.

1.9(g) The reason for this, is that the outcomes view and the objectives of selecting relevant ltccp data can be focused upon, that is confined to outcome reporting. This in turn can for most purposes be considered to be the same as the so-termed 'Sustainable Development Reporting,' (SDR), Quadruple bottom line (QBL) view, that is…reporting to the social, economic, environmental and cultural 'outcomes'.

1.9(h) Note: the KnowHow and other authorities seem to differ on this point, that is, the congruence of the outcome and SDR/QBL reporting objectives. In the interests of achieving simplicity and workable options, the distinction may be unimportant.16

1.9(i) For if the Act's concepts of an outcome is the same, (or nearly the same), as the 'QBL' view as well, then all Councils can adhere to both the Act and meet the emerging QBL standards17 'at one fell swoop' and are only expected to report their outcomes, at a minimum within this format.

1.9(j) Some preparers might further complicate, (but also in the process possibly further elucidate) the issue of QBL and outcome reporting generally, by selecting other more Council-specific outcomes, that is their right and this would certainly be necessary if their rounds of public consultation demanded them.

1.9(k) However, at least for the prime purposes of this study, it is submitted that outcomes, and the data that addresses these, also addresses the notions of QBL sustainability reporting. In addition, it would seem a

15 Issue;The issue of simplification is 'not that simple'. Try, for a little test to think of the non-ltccp cases not involving Community well-being. There are very few, the tests of ltccp relevant data may take some more thinking.16 Issue;Clarification of this is needed, its simplicity, ('congruence' that is), suggests that it is a good idea.17 Issue;Final SDR standards are still a long way off, (2005/06). Strategies to deal with this situation are needed.


logical step to postulate that in most circumstances there need to be only four outcomes planned and reported upon. Under the four headings of 'social, economic, environmental and cultural', most well-being matters can be dealt with.

1.9(l) These headings may be supplemented by others or by planning and reporting on a myriad of other second tier, (beneath outcome level) matters of well-being that are supportive of the one, some, or even all of the 'four' suggested outcomes.

1.9(m) If these suggestions are accepted, it is submitted that the problems of ltccp data selection would be materially simplified as a result. The matter of data selection for ltccp purposes, (and for that matter the ltccp processes themselves), can therefore be less complicated than it might otherwise have first been feared.

1.10 What are the key determinants for appropriate ltccp data?

1.10(a) What will characterize the specific data intended for use within the ltccp? That is, what will be the features and distinguishing characteristics that admit some data and reject others for use within the ltccp.

1.10(b) Firstly there is a body of data that is needed to specifically address, inform and support the ltccp content and framework requirements of the Act.

1.10(c) The Act, at S. 91 (Community Outcomes), sets out, 'scopes' the headings of the information needed. The section states what is the appropriate data, to 'meet needs' that are to be measured. These headings are explicitly, (even prescriptively) stated in this section.

1.10(d) As prescribed by S.91, data for use within ltccp's must meet the specific needs of:

Community discussion based on topics of social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being, (S. 91 (2) [a]),

Community discussion on the relative importance and priorities of the above topics, (S. 91 (2) [b]), measurement of progress toward achievement of Community outcomes, (S. 91, (2) [c]), and co-ordination, application and an informing of priorities of resources and local authority activities, (S.

91, (2) [d & e]).18

1.10(e) To further analyse these data requirements it is necessary to look at the purpose and nature of the ultimate 'top level' topics already referred to, called outcomes.

1.10(f) The KnowHow body of knowledge, http://www.lgnz.co.nz/lgknowhow, (Frequently Used Terms, Pp 17) concept of 'Outcomes' in the widest sense is defined as:

a set of desired states of affairs that the Community has identified as important to it, these (outcomes) are meant to inform the development of council planning and co-ordinate the activities and planning of all sectors of the Community.

1.10(g) Note the use of the term 'all sectors' as this includes every significant influence upon outcomes, measured in outcome terms wherever it comes from, not just from 'Council'.

18 Issue;Some deep thinking and guidance is needed to better define for practitioners the kinds of data that will fulfil these disparate information 'needs', particularly those of 'communities'. Much of this study try's to get some of the way with this thinking, but if there is a 'key issue' to consider relating to ltccp data then this true community data provision and dialogue is 'it'.


1.10(h) They, (other sectors) include both Council-influenced outcomes relating to the Council's own operations arising from Council's own resources and as well those that are additional to these actions and influences of all other non-Council agencies or organisations or individuals that can impact upon the 'well-being' of a Community, (resident/citizen).

1.11 Numerous sources of ltccp data that are Council and Community-outcome related

1.11(a) The potential ltccp data available therefore comes from sources both within and outside the local government sector. In general, Council-sourced data will relate to Council outcomes, distinguished from the data used to support Community outcomes, which will most often have to be sought and obtained from far and wide. Much of this 'widespread' data will have many other uses besides the ltccp's and much of it, as a result will need to be tested for its suitability to the ltccp.19

1.11(b) For examples, 'Council's' internal data, as contained within its asset management plans will inform the detailed engineering and operational issues associated with Council-owned or managed assets.

1.11(c) A sub-set of this internal, operational data, invariably in a highly summarized form can be extracted to meet the Council's own outcome requirements, for example the data associated with the assets of Schedule 10 of the Act included within the groups of 'Activities'.

1.11(d) With respect to data that is external to a Council the Community outcome-related data relevant to Community well-being will comprise data informing it's, (for example it's Community's, 'health) statistics'.

1.11(e) These statistics will usually be derived from data owned, managed and provided by New Zealand Health Agencies. Similarly there is a vast array of data that will inform numerous Community outcomes concerned with such areas as environmental matters, bio-security, crime and social services statistics and Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Simplification, through further analysis of this mass of data could make the selection of appropriate external data much more tractable.20

1.11(f) A final example and a further sub-set of supplementary ltccp data is of the data that the Council itself chooses to use to more fully inform its Community's (say health) outcome. Invariably this will be in a highly summarized form, it will have been obtained by the Council and it will have been extracted to meet individual Council ltccp requirements, for example to inform upon parameters of the key indicators of a communities health, fitted generally to the Council-centric outcomes that the Council has chosen to associate with their resident's health outcomes.

1.12 The challenge is to select the right data to meet ltccp needs consistent with OAG determined 'standards'

1.12(a) The range of relevant and available 'ltccp' data (as referred to already above) is 'vast'. The challenge will be to refine the objectives and standards for ltccp data so that a smaller number of statistics drawn from this larger data pool can fairly represent the needs of and meet the performance measurement and audit objectives of the ltccp processes. The trick will be to select the representative group of statistics of sufficient authority and quality to achieve these objectives.

19 Project;The criteria, that is the suitability and the applicable standards of external data, (external to the auditee Council) needs to researched. The standard audit of Councils would generally cover Council-sourced data but other audit and assurance steps will be needed for much of the ' external' data used to inform Community outcomes. A-G 4 is very helpful here. A logical consequence of this situation is that it makes sense to start considering 'taking a hand' in, facilitating the collection of external data so that it may be disseminated to others, (Councils) following a proper process of validation, assurance and or audit.20 Issue… leading to a Project;It has been suggested, (and research of international practice tends to bear the view out), that there can exist a discrete list of headings at the next level down from outcomes which group naturally under each outcome. They number 'less than 100' although the internal Council actions that contribute to these, that is a Council share of these sub-outcomes or 'topics' might number over 500 for a typical medium-sized New Zealand City. These numbers, although only roughly indicative suggest that the atypical/model ltccp framework will be manageable and that a collection of data, related to these sub-headings could be commenced. If these judgments prove to be correct in practice then describing ltccp data to a software planning platform is made much more manageable.


1.12(b) If, as is likely, some information directly informing ltccp situations is not available, possibly due to the high costs of data collection, then a search for 'surrogate' though representational data should be attempted. There are probably significant savings to be made in using surrogate information anyway provided it meets the other ltccp data quality and other tests. More of surrogate information later.

1.12(c) Characteristics for ltccp data, for example data to meet so-termed 'external' ltccp data needs might desirably, for example consist of;

audited information or statistics, that are associated with and properly managed by a credible agency and comprise information that relates to a top level outcome, (or sub-outcome level topic) of New

Zealand Councils and, is data that is the best information available and the data can act, stand for, the best single, or representative and/or surrogate statistic selected from

a group of other similar statistics and, it can be obtained at reasonable and economic cost.21

1.13 Conclusion

1.13(a) This part of the study has introduced in general terms the issues surrounding ltccp data. It has argued for some standardization and simplifications Discussion of the key determinants of ltccp data follows in Part II. The second part to this study is intended to focus upon the really important issues that will need to be taken into account with respect to the identification, selection and uses for ltccp data.

1.13(b) These matters are discussed in some detail, (Part II below), the topics, inter alia include matters involving data, its decision-usefulness, availability, economy of collection and other measures and tests of the appropriateness for the uses of ltccp data.

21 Project;A decision tree/chart can readily be constructed to incorporate the tests for valid and useful ltccp data and could probably also include some categorizations, that is, associations of the data with the purposes for which it is intended, the QBL outcome(s) to which it most likely relates etc.


Part II

Selection of appropriate ltccp data2.1(a) Having discussed expansively the subject of ltccp data this second section of the study is an attempt to

refine the selection of ltccp data processes. The refinements will lead to more precise identification of a few key principles that might form the basis of a standard approach with all of the attendant benefits including consistency.

2.1(b) The section suggests that there are six criteria1 that could be applied to the selection of ltccp data.

2.2 The first of the first principles

2.2(a) To reach the level of rationalization implicit in defining the more discrete ltccp data from the vast amount of information available, that is, the selection process for ltccp data, (it is submitted) should be simplified, provided nothing of major significance is lost arising from such simplifications.

2.2(b) Underpinning the statement of just six criteria is a 'standalone' principle of fundamental significance to the simplification objective that might be termed the 'trade-off' principle. It could be stated thus;

'Data intended and chosen for ltccp purposes should be of such a level of completeness, accuracy and detail, (precision), that will allow for appropriate and rational decision-making, whilst making judgments, (trade-offs) for factors such as the unavailability of more suitable data and/or the higher than acceptable costs of its collection'.

2.2(c) In other words, amongst the mass of available ltccp related data, trade-offs in the selection of ltccp data will be needed, if only to get the job done.2

2.2(d) Some sense of this idea and consistent with a concept involving trade-offs is contained in A-G 4 at para's 3.60 and 3.61 where quality3 issues are discussed. Implicit in this piece of the OAG's standard are the judgments that are required with such concepts as 'the eye of the beholder' introduced.4

1 Criteria;The selection of six criteria is an attempt to 'particularise' the selection of data decisions to the ltccp case. As will be seen from the content of this part of the study there is ample authoritative technical guidance available, mainly the A-G 4 document. The six criteria selected are based on this and other helpful material. The criteria may 'appear' to 'motherhood' statements or just variants of other concepts amongst the literature. They are not, or at least they are 'an attempt' to get specific to ltccp judgments without undue prescription as guideline signposts that still allow for use of preparers and reporters judgments, (trade-offs).2 Undue complexity;This standpoint can be related to the author's note which commences this study. Many complicated initiatives within the New Zealand local government sector, (the KPMG/ LGNZ and the Coopers & Lybrand surveys of the early nineties are good examples), foundered under their own weight of complexity. If the ltccp data problems are to be resolved, then the six criteria will serve a useful purpose.3 A-G 4 "dimensions' of performance measuresQuality, the most important of the so termed 'dimensions' of the data (related to performance measures) are enumerated in A-G 4.3.51 Generally, the following five dimensions are used in establishing measures for outputs or output classes: quality, how well it is provided quantity, how much is provided cost, how much delivery costs timeliness, when it is provided.4 A-G 4, 'Quality.'3.60 Quality has at least two possible meanings or dimensions – ‘stakeholder or customer perception’ and ‘technical quality’: Stakeholder or customer perception. These measures of quality reflect the ‘eye of the customer’ and indicate the extent to which a product or service meets or exceeds stakeholder expectations. To establish customer perceptions of quality, a public entity needs, at least, to consult stakeholders and ask what they value. Technical quality. These measures of quality reflect the ‘eye of the expert’. They report on the degree of conformity to standards and specifications, or the expectations about a product or service that an expert would hold. Technical quality may apply technical standards, expert knowledge, or peer assessment. To judge the standard of products or services, both categories of quality may use: acceptability of the product or service delivered; speed of response or turnaround time; or transaction accuracy. 3.62 Neither dimension is of itself "correct", and proper measurement of quality would include both dimensions. Entities may choose to measure and report on either or both.


2.2(e) It is clear from the guidance of the A-G 4 standard that selection of appropriate data involves the exercise of 'nice judgments. For ltccp data the underlying 'simplifications' necessary are an example of these.

2.3 The key issues of data selection

2.3(a) The 'challenges' of making the appropriate judgments relating to the selection of appropriate ltccp data have been briefly referred to already.

2.3(b) It is extremely important that the judgments associated with the necessary tradeoffs, (accuracy and completeness, fit for purpose etc),in selecting ltccp data are carefully explained and circumscribed, (to refine the selections of data from amongst the vast array available), so as to reach the valid and moderated levels of data associated with the selection and other judgments involved.

2.3(c) Analysis of the ltccp data-sets suggests that there may be six criteria that can be used to make the judgments required, that is tests that must be met by the data that are to be considered in making the appropriate selections of ltccp data. They are:

fit for specific ltccp purposes decision-usefulness comprehensibility case specificity data availability cost-effective collection

2.3(d) Each of these criteria (or tests of ltccp data appropriateness) are now discussed in some detail. Except for the first criteria, which is somewhat convoluted around the various provisions of the Act, in most cases ltccp data should meet all of the following six criteria/tests.

2.4 Fit for purpose

2.4(a) The fit for purpose test is perhaps the most straightforward as it is covered by the provisions of the Act.

These include:

all compliance parts such as ltccp content etc of the LG Act 02 Schedule 10, coupled with 'purposes' for ltccp data as outlined in S. 91 that address Community outcomes and, fit for the ltccp purposes as outlined in S.94 such as the S. 94 audit criteria relating to quality and

the validity of the assumptions used and, data capable of meeting the needs of various constituencies.5

2.4(b) The LG Act 02, Schedule 10 Part I data requirements are prescriptive in setting down the requirements for appropriate ltccp data.

2.4(c) A checklist of these requirements accompanies this study at Appendix I (under development).

2.4(d) To meet the standards required, (by the audit section, S. 94), ltccp's will have to comply, not just with the law's 'black letter' content but also with more arcane matters such as the "Council Activities' requirements, and for data needed to meet community expectations which will need to comply with a number of difficult to manage criteria.

2.4(e) Along with the 'hard one' of gaining suitable community input to the plans, the suitability of data to meet theirs and Council needs is a very demanding objective, as are the judgments to be exercised for ltccp data as a whole.

5 Project/Issue – Checklist approach. Properly managed and quality reviewed, the use of checklists, (with trained personnel using them) could cover most of these matters.


2.5 Decision-usefulness

2.5(a) In obtaining ltccp data that is appropriate, the data, (all data that is, that is intended to directly inform outcomes at least) should meet a decision-useful character test. This test is intended to give some balance to a situation where data assessed as meeting higher more demanding but less useful standards of statistical or other accuracy might be sought.6

2.5(b) One clear example of this, is that if added accuracy of data does not materially better inform upon Community well-being and outcomes then lesser completeness of data may be acceptable.

2.5(c) Similarly another example is that if higher accuracies of the underlying data do not materially affect the assessment of an outcome then lower levels of accuracy may be acceptable.

2.5(d) A 'useful' list of what determines decision–usefulness was produced by Audit New Zealand (a presentation titled 'Non-Financial Reporting and Costing in the Public sector') and listed the following:

Good Practice – Measurement

Appropriate and reliable Not about how many, but how representative “Pool” of measurement Multi-layered measurement and reporting Integrated internal and external Variety of frameworks and tools “Horses for Courses”

2.5(e) There are numerous determinants of ltccp data decision-usefulness and there follow some examples.

2.5(f) The statement of concepts standard, (the SC) refers to decision-usefulness in the following terms;

Para 4.1 'The quality of the information provided in financial reports determines the usefulness of reports to users'

and then lists four characteristics of quality.

2.5(g) The closest 'SC' characteristic to the test for ltccp decision-usefulness is 'relevance' and these are the information's;

'feedback and predictive values'.

These views are helpful but in the end ltccp preparers and reporters will decide.

2.5(h) The question of what makes data decision-useful is mostly self- evident from the circumstances for which the data is required, (related to).

2.5(i) For example, it is self-evident that health statistics will inform upon an outcome related to a Community's health.

2.5(j) It is less obvious though as to which of the plethora of health statistics there are that will best inform upon the top level outcome question of a communities health, particularly if a specific health issue, one amongst many, needs to be associated with consulted-upon Community-based health-related concerns.

6 Issue;The use of decision-useful data selection criteria taking precedence over data with less usefulness but higher degrees of statistical accuracy amounts to a 'big call'. Work is required, based on the ideas of this section of this study to operationalise the decision-usefulness concepts. This may take the form of building "families' of acceptable data that address the issues (of say health), that will best inform the (health) issue related to this well-being outcome.


2.5(k) Decision-usefulness in such circumstances becomes much less the theoretical tests of the SC and more the proximate relevance of the data to the intended specific outcome, a question of finding the right 'horse for the course'.

2.5(l) For further examples of this issue there are many cases involving health statistics. A communities concern, (and the S. 91 (2) [b] priorities that they may have set), could for instance relate to a particular section of the Community.

2.5(m) It may be:

in one case the very young, (which suggests the infant mortality rate statistic), a Polynesian population's health issue, (the incidence of the diabetes statistic amongst

Polynesians) or, a waiting list for hip replacements,(valid data of the lists and of other competing health priorities).

2.5(n) So, whatever the circumstances in the search for appropriate ltccp data, decision-usefulness considerations will play a big part.

2.6 Comprehensibility

2.6(a) In dealing with the ltccp data selection criteria there are 'nice' judgments involving comprehensibility/understandability many of which concern principles of data suited to the purposes of public consultation to be made, the S 82 requirements.

2.6(b) Amongst the vast array of data available for ltccp purposes much of it will be unsuited to ltccp requirements due to its complexity and thus its incomprehensibility to the plans most important reader, the layman reader of the ltccp.

2.6(c) Section 82 of the Act addresses the issue of comprehensibility of ltccp data and makes it abundantly clear that the data must be capable of being be understood, not so much by statisticians and analysts and the like but in most cases by 'Joseph and Josephine Public'.

2.6(d) The S. 82 judgments involved, relate to matters concerning the complexities of the ltccp data, its content and format, particularly the use of data to build up to understandable performance measures derived from the data, (the monitoring of performance requirements and the 'meaningful assessments' contained in S. 84 (d) [i]).

2.6(e) If the selection of the data, ('information' is the word used in the Act) does not meet a layman's general understanding test then it is more than likely too complex to be of use for the ltccp.

2.6(f) The Act is very specific in requiring Councils to make the information supplied within the ltccp 'understandable', S. 82 (1) [a] Principles of Consultation reads;

'Consultation that a local authority undertakes… must be in accordance… with the principle that… persons affected or who have an interest in the decision or matter should be provided with reasonable


access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons’7'

2.6(g) The 'persons affected' of S. 82 will to all intents and purposes be the general public in so far as consultation on the ltccp is concerned. The kind of information that will be digestible and understood by this audience will involve less complexity more understandability… to the public.

2.6(h) Note, that for consultation procedures, (apart from those matters relating to the ltccp), the other 'decisions' to which S 82 also refers will involve audiences that are more ‘savvy’.

2.6(i) For example, the complexities of decisions involving policies concerned with development contributions would contemplate audiences, guided by legal advice that would admit more detailed and complex information needs than would generally be the case for the body of the ltccp, intended as it is for general consumption.

2.6(j) The achievement of comprehensibility of the ltccp data presents real challenges to Councils used to their own vernacular often involving jargon and cryptic nomenclature. The public policy issues of information asymmetry are well known, these and the use of ‘Plain English’ are not well addressed at present.8

2.6(k) Other commentators, (besides the author and Brian Sharplin) have also written at length on this subject. Comprehensibility remains a very real impediment to obtaining the desired results for ltccp's and from ltccp consultation.

2.7 Case specificity

2.7(a) Each piece of relevant information to be decision-useful needs also to be case-specific. Such data will inform upon each case and it will have assumed its decision-usefulness because it will be a statistic associated with and which provides information that is 'useful' to each case-specific, for example health-related (or other) concern.

2.7(b) The concern will often have gained the status (as a concern that is case-specific), because of its identification and relative priority setting which a Community has determined through consultation with its Council.

7 Emphasis added;The parts of this section underlined/emphasized will provide Councils with the major challenge they face in making ltccp's understandable. One commentator, Brian Sharplin has put this problem in the following terms;e) ‘Too much use of jargon (and other words and terms) that an ordinary reader will not understand’.• Terms that may be used daily within the Council office will often be meaningless for a reader.• The whole focus should be on ‘keeping it simple’ and on the use of simple, plain English that can be understood by a 12/14 yr old.f) The format, and the way that information is presented, is too complicated – too much clutter.• Insufficient thought is given to the layout of the whole document and to making it interesting. The perception is that sometimes the

layout has not been thought through in a properly integrated way. Often, too much attention appears to have been given to writing the document from a legislative compliance point of view rather than in a straightforward, ‘reader friendly’, manner.

• Too many financial figures – not enough graphical illustrations. (‘A picture tells a thousand words’).• Wrong emphasis – too much detail about minor proposed Council actions – not enough attention is given to the things that really

matter, or to long-term or to higher-level thinking, etc.• A perception that, sometimes, the Plan has been prepared by someone from a particular professional discipline, rather than the

requirements of the organisation and of the likely readers having been properly considered, eg:Prepared by a Finance person Too much of a financial emphasis.Prepared by a Planner Too much planning emphasis and jargon.

The largest corporates can (and do) produce interesting, relatively brief Annual Reports etc. Notwithstanding the legislative requirements, local authorities should be able to do the same. It is really only a matter of being able to look past the bureaucracy, applying a bit of lateral thinking, and being able to see the organisation through an ordinary ratepayer’s (or resident’s) or customer’s eyes. [See the emphasis on this aspect in the guideline publication entitled ‘Creating Customer Value from Community Assets’ recently issued by the Association of Local Government Engineering New Zealand Ltd (INGENIUM)]. (Above quote taken from an MWH paper by Brian Sharplin titled 'The Idea Outlined'. Couldn’t have put it better myself!).8 Issue;Community empowerment objectives are closely related to information needs and their supply. Councils now have a bounden and statutory duty (S.82 and others) to meet these needs on behalf of their communities.


2.7(c) To be fully case-specific data in the majority of cases, along with its relevance to a specific situation, data should ideally have the character of being 'amenable' to (and therefore be case-specific) to a decision- making process.

2.7(d) There is not much point in using data for a particular purpose involving the inevitable performance improvements planned, unless the data specifically can inform the improvement process situation as well.

2.7(e) For example, a statistic relating to infant mortality overall may not be sufficiently useful because of its failure to distinguish between deaths of infants due to preventable medical causes as distinguished from those causes arising from congenital health problems, (non-preventable… pre-DNA typing), or child abuse, (more a crime- related than a health issue).9

2.7(f) The matching of the relevant statistic that is by its nature decision-useful due to its relevance and its case-specific nature will involve a process of consideration of the outcome set by each Council and its Community. Together with logical reasoning, the matching will turn on the relationship of one, (the outcome) with the many, (the statistics) that will inform on the outcome. There will usually have to be an obvious and probably direct connection between the two.

2.8 Data availability and costs of collection

2.9(a) To meet the criteria set by the 'first principle' (above), that is, availability of and reasonable costs for the collection of ltccp data, the cost-benefit-availability issues need to be considered.

2.9(b) Often the data of most overall value, due to its applicability in the circumstances, (its overall decision-usefulness), that will support the necessary level of accuracy etc achieves its decision-usefulness not just because it is relevant to the circumstances but also because it is readily available and can be gathered at reasonable cost. 'Better' data may be 'out there' but at what cost?

2.9(c) Subject to satisfactory assessments of the data's validity, (and auditability), judgments, based upon decision-usefulness will in general take precedence over selecting data that might meet more demanding criteria but for various reasons would impose unrealistic demands of cost when weighed around the utility of the information collected.

2.9(d) The 'best available' test of data will involve use of judgments concerning its use, sufficiency of accuracy and completeness and an audit approval loop.

2.9(e) There will be times when the cost of obtaining data are high, they may be associated with critical information needed within ltccp data requirements and their importance is also high enough to warrant the expenditures. But data gatherers should always be on the look out for cheaper alternatives if possible.

2.9(f) This for example may involve the use of surrogates or with the use of correlations of different data elements that judgmentally, rather than empirically meet the above tests. For example, a surrogate wealth statistic, just one of a number of measures concerned with 'wealth', (see also for further examples the authors site at www.measures.net.nz), for residents of a city or district could be a combination of the land and capital values of their properties expressed on an average 'per ratepayer' basis.

2.9(g) The coefficients and their co-relation within a ratio format will meet (part of) a generalized wealth index test requirements.

9 Issues: more issues relating to case-specificity of dataThis field (of selecting case-specific data) is very broad as the subject suggests. For another example there is no, (little) point in keeping statistics that do not directly provide information upon situations that are part of an improvement or monitoring process and are also within a Council's control or ability to influence. It should be noted that there may be point, (but not one relating directly to case-specifics), to a Council keeping more comprehensive information say about infant mortality. This may be desirable if, as is possible, a wider public debate on the issue is anticipated which could require fuller information, (say as to causes) or if the Community might alter its priorities or seek to extend the Council's influence over a wider scope.


2.9(h) The process of making this small component of an index has required the use of judgments, logical thought, the availability of three data elements, (ratepayer numbers, capital and land values). There will be many similar challenges of ltccp data collection when cost-effective collection of relevant data is being considered.

2.9 Conclusion

2.9(a) This part of the study has addressed, principally the criteria for use in selecting appropriate ltccp data. The next section covers matters relating to ‘audiences’ for the data.


Part III

Constituencies, the interests or focus of ltccp data3.1(a) Having dealt with the generic criteria that can be used to determine what is suitable for use within ltccp's,

it is necessary to (briefly) also consider the specific focus that will be required of this information. Consideration of the focus for the data and to some degree its audience will influence not so much the selection of the data, the generic criteria (above) will usually meet these needs, but a specific audience will influence the content or composition of the data used to address the several 'constituencies'

3.1(b) Five focus/audiences have been identified and these seem to be the principal 'constituencies' of the ltccp.

3.1(c) Constituencies for example include the regulators/auditors who are tasked with ensuring that all of the Act's Schedule 10 Part I content relating to the ltccp are included and that the content is in a form that meets the other data-related requirements of the Act, (the Ss. 91 to 94 format, framework, assumptions etc).

3.1(d) Other constituencies also concerned with the same requirements include the plan preparers, Council management and members of the public.

3.1(e) It may therefore be useful to think of ltccp data by contemplating the following five constituencies, and then to consider their data-related needs or their particular focus.

3.1(f) The five constituencies form around:

The Local Government Act 2002, its prescriptive content requirements, The Quadruple, (financial, economic, social and cultural) Bottom Line (QBL) view of the data

connected to 'sustainability' concepts, Data specific to Council Outcomes sourced from within each Council and 'Macro' data related to each Council's Community Outcomes but external to each. Performance data based on local and internationally recognized benchmarks for standard-setting

and measurement of performance.

3.1(g) It is worth noting that based on this list it is possible that the ltccp data specifications will be more definitive than perhaps was first thought, only Council specific data is less so, the others are more prescriptive. If this is accepted then it is a further area of simplification.

3.1(h) Council-centric data may well form the larger part of total ltccp data. Council-sourced data logically will invariably be determined by Council's themselves, (hopefully though, guided by the principles of this study/ guidelines). If this is so then the other constituencies making up a lesser part of total ltccp data can be reasonably proscribed around the audience and focus for it.

3.1(i) Further 'good news' for the simplification objective appears from the fact of the close relationship, ‘congruence’ of the Act's prescriptions and the QBL/SDR views, see argumentation (above) on this matter.

3.1(j) The coincidence of QBL reporting with the Act's S. 91 (2) [a] 'Community outcomes' will have the tendency to standardize the selection of the four standard QBL groups, (social, economic, environmental and cultural) around four 'standard' outcomes for each Council's well-being outcome level reporting.

3.1(k) Now to turn to the impact upon data selection, principally content, due to the different identified constituencies and their differing needs.


3.2 The Local Government Act 2002 prescriptions

3.2(a) Schedule 10 of the Act, Part I 'Information to be included in ltccp's' provides an extensive framework of content, a checklist of items can be used for inclusion, for example such information as is relevant within the ltccp for 'Groups of Activities', a 'Funding Impact Statement', 'Significant Forecasting Assumptions' and others.

3.2(b) Content to address the Act's prescriptions and the audiences involved can be reduced to a checklist approach, already discussed.

3.3 The Quadruple, (financial, economic, social and cultural) Bottom Line… QBL view of the data connected to 'sustainability' concepts

3.3(a) Detailed specifications of data needed to service QBL/SDR purposes are well beyond the scope of this study. The 'good news' here is that 'someone is on the case'. The ICANZ steering committee on this subject, the special interest groups and the gathering public enthusiasm for this type of reporting framework is 'in synch' with the Act's stated QBL objectives.

3.3(b) Something good is expected to come of these trends particularly if the lessons of the 'early nine' related to Sustainable Development Reporting (SDR) are heeded and the local government sector's reporting achieves a high standard, in the fullness of time.

3.3(c) Best practice under the SDR standards regime, (under development) can be used to moderate selection of data content to meet these objectives.

3.3(d) As mentioned, in the interim (prior to final standards appearing), local government guidelines will be needed and local government sourced and managed submissions to the exposure process for the final SDR standard should be actively developed.

3.4 Data specific to Council outcomes sourced from within each Council

3.4(a) The Council specified 'internal' data needed for ltccp purposes is also progressing well. Councils are dealing with their own data as they see fit aided by the many in-house teams working on the problem along with a number of consultancy initiatives.

3.4(b) The chief challenges faced by this constituency have ‘mostly’ already been mentioned and include:

the 'holistic' requirement of integrating management, asset, general ledger/budget and other plans with ltccp processes,

the linkages between the various 'views' of the same data involving outcomes at the top level with the Council's actions that support them,

the liaisons with other arms of government, local organizations and the Community at large central to ltccp development,

the cultural change management of Council attitudes as demanded by the Act's ltccp requirements, including the provision of meaningful information to their Community's consultative processes and,

the availability and use of people and the tools (including software) necessary to control the processes.

3.5 'Macro' data related to each Council's Community Outcomes but external to each

3.5(a) Content specifications for ltccp data under this heading go from the specific and generic of earlier constituencies to the much wider fields that involve the selection of so termed 'macro' data. It is a broad and as yet dimly perceived landscape.


3.5(b) Macro data might include for example information drawn from numerous databases maintained externally from the Council, most relating in some way to the wider 'Community outcomes.' The KnowHow definition includes the description of Community outcomes as;

'the things that the Community thinks are important for its well-being'.

3.5(c) Wow! What the Community thinks! is pretty broad, is it not?

3.5(d) One subject list of the 'things' external to the Council's own internalised view and thought to be important to Community outcomes included the following:

Community profiles drawn from the national census Community specific data collected by Community members Local crime statistics Local heath statistics Bio-diversity including local endangered species Local pollution levels and quality of the environment – water, air, noise, streams, shellfish

resources, etc Performance of Council infrastructural assets Ratios of open space to population Trends in travel times Land use trends etc

3.5(e) To which might be added:

Cultural values including those of the Tangata Whenua and ethnic minorities Roading data including road safety Economic development Bio Security and pest control Urban development and regional plans Rural and Township future district and plan proposals and submissions Census data relating to demographic, economic, and social circumstances of the Community Extant survey data Inclusion of United Nations and Four Cities checklists of Community outcomes.

3.5(f) And so on. One thing is certain. The list of possible 'things' will need local rationalisation, it will probably be based around:

Council determined lists (at the risk of accusations of pre-determination mind), Upon priority setting and, Most of all will arise from the exercise of the consultative processes set down in the Act, S.82 to 89,

in particular S.84 relating to consultation on the ltccp.

3.6 Performance data based on local and internationally recognized benchmarks for standard setting and measurement of performance

3.6(a) The constituencies directly affected by performance objectives for ltccp data are 'everybody’:

Councils themselves, Their communities others including auditors, analysts, private firms and trade organizations and, don't forget Central Government who are expecting to see the achievement of economies arising

from the ltccp process.


3.6(b) These multi-party constituencies are well served with literature telling people how to do it, for example the A-G 4 and other extant ICANZ, NAM's guidelines. The problem is to now to really make performance measurement and monitoring work, the way the Act intends.

3.6(c) This will take a major effort as it will involve the co-operation of many parties from outside the sector, those who hold the technical data of value referred to already earlier in this study.

3.6(d) But perhaps most importantly the issue is one of lifting the act of Council performance. This is directly related to the comments (above) relating to Council cultural and holistic shifts needed in the way Councils do things.

3.6(e) The last word can be left to another on this subject; Brian Sharplin in his recent 'The Idea Outlined' boldly and squarely put the case;

Para 2. (d). Use the LTCCP preparation process to also help the Council to manage its affairs ‘smarter’, and in a more integrated form.

In particular, the possibility of the Council being able to merge (or at least consider together) the outcomes process / the LTCCP preparation process / the Asset (Activity) Management Plans’ preparation process / and the future extensive obligations that the Council has for monitoring and reporting, in order to eliminate unnecessary duplication that will occur if each task is addressed separately, and to strengthen both strategic and day-to-day management decision-making – relating to everything that the organisation does.1

3.7 Conclusion

3.7(a) Enough said. This paper is intended for the widest possible 'airing'. Comments initially should be addressed to the author and should be received no later than February 29th 2004 for consideration in an amended final draft.

Larry. N. Mitchell.Local Government Finance & Policy AnalystPO Box PuhoiNorthland.All Phones via 0800 PUHOI U (0800 784 648)Fax [email protected]

(An electronic version of this document is available at www.ltccp.net.nz)

1 Performance measurement, monitoring; The emphasis is added to Brian’s paper as these points highlight not just the concerns for integrating internal and ltccp monitoring but imply that there will be economies flowing from better Council internal management performance and improvement that will flow from 'doing them once and doing them right'.


mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Some 'first principles' rerlating to the nature extent and ... data First Principles.doc · Web viewSome 'first principles' relating to the nature, extent and quality of the Long-Term