Letter to City/County Amalgamation Implementation Committee

Councillor Mary Roche

Waterford City Council

The Mall

Waterford

Waterford City/County Amalgamation Implementation Committee

c/o Michael Walsh

Waterford City Council

The Mall

Waterford



25th January 2013

Dear Committee Members,

Although I will not be meeting you as part of the City Council Delegation on February 4th I feel I simply cannot allow the publication of the Working Document on Customer Service Locations and Workforce Planning to pass without comment.

Firstly, in the interest of honesty, I wish to advise that I continue to oppose and fight the amalgamation of the City & County Councils as a travesty and something that will greatly diminish the City’s ability to compete on a national and international stage. I intend to use each and every means at my disposal to continue to have this decision delayed or overturned.

However I must also realistically accept that it may well proceed in any case and on that basis, and with a heavy heart I have some thoughts on your Working Document and the proposals contained therein which I feel are so serious that I must communicate them.

The original Terms of Reference required the Amalgamation Committee to have particular regard to:

• The need to maximise the capacity of Waterford City, in particular, to act as a strong and dynamic focus and generator of growth for the wider hinterland under the National Spatial Strategy, and that of other urban and rural areas to contribute in that regard in the context of balanced development.



• The need to ensure that that the particular status, identity, character and heritage of Waterford City are maintained and where possible, enhanced, within a balanced overall system of local government for Waterford City and County.

The sad part is that every single person I speak to – many in, or retired from positions of great seniority in local government – acknowledges that the current amalgamation strategy is wrong and will be a disaster. Yet it continues apace, given cover by the unsubstantiated claims of efficiencies and savings contained in the Report of the Waterford Local Government Committee.

It is obvious that the vast majority of submissions to that committee were ignored or the serious consequences outlined therein were simply not understood. The core failure was the belief by the committee that in any amalgamation scenario, the status of the city and its capacity to act as a generator for growth would be unaffected or improved. It is oxymoronic to divide and weaken an organisation and then to propose that as strengthening it. The Working Document further exacerbates this division and weakening and surpasses even my very worst fears of what amalgamation would mean for Waterford!

As a sop to political pressures, despite the City being ‘designated’ in name as the HQ of the amalgamated authority – in practice the City is to be divested of up to 50% of its current Senior Management Team and up to 50% of the Directorates of Service. It is even, farcically, proposed that the Gateway City should lose Planning, Roads, Finance and IS among other things, to Dungarvan. I would like to hear an explanation of how this strengthens the City.

Indeed the Committee even failed to recommend that the Council would meet continually in the so-called Corporate Head-quarters and should rotate between Dungarvan and the City. While the City is left with its name and Mayor mar-dhea, the obvious fact is that both the City/Metropolitan District and indeed the Mayor will be Junior to the Mayor/Chair of the overall joint authority and as such will have been relegated down a level from the other cities in Ireland who continue to be self-governing and with their own Senior Level City Council and Mayor. I appreciate the spirit of what the Amalgamation Committee was trying to achieve but sadly, the reality is that the City and Mayor will no longer be on a par with other cities.

I fail to see how any of the recommendations in the Working Document deliver on making the amalgamated authority anything other than weaker, less efficient and indeed, most probably more expensive – save for natural staff wastage and whatever efficiencies are in the process of being delivered via the National Shared Services Initiative currently underway.

For what it’s worth, the only correct course of action (other than reversal of the decision in its totality) is to do the job properly and completely and to make Waterford City the HQ in practice as opposed to in name only. Unfortunately this does not address the Mayoral issue unless the Mayor of the City was to be designated as the Mayor of the overall amalgamated authority, and I would certainly propose this. However I expect this too, for political reasons would be unacceptable.

Uniquely after this process, Waterford as a City will be disadvantaged geographically, economically and regionally in comparison to other Irish Cities. According to the Forfas Reports on the Performance of Gateways, there has been a lack of buy-in regionally of Waterford as the Regional Gateway.

What this Working Document proposes will exacerbate this lack of buy-in by demoting Waterford to the level of Wexford and Kilkenny and will give the perception of a shift in power in the region, despite Waterford being the largest population centre by a country mile! This will negatively affect the buy-in and indeed will feed in to that lack of ‘buy in’ regionally.

One must hope that, as a working document, this initial report is subject to change but my experience is that once something is committed to paper, change thereafter tends to be minimal. I hope I am wrong on this occasion and that the Committee has the will to correct these damaging recommendations.

If Waterford City is to be supported and strengthened through this process then at least have the courage to do the job properly and allow the amalgamated authority to be managed and led from the main population centre. With services provided 9-5 of course from Dungarvan and Tramore. No-one is suggesting that citizens in the rest of the County should experience any dis-improvement in service delivery! Otherwise the City will be the laughing stock.

I apologise for the extreme negativity in this submission but in my opinion, what we are at here, is damage limitation. Our historic city is under threat that will have century long consequences and whatever noble (if naive) aspirations the Amalgamation Committee may have had with regard to the protection of Waterford, they are now being sacrificed on the altar of political parish pumpery.

It is hard to see how any of this can be justified bearing in mind the Amalgamation Committees Terms of Reference.

It is hard to see how any member of the Implementation Committee can stand over this Working Document as delivering a strengthened City.

It is hard (indeed it is laughable if it wasn’t so serious) to see how any informed decisions could possibly be made without a detailed cost benefit analysis being prepared – in contravention of the Department of Finances’ own guidelines.

But here we are. This process certainly does not do what it said on the tin.

Yours sadly and sincerely,





Councillor Mary Roche

Former Mayor of Waterford City

Franken-Council

My thoughts following further examination of the Waterford Amalgamation Committee Report, Putting People First, Waterford City & County Council Implementation Committee Terms of Reference, Limerick City & County Council Implementation Committee Terms of Reference and Implementation Report and the Draft Waterford Implementation Committee Working Document on Customer Service & Workforce Planning:

(I wish to preface this article with the caveat that I completely oppose amalgamation but in the event of it proceeding there are questions which must be posed. I also acknowledge that the latest Working Paper is a Preliminary View and in theory, open to change. However I also know from experience that once the ink has reached the paper very little tends to change, in reality.)



Issues for City:

Who will wake up every morning thinking about how to drive Waterford city forward? Not one senior staff will remain dedicated solely to our city. Currently there are 4 Directors and one City Manager doing this day in day out. Post amalgamation, the City Manager, Directors Of Service and Senior Staff will have to worry about everything from Ferrybank to Youghal Bridge. In my opinion the City Manager himself will have so many distractions already he will not be able to dedicate the time required (as he does currently) to driving the city as the regional economic Gateway. What has this focus delivered in recent years? Well, the House of Waterford; two World Class Museums; Winterval and the tourism they have generated – to name but a few! These have been serious game-changers for Waterford City.

The Document talks about the amalgamated authority being split between Dungarvan and the City with the Manager and (some) Directors having offices in both. There are financial implications but more importantly, time implications. Time spent on potholes in Knockanore is time not spent on our city. Time spent driving is time not spent on our city. But we aren’t dealing only with potholes. Waterford County Council has massive projects in planning which will require huge time and energy to deliver. From my memory some of these include, the seven villages sewerage scheme, and the no small matter of a €6.9 MILLION Euro deficit. From the Citys’ point of view this will take away from the time and energy that needs to be spent on the City agenda.

In my opinion one of the greatest strengths of Waterford City Council has been its CAN DO attitude and its ability to think outside the traditional Local Authority box. I fear this innovation will be lost due to the sheer workload which will come with the merger.

The end result of any product directly relates back to the amount of time, effort and detail put into it in the first place. Six Directors simply cannot do the same amount of work as nine and they can’t be expected to especially with hugely increased workloads. Waterford City has built its reputation as a Local Authority (best in Ireland according to Chambers Ireland in 2010) on quality and delivery. The House of Waterford Crystal, Viking Triangle, Medieval Museum and Nature Park are five star attractions for Waterford City. There is simply no way all of these would have been achieved in the same timeframe, in a merged authority.

The Amalgamation committee promised a stronger Unified Authority. What they’re now proposing is a far cry from that. What is actually happening is Waterford will be left with a split, depleted authority operating from two ‘Headquarters’ 45 Kilometres apart. No other City Council (including Limerick) will suffer this disadvantage. And in my opinion this would not be viewed as best practice by any private business.

If, as proposed, the Council meet alternately in the City & Dungarvan there are cost implications. Also in terms of meetings, City members will move from a current 15 person Council to a 32 person Council while for County Councillors it will move from 23 to 32! The meetings, in my opinion, will be ungovernable, with consensus being very difficult to achieve and likely to break down on city/county lines.

The main reason being given for merger is ‘efficiencies’ and ‘cost savings’. The City Manager has already said he doesn’t agree that the extent of savings according to the Amalgamation Report are achievable and that there will be significant costs involved before any savings will be made. In any organisation before you would undertake the level of change we are being asked to make you would simply HAVE TO HAVE the costs fully documented. Why has no cost/benefit analysis been produced? We are operating in a complete vacuum when it comes to the costs and indeed, the savings.

The Amalgamation Document mentions Shared Services. There is a Shared Services exercise being undertaken across all Local Authorities at National Level at present. Some savings being attributed to the merger will happen anyway under this initiative, in my opinion.



National Issues:

Putting People First is the policy document on Local Government launched by Minister Hogan late last year. There has been no decision at national level on many of the proposals contained in that document. There are issues about the Transfer of reserved functions, budgets and the ability of districts to raise additional funding which they would have local discretion to spend . None of this has been decided yet at National level - we are designing our system prematurely – effectively blindfolded!

Incidentally, if functions are not transferred (and I suspect they will not be) then the districts are, in effect, nothing more than glorified area committees, regardless of whether you call yourself a city or a Metropolitan District, or whether you have a Mayor or Chain or any other meaningless words and paraphernalia.

I see too, in Putting People First, that King Phil intends to issue his own Charters for Metropolitan Areas...what’s the bet that Kilkennys current Borough Council (the area they refer to as their City with a current population of 8,700) will be expanded to the required Metropolitan Area size of 20,000? Long live the King!

Economic Development:

While some in favour of the merger will hold up the position of Director of Economic Development as one of the major advantages of the amalgamation, this as far as I am concerned is very disingenuous as all gateway cities will have this Directorate according to Putting People First.



The ‘if it’s good for Limerick surely its good for Waterford’ argument:

The wording of the Implementation Committees terms of reference for Limerick & Waterford are almost identical except for two glaring differences. Section 14 of the Limerick terms of reference state that the new Limerick authority will “establish appropriate joint arrangements with Clare County Council under local Government law to ensure the most effective discharge of functions in the areas which the Local Government Committee recommended for transfer to the new Limerick Authority”. Interestingly there is no mention at all of this in the Waterford document in relation to South Kilkenny. This can hardly have been an oversight as otherwise the document is almost word for word, identical. Also interestingly the Limerick amalgamation committee actually looked at this issue whereas the Waterford amalgamation committee decided (or were directed!) very early on that they could not look at the Kilkenny issue....

You might ask, if this is good for Limerick, why is it not good for Waterford. The issues for Limerick & Waterford are NOT the same:

• In Limerick the two HQ’s are in the City so geography is not an issue.

• There is NO county town in Limerick.

• There will be hardly any change in service delivery or structures. Main base of COUNTY is in Limerick CITY with area offices. There will be no change.



Overall Local Government Reform:

Originally the plan was to reduce from 34 to 24 City & County Councils. Phil Hogan in Putting People First has now decided that there will be no more mergers after Waterford (a reduction of just 3!). If Minister Hogan believes that the savings will actually be so great with mergers, why not implement the original numbers?

WHY OH WHY if this is such a good idea, isn’t Galway being merged????





Back to Waterford:

The only other difference between the Limerick & Waterford Implementation Committee Terms of Reference is that Limerick are also to put in place new arrangements to merge other bodies such as the City & County Development Boards, Joint Policing Committees, Enterprise Boards, and Local Development Companies (Section 11). There is no mention of this in the Waterford terms of reference. Why? Will we need yet another Committee after this one to do that?

For what it’s worth: I accept no-ones’ bona-fides in this. I accept NO re-assurances that what is right is being considered, for I see with my own two eyes that it has not been considered to date and therefore will most likely not be considered now.

Over 95% (from what I hear) of all submissions to the Amalgamation Committee were against it. (I have been unable to access copies of the submissions despite requesting them both from the Secretary to the Committee and from Phil Hogans’ Department.) Yet, those submissions, from what we can see in the resulting recommendation were ignored and the Committee proceeded in doing its masters bidding.

Now that even they can surely see that they have created a monster; still they persist. This does not augur well for any consultations or for my (or your) input at this stage to be properly considered now. Indeed I question at all why I am even bothering to consider engaging. But persist we must, if only – if this monster is allowed to gain life – to try and ensure that it does as little damage as possible!



Bottom line:

Waterford City Council is currently one of the best & most dynamic Local Authorities in the Country – by any Independent measure. It is now to be broken up in a manner which will seriously disadvantage the city for decades to come. We are being delivered a ‘Frankenstein Council’ (FRANKEN-COUNCIL) made up by cutting and splicing two councils together in a most inefficient manner.

Our energy & focus will be dissipated while other cities forge ahead with their agenda and development. And finally we will be reduced to County Town level, with our shiny Mayoral chain, playing at being a city while other cities secretly laugh at us, while they surge further ahead.

Reform of Local Government? Not for us, I’m afraid. Not in Waterford.

The Minister and most particularly the Implementation Committee have, and are continuing to create, a MONSTER. It matters to me and to every citizen in Waterford who can figure out that in this instance, the Emperor has no clothes.

Sadly our ancient city will continue to be eviscerated with the Minister’s, the Government’s and sadly, our local Government TD’s blessing.

I can hardly bring myself to watch...

I see that todays edition of The Munster Express has published details of the working document on Customer Service Locations and Workforce Planning for the proposed merged Waterford City & County Councils. As it is obviously in the public domain already I have decided to publish the document here so that the public may see it in full if they wish. This version is missing two illustrations that I couldn't import but that doesn't change how you will understand the document.

For what it's worth, and I know this document is supject to change, I nonetheless consider that it is illustrative of the implementation committee's thinking - whereby, what we will be left with, post amalgamation, is two, weakened, split authorities rather than the one single, stronger authority that we were told would give Waterford the mass it requires. In my opinion the splitting of services is a joke. It is in-efficient, underlines geographic defferences, is bad management, is expensive and quite frankly, will eviscerate the guts out of the city.

No longer will the cities Fine Gael and Labour Councillors (with one notable exception) be able to say that this will be a positive thing for the city. Although with their spectacular volte face already performed, God knows that they will probably try and spin even this, as a positive! A so-called Gateway City without a Planning Department? If that isn't a joke I don't know what is. We would be the laughing stock! Imagine Galway City being planned from Clifden - or Dublin, from Bray. Those cities would not accpet it and neither should we. We shouldn't have to, but it seems we must continue to fight - now more than ever - merely to keep our city, it's jobs and its services, intact.

Ironically, what we are now getting with a split authority, is the worst of all worlds - with the much flaunted 'private sector' efficiencies being sacrificed on the altar of political parish-pumpery once again. Plus ca change. Well done, Mr Hogan. You have managed to bring us over the next few years to the level of the County Town, when we are currently the level of a County Council. I wonder will Kilkennys administration be split between the 'City' and say, Callan? You can bet your bottom dollar it will not be. Because they aren't so foolish. Ah, for people who would not play the Ministers' vile and damaging game. Alas for Waterford.

For what its worth here is the Working Paper:

WATERFORD LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Working Paper on Customer Service Locations

and Workforce Planning

The attached document represents a preliminary view of the Waterford Local Government Committee regarding the location of services and workforce planning. It has been prepared for the purposes of initial consultation with staff and political representatives and for further detailed analysis by the Joint Management Teams and senior staff of both Councils.

It has to be emphasised that proposals in the document are consequent on very significant assumptions that may be valid or not and consequently significant change may occur through the process. The issues will revert to the Implementation Committee in early February for consideration following detailed analysis and consultation.

A. Issues That Have a Bearing on Customer Service Location and/or Workforce Planning

1. Customer Service - Population Distribution

There are nearly 70,000 people living within 10 miles of Waterford City and the remainder of the County having relatively low population density with the exception of Dungarvan and its immediate environs. The population distribution needs to be taken into account when considering the delivery of services and the formation of Municipal Districts.

It is inevitable that there will be significant additional demands for services in Waterford City arising from those living in the East Waterford area. The single objective of the amalgamation has to be to ensure that customer standards are at the minimum sustained and where possible improved in the new entity.

2. Political Structure


The Report of the Waterford Local Government Committee saw merit in dividing into three sub county areas, namely, eastern part of county, central zone and west county. The Local Electoral Boundary Committee will define these boundaries and submissions will be made by either the individual Local Authorities and/or the Implementation Committee.

Other configurations may be considered by the Boundary Commission.

Appendix 6 of “Putting People First” outlines reserved functions that could be transferred to Municipal Districts and the extent of these functions will have a bearing on staff servicing demands.

The status of the Mayoralty of the Metropolitan Area, the role of the Leader or Chair of the Council and the functions assigned to the Municipal Districts are all issues that will impinge on workforce planning. They are, however, along with other issues, matters that will be provided for in impending legislation and are not within the remit of the Committee.

3. Specific Provision for Economic Development in Putting People First

It is the intent that a Director for Economic Development be appointed for the City and County in early 2013. This would facilitate the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy for the City and County with a particular emphasis on the Gateway. It is important that the current workload of any Director appointed is adequately dealt with. Equally the Office will ultimately require specific personnel resources as well as inheriting responsibility for the newly formed Local Enterprise Offices.

4. National Framework for Workforce Planning

A National Framework for Workforce Planning has been undertaken for the local government sector outlining typical numbers for authorities of different scale. It will be necessary to have regard to this framework when determining the future staff structure. With respect to the Management Team for example, it is envisaged that there will be 5 Directors of Service (including the Director for Economic Development) and one Head of Finance.

5. Existing Staff Distribution

The existing staff distribution has a bearing on the overall workforce planning exercise and it is an objective of the committee to generate the least possible disturbance in terms of location base of staff subject to:

• the overall goals of a fit for purpose organisation being achieved and

• necessary efficiencies being achieved through reduction of staff numbers.

6. Surplus Staff/Identification of Work Streams

It will be necessary to achieve efficiencies through a reduction in staff numbers. It is intended to commence following the local elections in 2014 with a fit for purpose organisation and consequently a surplus of staff will have to be declared under the Croke Park Agreement. Redeployment is and will be an option under the agreement but it is envisaged that the majority of the reduction in numbers will be achieved through natural wastage with some potential for voluntary redundancy (dependent on the scheme to be adopted nationally).

Accordingly it will be necessary to identify work streams for staff outside of the core future complement at the point of amalgamation and the following are the areas to be considered:

• Project work through national shared services

• Transition office for Irish Water

• Amalgamation workload (records, procedures etc) that can be deferred until post implementation

• Specific projects on economic development

• Specific projects for embedment of Health and Safety

7. Issues of Difference Between Workforces

There are differences of policy and approach between the City and County with respect to flexi time arrangements, clocking in and working hours that will have to be resolved as part of the process. Equally there are long-term acting positions that cannot be continued in the new entity and that will have to be resolved.

B. Location of Departments – Core Issues

The Local Government Committee report has previously recommended the retention of offices in both Waterford City and Dungarvan “as at present” while allowing for consolidation of services. In essence there are a number of scenarios that could be looked at for the new organisational model and these can be reflected as follows:

1. Structure on the Basis of Main Offices for Functional Areas being spread between Dungarvan and Waterford.

This would envisage primary offices for different functional areas being split between Dungarvan and Waterford with the criteria for deciding the locations being primarily based on customer demand and the level of workload currently generated at each location.

2. Structure in Line with Metropolitan and Municipal Areas.

In essence this would envisage services being delivered in Waterford City to the new metropolitan area with services being delivered in Dungarvan to the two other municipal areas. This would be unlikely to achieve the same efficiency and would possibly copper-fasten further geographic divides within the organisation.

3. Structure on the basis of the main services being provided from Waterford City with sub office services based in Dungarvan and the majority of back office services sustained there as well.

This option would cater for the predominance of customer service demands arising in the East of the County while sustaining geographically based services for everybody. There would be issues with perception of downgrading of the county town.

On balance and based on the language of the previous Local Government report it is recommended that scenario 1 be the option chosen.

C. Issues Prevailing Around The Location of Individual Services

Core Services

Roads

The extent of road network in the County is dominant from a roads perspective both in budgetary and administrative terms. There will be a need to sustain a significant department in the City for traffic, urban related and front desk services. Customer contact with respect to parking is greater for the City.

Water Services

The extent of supplies, networks, treatment systems (including water treatment for City) and sources in the County is dominant. A resource will need to be maintained in the City to provide for maintenance supervision and front desk services.

Planning

The issues in respect of planning are not as clear:

• Numerically planning applications are greater from outside Metropolitan Area on a ratio of 60/40.

• The level of engagement with large City files, however, would be far greater.

• It would be accepted that paper files for public viewing can only be sustained as a whole at one location and that core administrative functions need to be sustained at this location.

There would appear to be only two options:

1. Locate main office in City and use assisted digital services for viewing files in Dungarvan or

2. Locate main office in Dungarvan and ensure the main City files are available for viewing in the City.

Ideally validation of files, acceptance and receipting could be done in both locations. On balance it is felt that as a stand alone choice locating the main public office in Dungarvan is the most viable at face value. In this instance large planning files would have to be available in the City for inspection along with a significant digital service. With respect to professional services, development management will have to be provided from both locations while forward planning can be based in either but should probably be located with Economic Development in the City.

Environment

The Environment section in the future will be solely regulatory and planning in function and as such can reside in either location. The extent of county natural amenities would suggest siting in the County as most suitable with enforcement officers sustained in both locations.

Economic Development

It is envisaged that a Director of Services with sole responsibility for economic development will be appointed. As the Gateway function will be a primary focus it is envisaged that this office will be based in the City and that it would include the Tourism function.

Finance

Can reside in either location. Front office services will have to be maintained in both locations with greater demand envisaged from the higher population areas in Waterford City. A key challenge in the longer term will be to transition services to online while debt collection currently represents (and will do so in the future) one of the greatest corporate challenges. The extent of local revenue raised in the City and immediate environs will have to reflected in the service provision.

Cleansing, Parks and Open Spaces and Amenities

These services are primarily City based and need to be located and headquartered in the City.

Housing and Community

The extent of social housing in Waterford City and the social issues pertaining suggest that the main base for this service will have to reside in the City.

Libraries

The library headquarters could possibly be located in either Lismore or Waterford. The user profile, staff situation (Co. Librarian acting only) and book storage capacity suggest the City as the primary site.

Emergency Services

Waterford City has a full-time Fire Brigade serving part of South Kilkenny and East Waterford, while the County has retained services at various locations in the County. On balance it is agreed that the demands of the full-time service and the greater fire risk in the City would see the headquarters in the City.

Human Resources

This is primarily a back office function and could be located in either Waterford or Dungarvan.

Motor Tax

Services will need to be provided at both locations and with the greater numbers likely to use the City service it is envisaged that the Headquarters should reside here.

Corporate/ Management

It is viewed that the Corporate headquarters should reside with the political headquarters in Waterford City. It is envisaged that the Manager will be headquartered in the City while the main offices for the 5 Director of Services and the Head of Finance will be split between the two locations. It is equally envisaged that the Manager and some or all Directors will have to maintain a presence at both locations, particularly in the early days post amalgamation.

ICT

As a back office function this can be located in either location but provisionally Dungarvan is considered the preferred option.

Ancillary Services

Rural Transport

By definition needs to be County based.

Veterinary

This is already a shared service and is headquartered in Dungarvan.
Sports Partnership

The Sports Partnership is currently headquartered in Dungarvan and operates on a shared service basis with personnel in both locations.

Property Management

The City currently has an active though small property management section and accordingly the City is seen as the base.

Sports Facilities

City Council have the RSC, Manor St. John and Williamstown Golf Course complexes, while the County have only the Sports Complex in Dungarvan.

Arts

There probably is a dominance of investment, venues and activity in the City but services will be provided from both City and Dungarvan.

Archive Records

Waterford City Council owns it’s Archive Centre and subject to space requirements being met it would appear logical to use Carrickphierish, albeit an option may exist in the Library Headquarters in Lismore.

Internal Audit

Can be located in either Dungarvan or Waterford and may ultimately become a regional service. Question exists as to whether service should reside with Finance or not – reports directly to Manager.

Heritage and Conservation

The extent of Heritage Assets in the City probably outweigh in workload terms the Natural Heritage issues in the County.

Architects

The limited Architects section in the City should probably be aligned with the Forward Planning Dept. and continue to be focussed on urban regeneration.

D. Possible Location of Main Customer Service Offices for Individual Departments

The following table outlines in summary form the preliminary view of the Committee;









Dungarvan                                                  Waterford City

Core Services

Roads                                                        Corporate Services and Human Resources

Water Services                                           Housing and Community Services
                                                                  (incl. Community Forum & Social
                                                                  Inclusion)

Planning                                                      Economic Development and Tourism

Environment                                                Emergency Services

Finance                                                       Libraries

ICT                                                             Parks, Open Spaces and Playgrounds
                                                                   (incl. Cleansing Operations)

Motor Taxation



Ancillary Services 

Internal Audit                                               Property Management

Sports Partnership                                       Arts

Rural Transport                                           Sports Facilities

Veterinary Services                                      Architects Office

Heritage                                                      Archives and Records Management


E. Next Steps

It is proposed that given the short time frame, that there would be early sign off from the Implementation Committee in relation to a proposed staff structure.

It is intended that detailed analysis will be undertaken by senior staff throughout January for each of the services having regard at a minimum to the following:

• The validity of the preliminary assumptions

• Customer service demands

• Resource allocation and availability

• Analysis of key procedural or policy issues

• The impact of ongoing national initiatives (shared services, procurement etc.)

• Key timeframe issues with milestones identified

• Overall workforce planning

Staff consultations will be undertaken through the union/management steering and operational groups which have been set up through the Significant Change process. The City and County Managers have also committed to undertake staff briefings on an ongoing basis. A consultation and information protocol has been attached as an Appendix to this document.

The Implementation Committee will also be meeting with political representatives from both City and County and will be meeting in early February to further consider the issues.

Notes from WRH meeting tonight 1/11/12

Meeting opened by Mr Gordon Watson - expressed disappointment at no-show from all four Waterford TD's. He outlined SE region almost completely self sufficient. Only cardio thoracic and brain surgery referred out of region. WRH very large hospital - bigger than St. Vincent's or Mater or Tallaght hospitals! Cork/Dublin already overcrowded.

All SE hospitals j...ust 40/50 mins apart. If SE region broken there will be less than 500k population - not enough critical mass to justify regional services like cancer centre etc. Job and service losses will ensue even if that's not the immediate intent.

Proposal is for a unified management board for all SE hospitals required to deliver even better services as the South East Hospitals network.

Reconfigurations cost money. WRH is a teaching hospital of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and hassle memorandum of understanding signed between WIT, RCSI & WRH. V important.

With Coronary treatment - time is crucial. Coronary angioplasty is the optimum treatment provided by cath labs. For best result it needs to occur within 90 mins of heart attack . 90% success rate. National plan says this should be in Waterford 24/7 but it currently operates only 9-5 Mon/Fri! Don't have heart attack outside those times!!! Serious doubts about extension to 24 hr service if region gone and/or competing with Dublin or Cork for resources.

WRH already produces a lot despite historical under resourcing! Prof John Higgins appointed as Chairman of newly appointed Hospitals Restructuring board in June. Board only met for first time in October!! Higgins did his own work in interim with no board imperative! It's his report that is causing all the concern as it has been leaked that it proposes the break up of the SE region.

WRH cancer centre has been commended by HIQA. Why abandon and ignore existing resources in time of economic difficulty?

Memorandum of understanding has been signed between WIT & RCSI. SE population will lose out on healthcare. Decision not yet made. Higgins report due on ministers desk shortly and then to cabinet perhaps before Christmas. Without SE region kilcreene will go. Dr Rob Landers Clinical Director of WRH stated that - if Prof Higgins report is enacted it will be a disaster for SE! Must do everything possible to prevent it.

Senators David Cullinane & Maurice Cummins in attendance. South Tipperary giving full support to WRH proposal. Can't say same true for Carlow/Kilkenny on basis of the say of just 1 or 2 or 3 senior consultants in one hospital in Kilkenny (St. Lukes). Without them - Carlow Kilkenny - the region is weakened and vulnerable to predation. Huge majority of consultants in SE in favour of WRH proposal. Tipp & Wexford on side. Issue in Kilkenny. Doctors in Kilkenny met WRH consultants last night. Support there. Simon Cross - vascular surgeon stated when 'vine withers' they'll be told to move to Cork. Far worse outcomes for SE population. That'll be first thing to go. With 3 vascular surgeons must have minimum 500k population.

Take home pay of hospital workers in city €140m into local economy. Why dismantle something that's functioning very well?

Rob landers - clinical director for cancer care in SE said definitively if this goes ahead and region broken up cancer care will be decimated and cancer care unit will be shut down.

Sen Maurice Cummins spoke - first heard rumours last thurs in Leinster Hs! Contacted Minister Reilly & met him on Wednesday (yesterday). Also met with Waterford & Wexford consultants and TD Paul kehoe in New Ross last Monday. At meeting with Minister yesterday - he (the Minister) gave no commitments. He expects to have draft proposal on 7th and final report on 15th November! Strong possibility decision made before Xmas!!!

Kilkenny has not signed up to SE doc - despite some consultants in KK supporting it. Susan o Reilly (?) head of cancer care in Ireland is very against break up of region. Link to RCSI cannot be over emphasised and with WIT.

HSE South management position is to maintain SE region - he believes. More need for reconfiguration in Dublin than in regions. Senator Cummins & Deputy Conway meeting Min Howlin in Wexford tomorrow. Wexford being promised things from Dublin (?). Kilkenny - one consultant is leading breakaway (probably unbeknownst to general population)! Need to tie down Wexford. Need to convince Kilkenny. Last parish in north of KK closer to Waterford than Dublin! Workers need to lobby politicians. KK GPs had been misled. (end of Senator Cummins contribution which I thought was excellent and left room to hope!?)

Gordon Watson - we need to get message out to south east through politicians and everyone else. Cllr Tom Cunningham - concerned everything based on cross of Dublin Cork Galway & Belfast....?!?!?!?!? (Total opposite of what he argued at amalgamation debate.)

Claire Mahony National President of Nursing & Midwifery - huge cuts coming. Applaud surgeons on stepping out on this issue - need to convince citizens.

Dr Tom Higgins if we want to keep together we need to woo colleagues in Kilkenny Carlow. Plus Wexford are iffy.

Henry Maloney - what we have we must hold. Does average person know what's happening? No. Need to get unions on board. Badger the politicians.

Prof McWade from RCSI - WRH is a dedicated teaching hospital.

Daragh Brennan a GP in Waterford - need to convince GPs in region - we need to talk to them. RCSI/WIT link very important - depth of links need to be known. WRH needs to articulate what's good about hospital also not just risks.

Donie Ormond- if we lose this battle WRH will revert back to a general hospital.

Rena Mulcahy - these meetings need to be replicated in Wexford and KK Carlow. Change name of Waterford reg hospital to SE reg hospital? Calling for action. Wider steering group. Lobby local & national & regional reps. Get word out on street. Let's work together as a region to drive SE agenda to save the level of services we have.

Fred Jackson - St Luke's appear to be fearful that their acute services could be gobbled up - Waterford couldn't accommodate their work. Anyway how can they guarantee they'd survive in Dublin link? Need to reassure St Lukes that WRH has no designs on downgrading KK or Wex hospitals.

Three critical messages - Gordon Watson: (1) call on ppl of SE and let them know what they'll lose. (2) Get wider representation to lobby/steer and (3) We are an academic institution.

What's a City?

The amount of spinning and counter-spinning thats going on regarding the proposed Waterford City and County amalgamation due to be announed next week is phenomenal. In fact those 'in favour' of it think I'm doing a fair amount of spinning - or scaremongering as they call it - myself.

I have only one thing to ask. After the amalgamation - which NOBODY asked for, and which NOBODY had in their programme for Government - will Waterford be the same as Galway?

Just keep asking that question: is it the same as Galway?

If not, then its not equal - whatever they may tell you. A curse on all their houses if they dishonour the oldest city in Ireland.

By the way, the reason I think there's so much spinning is because this proposal is fluid. They're making it up as they go along.

And incidentally, Galway which was a town council up to the eighties found that that structure was hindering their ability to deliver and they applied for and were granted city status. They now want us to go back to some makey-uppy structure akin to the level of an urban town council!

A Municipal Borough or whatever makey-uppy name they have on it. Interesting that that is almost the exact title of Kilkennys Borough Council..... If it's that good; apply it unilaterally - across all our Irish cities. Don't single Waterford out.

Don't mind me. Don't believe my 'spin'. Make up your own mind. Ask the question: IS IT THE SAME AS GALWAY.

If it's not a City Council; it's not a city.

More on Waterford City/County Proposed amalgamation

To those who have read my previous pieces on this topic - apologies you will understand the issues and how I feel about them already. This is a status update I posted to Facebook this evening and I have been asked to publish it here for those who don't use Facebook.

STATUS UPDATE

Since the Munster Express headline yesterday my phone hasn't stopped hopping! Suffice to say that I don't think the merger issue is under the radar anymore. I try not to do politics here but there's been such an outcry I wanted to summarise...my thoughts. For those who want to read more there are 4 articles on my blog going back as far as August 2011. The address is http://www.cllrmaryroche.blogspot.com/


So. As succinctly as I can. Here's what I see as the main threats of amalgamation:

1. The loss of our history as Ireland's oldest city. We have had a dedicated City Council since the late 1100's. A dedicated stand alone city council focussed purely on the city and it's future. Founded in 914 - are we to lose our city status on the eve of our 1,100dth anniversary. But you either get the historic significance of this, or you don't. I do.

2. Regardless of whatever spin is put on it, without a dedicated stand alone city council we will not be the same as Galway, Cork or Dublin. Is there some policy at play that sees those three locations being the focus of future investment? Current IDA activity would appear to suggest it.

3. Without a dedicated city council would the entire southeast lose investment and focus? What would become of our gateway status? It is a struggle as things are. I cannot see how being relegated to some second tier type administration would be better for our city.

4. We would be taking on a County with a €7.9 million deficit meaning any future investment in the city from a future joint council would be severely curtailed.

5. I cannot see where any significant savings would come as there is a national project in shared services being undergone as we speak anyway. This means that things that can be done jointly, or regionally or nationally are already being put in place.

6. I do not understand why a very small number of authorities are being singled out. If this was about delivering better local government surely it would be done on a national basis with well thought out, strategic things that we want to aim for. Why this pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach?

7. My objection is not because I am afraid to lose my seat. If this is about saving money then cut the number of Councillors in both authorities. The city council has already cut our annual budget by €8million per year. I believe cutting numbers (of councillors) and the shared services will deliver actual savings whereas what is being proposed may actually end up costing money as it means the introduction of a whole new organisation. It also means a focus on shaping the organisation for a number of years, taking the focus off driving the city forward.

8. I also believe that local government needs reform. But that won't happen as our centralised parish pump TDs and Ministers will not give up any real authority as it might mean they would have to focus on national issues solely and that would cost them votes in their opinions. Most have no vision of a future Ireland anyway IMHO.

9. In any amalgamated authority the city would form a minority part of any new council as there are more people in the county. This would lead to a prioritisation of resources FROM the city TO the county as decided by a majority. So your household charge could end up fixing pathways down on the east Cork border - while we still have no say just 200 yards across the river from the clock tower.

10. Finally I have NO faith in Minister Hogan, nor do I think anyone at Cabinet level cares enough to stop him - despite the fact that I hear on the grapevine that the Taoiseach has told him to back off Galway City, the Gateway to the West. There is silence when it comes to someone defending the Gateway to the Southeast.

And finally finally, I quite simply do not believe that Dungarvan will be the new Headquarters of the Council because it is, in my mind, just too preposterous.

However. Let me say this. If the change that the Minister delivers does, in my opinion, make things better for WATERFORD CITY, I will acknowledge it.

BUT. If Waterford City is downgraded, disadvantaged, compromised or dishonoured in any way I will NEVER accept it and will fight with every weapon in my arsenal to undo that wrong.

Sorry. I know that's long and a rant. But this is very important. To me. And it should be to anyone who cares about our history, our status, or our future.

Thanks,

Mary x

Proposing speech for Motion That Waterford City Council demands that Minister Phil Hogan desist from his proposal to abolish Waterford City Council as an independent entity.

The Minister for the Environment & Local Government Phil Hogan is currently considering the abolition of Waterford City Council as a stand alone entity. I oppose this move as it would strip the city of a dedicated administration. Anyone who has visited either the newly opened medieval Museum or the Bishop’s Palace can see that for 800 years the city council has worked to protect the rights and privileges of this ancient city and the citizens that live here and make it the place that it is today. Todays Council is the inheritor of that work and we continue to work to lead and develop our city. I for one am proud of our achievements so far.



We would not be here without the determination and energy of the great Viking merchant traders who founded this Waterford almost 1100 years ago . Are we on the eve of the 1100th anniversary of the founding of this city going to allow it to be relegated to a second class city when for centuries Waterford was Ireland’s second city and greatest port?



The Great Charter Roll in the Medieval Museum and the story it tells leave us in no doubt that protecting the rights of this city has been a continuous struggle and that for over five hundred years this city council went to great lengths to defend its rights and its trade and commerce from outside interference.



Is this council going to go down in history as the Council that after 800 years of governing and protecting Waterford allowed the destruction of one of the most ancient and noble centres of local government in Europe? We are a city that is older than Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Moscow, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, or Brussels! We need to stand together and stand up for Waterford city and perhaps we will be treated with the dignity and respect that we and the people of this ancient metropolis deserve. We are the elected representatives of the people of Waterford if we don’t defend the city, who will?

Are the people of this ancient City to be given a chance to vote on this proposal? Where is the democracy in this decision? I demand that at the very least the Minister conduct a plebiscite on this most important issue and I call on the leaders of Waterford City to follow the example of over 800 past Mayors and Councils to defend our City. Perhaps the European Union, with its principle of subsidiarity might even insist that we look again at any dilution of democracy in Ireland – already the most centralised country in the western world, if the Government refuses to listen.

We admire the traditions of our European neighbours yet Minister Hogan seems to be singlehandedly trying to destroy over 1,000 years of tradition in Irelands oldest City. Who will speak against him? Who will stand up for Waterford? Who will defend our City and ensure that it can grow and thrive into the future?

Why Are We So Full of Road Rage?

Is there something in the water? Or the air? Has the rain and cloud caused us psychological resentment that we need to vent on others? What is it about being behind the wheel of a car that makes some motorists (I include myself in this generalisation) behave in a much more aggressive manner than they would do in face to face meetings with other people???

In recent weeks I have really been watching people in cars. We think we own the world! We drive too close to cyclists; we don't give pedestrians priority - even when they're out in pouring rain; we bully drivers who make the slightest mistake; we are aggressive!

Personally I have started to try and modify my driver behaviour, to be more conciliatory. More human. I have tried to stop yelling at motorists who don't indicate on roundabouts....perhaps they're lost. I have tried to be more aware of other types of road-users, they're entitled to use the space too. I have tried to become more polite...to allow pedestrians to cross, to not take a motoring fauxpas as a personal slight. Not to assume other drivers are pulling out in front of me deliberately, or going too slow just to annoy me or breaking red lights just because they feel superior. In a word to be more patient.

It isn't easy. There are a lot of bad drivers out there. A lot of inconsiderate drivers. A lot of stupid drivers. A lot of downright dangerous and aggressive drivers. But everyone who makes a mistake doesn't fall in to that category.

Perhaps they are a person who has just had bad news? Perhaps they were up all night with a sick child? Maybe they don't know where their next mortgage payment is coming from? I try to reach out for the people behind the wheel rather than just the anonymous driver.

I've made mistakes myself, distracted maybe by whinging children or worried about some problem or other. Sometimes I've been plain wrong - although I am a very aware driver and try to take utmost care. But I'm human. Who isn't? I don't deserve the kind of vitriol that as drivers, we have become accustomed to doling out to other drivers who we think have slighted us. We need to pull back and become a bit more understanding and less precious. After all none of us is perfect. And other drivers (mostly) aren't just out to abuse the rules and or us!


A bit like in real life, we can't make judgements on people until we've walked in their shoes. (Or driven lol.) We need to pull back from a coarsening in our society indicated by our perceived absolute superiority complexes when we're behind the wheel.

Chill out people. We behave when in cars in a way that we would never behave when we meet people face to face. We're polite and accommodating. A little more of that from us drivers wouldn't go astray!

Second Submission Document in relation to Amalgamation Consultation Committee

Second Submission Document on behalf of the
Members of Waterford City Council.
For the attention of Waterford City Council & Waterford County Council
Amalgamation Consultation Committee.

We would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for affording us the opportunity to address them a second time and indeed for allowing us to make a further written submission. Essentially we have no desire to go over the ground covered in our first combined submission. However as more information has come to light in the interim which deals specifically with costs & savings we would ask the committee to give serious consideration to the points below:

The following can be said with certainty

· At face value there would appear to be €1.8 Million per annum possible additional saving for the amalgamation option but this will be neutered by the shared services initiatives at National level, by political and staff vested interests and by the sheer length of time taken to achieve the change with the instruments available. The truth is, nothing is ever achieved in a ten year timeframe, particularly in the political and public domain, as the world will simply have moved on and the environment driving the proposal will have changed so much that the project will never be completed.

· It is simply implausible for the Committee to say with any certainty that there will be additional savings of more than €1 Million per annum for the amalgamation option over the shared services option and that these savings will be achieved without significant cost and in anything less than a six or seven year period.

· The Committee has no certain knowledge that there will be betterment of service consequent on either option and there is almost certainly likely to be a worsening in service and capacity in the combined organisation.

· It is certain that there will be reduced democratic representation and consequent reduction of real subsidiarity.

· There will certainly be resource drift from the gateway consequent on the demographic and electoral profile.

· There are certainly reputational and status implications for the City.

· There are potential gains from a merger that are unmeasurable but there are also potential risks that are unmeasurable but far greater. These are primarily consequent on the mission difference - particularly in the social area. This risk can be quantified by comparison to Limerick where the regeneration, social, policing and future health bill is in the order of €1.5 – 2 Billion.

· Is the possibility of taking on a €1-2 Billion future cost anyway viable for a saving of €1 Million per annum.


What logic is there to taking this risk when a viable alternative exists?

What is the viable alternative?

Undertake the Shared Services piece of work in the first six or seven years. This will yield the majority of savings in this period anyway - at a lesser cost. Review the operation after six years with a view to possible implementation in 2018 – if it is the right thing to do at this stage.

If the cost of the democratic representation consequent on two Councils in the interim is considered too great – reduce the numbers across both Councils for the 2013 to 2018 period.


What are the advantages of this alternative?

It yields certainty and manages risk better.

It achieves the majority of the savings that are immediately available anyway.

It allows the mix at national level to settle down and national efficiency initiatives and other proposals such as continuation or otherwise of the Croke Park Agreement to be resolved.

It makes the amalgamation far more deliverable post 2018.

(photo shows restored section of Waterford City Great Charter)

Mullane. Corbett. Time To Pay The Players?

Okay, so it's not my area of expertise - but I know a tremendous sportsman when I see one. And John Mullane is just such a sportsman. In the last 24 hours John, along with Tipperarys' infamous Lar Corbett have both announced retirements (of varying degrees - we hope John will be back in time) from Inter-County hurling causing shock and dismay across their respective Counties.

Listening - as I do - to a lot of commentary, it is obvious that the level of commitment required from amateur players in these days is, to be honest, excessive. They seem to train almost as much as professionals; their fitness and conditioning regimes are similar to professionals and their commitment and passion are in most cases from what I can see, superior to professionals. And that's all before they do their so-called 'real' days work!

What I can't understand (especially in these days of so much unemployment) is why the GAA refuse to even consider paying players or allowing them some kind of representational payment which might go some way towards allowing them to ease up on the requirement for a day job.

Why can't young boys grow up and dream of being a professional hurler - the same way they can aspire to be a professional rugby or football player? Surely with a little imagination it could be organised that Inter-County teams would have at least semi-professional players? That is in fact what they are - in every aspect, except pay.

We are expecting too much from our hurlers to expect them to give us the level of commitment now required at that level - and to hold down a full time job. Mullane and Corbett prove the case. We need guys like them on the field, playing for their Counties and for our entertainment. Not pulled in so many directions that they quite simply have to drop out - even if it's just for season!

I have to say, it's a no-brainer to me - and it creates jobs into the bargain. I'd call that a WIN:WIN.

But sure what do I know? (I hear you jeer....) I know we've lost two great servants to the sport - and I think that could be avoided. End of. (Other than that, I know nothing - I admit it!)