Name of Strategy:
City of Rockingham Misconduct
Prevention Strategy 2014
Division:
General Management
Department:
Legal Services and General Counsel
Created By:
John Woodhouse
Director, Legal Services and General
Counsel
Updated:
Adopted by Council February 2014
File Location:
CPM/81 D14/31597
Specific Purpose Strategies are aimed at achieving the aspirations
in the City of Rockingham Community Plan
Our Community’s Aspirations for the Future
City of Rockingham Strategic Development Framework
The Specific Purpose Strategies are
key to the achievement of the
aspirations in the City of Rockingham
Community Plan, and drive the
content of the Team Plans, Asset
Management Plan and Infrastructure
Projects Plan.
All implementation actions identified
in the Specific Purpose Strategies are
to be represented in a Team Plan.
Year 1 of the Team Plan becomes
that year’s budget.
CITY OF ROCKINGHAM MISCONDUCT PREVENTION STRATEGY 2014
1. Executive Summary
The adoption of this Strategy, as a “Specific Purpose Strategy” by the Council of the City is a recognition
of:
(a)
the importance of misconduct prevention and of the need to see the risk of misconduct as one
of a number of business risks; and
(b)
the need to adopt an integrated approach to misconduct prevention which is consistent with the
CCC’s “Misconduct Resistance Framework”; and
(c)
the need to imbed the principles of misconduct prevention across all organisational functions of
the City.
A key element of this Strategy, and one to which the utmost priority is to be given, is that each team will
undertake an assessment of misconduct risks which are specifically applicable to that team. Each team’s
team plan will incorporate the misconduct risks and, importantly, the actions and strategies to address and
prevent those risks. The assessment is to be incorporated as a component of the overall
corporate/enterprise risk assessment.
The implementation of the misconduct prevention actions which are to be identified in the team plans will
be supported by the appointment of an internal auditor who will have responsibility for the supervision and
oversight of that implementation. The appointment of an internal auditor will serve a number of purposes
not the least of which is to assist the City’s CEO to discharge the CEO’s statutory responsibility in
reviewing risk management, internal controls and legislative compliance.
Other key elements of this Strategy include a review of:
(a)
the existing public interest disclosure policy; and
(b)
the City’s existing Code of Conduct.
It is intended that, rather than there be one code, there would be 3 codes – one code specifically
applicable to the employees, one applicable to the councillors and one applicable to members of
committees who are neither councillors or employees.
A wide range of actions have been identified in this Strategy aimed not only at policy integration but also
training, detection, reporting and investigation.
An important goal of this Strategy is for the City to develop and maintain a culture which recognises the
damage that can follow when misconduct occurs and to develop a “no tolerance” approach to dishonest
and unethical dealings and behaviour.
This Strategy also recognises the importance of the City having a clear set of values to be observed by
councillors and employees. The values will be consistent with public interest principles and will underpin
and promote ethical behaviour.
2. Purpose
The purposes of this Strategy are:
•
To create and maintain a culture of zero tolerance by the City’s employees towards misconduct.
•
To recognise misconduct as a significant business risk.
•
To integrate misconduct prevention as part of the City’s overall strategic approach to risk
management.
•
To reduce the risk of damage, including reputational damage, arising from the occurrence of
misconduct.
•
To sustain public trust by reinforcing that the City’s employees must:
(a) serve the public interest;
(b) use powers responsibly;
(c) act with honesty and transparency; and
(d) prevent and address misconduct.
•
To develop and maintain the City’s organisational capacity to minimise misconduct.
3. Introduction and Background Information
3.1 The business of local government is diverse and wide ranging. It includes the provision of
infrastructure, services relating to property, provision of sporting and recreational facilities, building,
planning and health approvals and the delivery of community and cultural facilities and services.
3.2 The broad nature of the functions performed by local government and the significant discretion
involved in providing services, contributes to the risk of misconduct. For example, inherent risks are
associated with:
•
Procurement and tendering processes.
•
Planning and building approval processes.
•
Regulatory functions including those carried out by health and building inspectors and by
rangers.
3.3 According to the Corruption and Crime Commission, misconduct risk is high in those business areas
where discretionary authority is exercised and particularly when it is exercised in isolation from the
administrative centre.1
3.4 According to research by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales, local
governments face a wider range of corruption risks than State government authorities.2 In the
Executive Summary to its report, the ICAC stated:
“This arises from the number of high-risk functions that local councils perform and the business
processes that are used to conduct these functions.”3
3.5 ICAC also noted:
“Local councils also appear less likely to use the management controls that are important to
sound corporate governance. This finding was observed across a range of management controls
such as audit mechanisms, risk management processes and fraud control plans. Reduced usage
of such controls makes managing a broad array of corruption risks more challenging.” 4
1
See “Report on the Review of the Capacity of Local Governments in the Pilbara to Prevent, Identify and
Deal with Misconduct” dated 16 April 2013 published by the Corruption and Crime Commission, see para
2.1 [23] on page 7.
2
See “Profiling the NSW Public Sector II: Report 3: Differences between local and state government”
published by the Independent Commission against Corruption (NSW) – page 5.
3
See 2 above at page 5.
4
See 2 above at page 5.
3.6 The incidence of reported misconduct is on the rise in local government. The annual report for
2011/2012 from the CCC notes that, in that year, there were 255 allegations made against WA local
government.5 On average, during that time, allegations have increased at a rate of 10% per annum.
In 2012/2013 there were 301 local government related allegations.
3.7 In recent years the local government sector has been notable for a number of high profile
investigations and prosecutions involving misconduct.
3.8 Perhaps the most widely-reported case is an investigation by the CCC into procurement issues at the
City of Stirling. By mid-2012 a total of 8 people had been charged with 35 offences. One person
pleaded guilty to a corruption charge and was sentenced to 18 months, suspended for 2 years, and
fined $7,500. 2 other pleaded guilty to corruption charges – one was jailed for 18 months.6
The cost to the City of Stirling in terms of loss of productivity and reputational damage is harder to
quantify.
3.9 A number of local government inquiries occurred prior to that of Stirling. In November 2009, the
CCC released its report with respect to the investigation into allegations of misconduct by councillors
and employees of the City of Bayswater and, in December 2009, a report was released into an
investigation of alleged public sector misconduct at the City of Wanneroo. 7
3.10 More recently, in April 2013, the CCC published a report entitled “The Review of the Capacity of
Local Governments in the Pilbara to Prevent, Identify and Deal with Misconduct”. 8
The Executive Summary of the report states:
“As a result of the Commission’s engagement, all four local governments are taking steps to
overcome their exposure to a particularly heightened level of misconduct risk. Prior to the
Commission’s involvement, they had little in way of organisational processes and practices in
place to minimise exposure to their risk. In short, preventing, identifying and dealing with
misconduct in a strategic and systematic manner was not part of their management agenda”.9
5
See Corruption and Crime Commission Annual Report 2011-2012, see Table 4 at para [76] on page 20
See media statement published by the Corruption and Crime Commission dated 22 May 2012.
7
See “Report on the Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct by Councillors or Employees of the City of
Bayswater” dated 13 November 2009 and published by the Corruption and Crime Commission. Also see
“Report on the Investigation of Alleged Public Sector Misconduct at the City of Wanneroo” dated 3
December 2009 published by the Corruption and Crime Commission.
8
See “The Review of the Capacity of Local Governments in the Pilbara to Prevent, Identify and Deal with
Misconduct” dated 16 April 2013 and published by the Corruption and Crime Commission.
9
See 8 above at page xi.……..
6
3.11 During the finalisation of this Strategy, in December 2013, the CCC released a report entitled “Report
on the Investigation of Alleged Public Sector Misconduct by a Local Government Employee in Relation
to The Purchase of Management Systems Software”. The report contains a number of
recommendations concerning procurement and gifts by suppliers. The recommendations include that
consideration be given to the prosecution of a senior local government employee.
3.12 It is recognised in the local government sector, that the relevant legislative framework for local
government establishes a range of requirements which are relevant to misconduct prevention. Those
requirements include:
(a) a code of conduct for employees and for members of council;
(b) a purchasing policy and procedures manual;
(c)
financial compliance processes;
(d) establishment of an audit committee;
(e)
the conduct of an induction program for all new employees;
(f)
annual returns to be completed by senior employees and by members of the council;
(g) better performance management and appraisals;
(h) policies dealing with the acceptance of gifts and financial and other conflicts of interest; and
(i)
a procurement and tender policy.
3.13 Perhaps less widely understood is that legislative compliance is not enough to identify, prevent and
deal with misconduct.
3.14 According to the CCC, the capacity to identify, prevent and deal with misconduct occurs when:
“1. these controls actually address, along with other things, the types of behaviours that
occur within local government that amount to misconduct; and
2.
internal mechanisms within the local government exist to ensure that the processes
described by the controls are actually followed.”10
3.15 There is a growing understanding and recognition in the local government sector, of the importance
of misconduct prevention and of the need to see the risk of misconduct as one of a number of
business risks.
3.16 It is already a requirement for all West Australian government agencies:
“to incorporate in their risk management activities specific consideration of the risk of
corruption and misconduct. Additional agencies are required to report on the measures they
are taking to reduce the risk of corruption and misconduct by including in their Annual Report
an outline of the actions taken to prevent corruption and misconduct.”11
3.17 The importance of local governments adopting and embracing a risk management culture has recently
culminated in a legislative change which has introduced significant responsibilities on the part of the
CEO and a local government’s audit committee.
3.18 In February 2013, changes to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 came into effect to
require local government CEOs to carry out at least a bi-ennual review of legislative compliance,
internal control and risk management and to present the results of the review to the council’s audit
committee.12
3.19 The Regulation now requires the audit committee to consider the CEO’s review and to report the
results of the review to the council.
3.20 The role that both external audits and internal audits can play in relation to risk management is
well documented. In New South Wales, the Chief Executive, Local Government, (a Division of the
Premier and Cabinet) has published, in September 2010, comprehensive “Internal Audit Guidelines”.
In Victoria, the Department of Planning and Community Development, in January 2011, has published
“Audit Committees – A Guide to Good Practice in Local Government”.13
10
See 8 above at para [104] on page 28.
See circular 2005/02 Corruption Prevention issued in March 2005 by the Premier of Western Australia.
12
See Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996. Regulation 17 inserted in Government
Gazette 8 February 2013.
13
See “Internal Audit Guidelines” dated September 2010 published by Premier and Cabinet Division of Local
Government NSW Government.
11
3.21 In the New South Wales Guidelines, the following reasons are given for why all councils should have
an internal audit function:




“It supports good internal governance.
To ensure consistency with other levels of government.
To improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes.
Helps to instil public confidence in our organisation’s ability to operate effectively.”14
One of the issues which the Guidelines says should be taken into account, when considering an
internal audit function, is:
“The need to extend Council’s understanding of risk management beyond traditional areas of
public liability and occupational health and safety, into areas such as internal governance, fraud
risk and broader regulatory risk”.15
The Guidelines continue:
“Key components of good governance include the use of:



Audit Committees;
Internal and External Audit;
Enterprise Risk Management.”16
3.22 The role that internal audit plays is explained in the New South Wales Guideline as follows:
“Internal audit will usually provide advice and assurance over the risk management and internal
control frameworks, but in order to maintain independence, internal audit will not be
responsible for its implementation of risk management or making decisions of how risks should
be treated.”17
3.23 The Guidelines recommend that an internal auditor should be an independent position reporting
directly to the “General Manager” who, in WA, is the CEO.18 In New South Wales, the Guidelines
recommend that the internal auditor would also report to the Audit Committee, although, in WA, it
is recognised that the statutory responsibility for doing so rests with the CEO under the Regulations.
14
15
See 13 above at para 1.2 on page 8.
See 13 above at para 1.2.
See 13 above at para 1.3 on page 9.
17
See 13 above at para 1.3.4 on page 10.
18
See 13 above at para 2.4.1 on page 13.
16
3.24 In September 2013, the Department of Local Government and Communities of Western Australia
revised its Local Government Operational Guideline Number 09 “Audit in Local Government”.
The role and importance of internal auditing is described in the Guideline as follows:
“56. Many local governments have recognised the need to improve their internal auditing processes,
and have moved to either employ an internal auditor or contract out the internal audit
function.
57. Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add
value and improve an organisation’s operations. It helps an organisation accomplish its
objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the
effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes.”19
3.25 The City acknowledges that the CCC is more than a watchdog for misconduct. Under the Corruption
and Crime Commission Act 2003, the CCC has a specific “prevention and education function”. 20 The
CCC is charged with the responsibility of helping to prevent misconduct by a variety of means
including:
“increasing the capacity of public authorities to prevent misconduct by providing advice and
training to those authorities”.
3.26 The City has encouraged its senior staff to attend misconduct workshops conducted by the CCC and
also the CCC’s misconduct resistance forums. Senior staff have been regularly attending both the
workshops and forums.
3.27 To assist public sector agencies to develop an appropriate system to manage misconduct, the CCC has
produced an important document entitled “Misconduct Resistance Framework: an Integrated
Governance Approach to Protecting Agency Integrity”.21
The Framework seeks to achieve 3 outcomes:
19
See “Local Government Operational Guidelines – Number 09 revised September 2013” entitled “Audit in Local Government”
published by the Department of Local Government and Communities.
20
See section 17 on the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003.
21
See “Misconduct Resistance An Integrated Governance Approach to Protecting Agency Integrity” published by the Corruption
and Crime Commission – see link – www.ccc.wa.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/ccc-MR-complete.pdf
(1) the right agency culture;
(2) the right agency operational strategies; and
(3) the right agency management environment.
3.28 In preparing this Strategy, the City recognises the need to adopt an integrated approach (consistent
with the CCC’s Framework document) and to embed the principles of misconduct prevention across all
organisational functions of the City.
3.29 In June 2013, the Council of the City adopted a Policy Framework to ensure that all policies and
procedures created for the City, are relevant, clear, consistent, regularly reviewed and reflect the good
governance of the district.
3.30 The Framework establishes 3 tiers of “policy” within the City as follows:
Council Policy which is adopted by the Council to provide the Chief Executive Officer with the
broad “rules of engagement” or limit/boundaries in respect to a particular matter requiring
action;
Executive Policy is adopted by the executive management team and establishes a whole of
organisation approach to operational policy;
Procedures, Standards and Guidelines Manual to be managed by individual Directors and to
comprise key processes, procedures, systems and guidelines utilised in the day to day operations
of each Team.
3.31 Each of the City’s employees is a member of an operational “Team” and each Team has a Team
Plan.
3.32 Each Team Plan deals with:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Team Overview
Human Resource planning
Operating costs
Looking to the future
Minor operating projects
Major operating projects
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Operating projects with no direct costs
Infrastructure projects
Key performance measures
Revenue
Financial statement
Risk evaluation
3.33 Every Team Plan is informed by the City’s Community Plan and the Specific Purpose Strategies
(including this Strategy).
3.34 The City considers that the Team Plans are the appropriate organisational document within the City
of Rockingham to set out the specific actions to be implemented by each team to identify, prevent
and deal with misconduct – and to address a number of the requirements of the “Key Elements” set
out in section 5. This is to be done as a component of each Team’s overall corporate/enterprise risk
assessment.
3.35 The “Key Elements” include a number of other important documents which need to be reviewed or
developed. It is anticipated that a number of these documents will take the form of an Executive
Policy or an Administration Procedure depending upon the nature of the content.
3.36 For example it is expected that a standardised “Misconduct Reporting Procedure” would be an
Executive Policy. It is recognised that such a Policy should be consistent with the relevant Guidelines
of the CCC.22
22
See “Notification Guidelines for Principal Officers of Public Authorities” dated July 2007 published by the
Corruption and Crime Commission and also see “Disclosure of Misconduct Reports Made to the Corruption and
Crime Commission – Guidelines for Principal Officers of Public Authorities” dated May 2006 published by the
CCC.
4. Situation Exploration
4.1 Understanding the current situation
In the past, and in common with many other local governments, the City has relied on a
“compliance regime” to protect itself and the community it serves from misconduct.
The focus of that “compliance regime” is on meeting the requirements of the Local Government Act
1995 and the Regulations made under the Act including the City’s Code of Conduct, the Local
Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations and the requirements of the Act with respect to annual
returns, gifts, financial and other interests, procurement and tender policies and financial compliance
processes.
Whilst there is a continuing need for a strong and rigorous compliance regime, and whilst that
regime has served the City well, it is recognised that the absence of an integrated approach to
misconduct, leaves open the prospect that incidents of misconduct will be dealt with in isolation and
without the benefit of the identification of trends, opportunities for organisational learning and
consequential changes to mitigate the risks.
4.2 Desired future situation
The City wishes to foster and promote a “whole of organisation” understanding of the meaning of
misconduct and of the most common examples of misconduct.
The City will ensure that each employee understands his or her individual responsibility:
(a) to identify instances where the potential for misconduct exists and to ensure that there risks
are assessed and addressed; and
(b) to identify where misconduct is reasonably suspected and to report those matters.
The City wishes to develop a culture which recognised the damage that can follow when misconduct
occurs and to develop a “no tolerance” approach to dishonest and unethical dealings and behaviour.
4.3 Listing all key elements that could potentially fill the gap
The implementation actions required to address the issues can be conveniently grouped under the
following 4 key elements:

Strategy and Policy Integration – Key Element No. 1;

Training and Development – Key Element No. 2;

Compliance and Detection – Key Element No. 3; and

Reporting and Investigation – Key Element No. 4.
4.4 Prioritising and describing the key elements to focus on
The first step is the adoption of this Strategy as a Specific Purpose Strategy.
Following its adoption, it is a matter having the utmost priority that each Team is to undertake a
documented assessment of the misconduct risks applicable to the Team. In due course each Team
Plan will incorporate the risks which are identified and the actions and strategies to address and
prevent those risks.
The implementation of the misconduct risk assessment is a key item and the appointment of an
Internal Auditor will ensure that there is proper oversight of that implementation.
It is expected that within 12 months of the adoption of this Strategy, specific misconduct prevention
training will have been developed and will have been rolled out to all existing employees. In the
same time frame, a review will have been completed of the existing Public Interest Disclosure Policy
and the Code of Conduct for employees – and a Confidential Reporting System will have been
publicised.
5.
Implementation actions for each identified key element
5.1
Key Element 1: Strategy and Policy Integration
Implementation Action
Estimated Cost
Internal
5.1A Misconduct Prevention Strategy Adoption
This Strategy is to be considered
and adopted as a “Specific
Purpose Strategy”.
5.1B Misconduct risk assessment by each
Team
The Director Legal Services is to
provide a briefing to each Director
and Manager sufficient for them to
understand the nature of possible
misconduct risks and to enable
them to develop a misconduct risk
assessment specifically applicable to
their Team and to do so as part
of the Team’s overall risk
management process. The Chief
Executive Officer and all Directors
and Managers are then to carry
out a misconduct risk assessment
in consultation with members of
their Team. The objective is for
this assessment task including the
identification of prevention actions
and strategies to as a matter of
the utmost priority – and to be
included, in due course, in all
Team Plans.
5.1C Misconduct Reporting Procedure –
Develop as Executive Policy
An Executive Procedure is to be
developed and adopted. The
Procedure is to deal with all
aspects of reporting misconduct.
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
Director Legal Services
and General Counsel
Dec 2013
Staff
Time
Nil
All Team Plans Director Legal Services
and General Counsel
to provide briefings.
Mar 2014
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
The Chief Executive
Officer and all
Directors and
Managers are
responsible for
carrying out
misconduct risk
assessment and
including the
assessment in their
Team Plans.
May 2014
Director Legal Services
and General Counsel
May 2014
Implementation Action
5.1D Code of Conduct – Review with
particular emphasis on Gifts
The existing Code of Conduct,
which applies not only to
employees but also councillors and
committee members, is to be
replaced with 3 new codes one of
which is to be specifically
applicable to employees only. The
development of this code is to
specifically include a review of the
rules to apply to the acceptance of
gifts by employees.
5.1E Public Interest Disclosure Policy –
Review
The existing Policy is to be
reviewed with a view to a new
Executive Policy being adopted.
The review is to be conducted by
the PID Officer who is the
Manager Governance and Councillor
Support.
5.1F Induction Training module –
Review/develop
The existing induction training
modules are to be reviewed with a
view to consolidating all
misconduct information into one
new module and to enhance that
information to the standard of
current best practice. The review
is to ensure that induction training
adequately covers the values to be
observed by all employees and the
required standards of ethical
behaviour.
Estimated Cost
Internal
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Joint responsibility of
Director Legal Services
Chief Executive and General Counsel
Officer
and the Chief
Executive Officer
Jun 2014
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
Staff
Time
Nil
Governance
and Elected
Member
Support
Manager Governance
Apr 2014
and Councillor Support
Staff
Time
Nil
Human
Resource
Development
Manager Human
Resource Development
in consultation with
Director Legal Services
and General Counsel
Jun 2014
Implementation Action
Estimated Cost
Internal
5.1G Ongoing Training modules –
Develop
A training module is to be
Staff
developed for existing employees
Time
who have already undergone
induction training. The intent is
that this ongoing training module
will enhance an employee’s
understanding of misconduct
prevention and expose the
employee to latest developments.
The training will also focus on
implementation of the City’s values
and ethical behaviour aspirations.
5.1H The Misconduct Incident Register –
Review
The objective is for the Misconduct Staff
Incident Register to be regularly
Time
reviewed by the CEO and the
Executive Management Team.
Trends and recent developments
are to be examined so that
responsive action can be
determined and implemented.
5.1I Internal Auditor – Establish Role
It is proposed that the City
employee a suitably qualified and
experienced person in the role of
Internal Auditor. The role and
responsibilities of this position are
to be developed prior to the
appointment being made.
Staff
Time
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Nil
Human
Resource
Development
Manager Human
Resources in
consultation with
Director Legal Services
and General Counsel
Dec 2014
Nil
Chief Executive Joint responsibility of
Officer and
CEO and all Directors
Directors’ Team
Plan
Quarterly
Nil
Chief Executive Chief Executive Officer
Officer
Mar 2014
Implementation Action
Estimated Cost
Internal
5.1J Executive Audit Group – Establish
Role and Appointment
It is proposed to establish an
Staff
Executive Audit Group. Whilst the Time
Internal Auditor is to report
directly to the CEO, the CEO is to
be supported by the Executive
Audit Group. The role and the
responsibilities of this Group
together with the makeup of the
Group are to be developed by the
CEO and the Director Legal
Services and General Counsel prior
to the appointment of members of
the Group.
5.1K Internal Auditor – Appoint
The objective is to appoint an
Internal Auditor as soon as
practicable after the role and
responsibilities of that position
have been determined and in time
for the Internal Auditor to oversee
the implementation by each of the
teams of their misconduct
prevention actions to assess the
misconduct risks that each team
has identified.
(1) Staff
Time
associated
with the
recruitmen
t and
appointme
nt.
(2) Salary
and
remunerati
on
package
for
Internal
Auditor
position
and
support
($200,000)
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Nil
Chief Executive
Officer and
Director Legal
Services and
General
Counsel
Joint responsibility
Chief Executive Officer
and Director Legal
Services and General
Counsel
May 2014
Nil
Chief Executive Chief Executive Officer
Officer
May 2014
Implementation Action
5.1L Audit Plan – To be developed by
Internal Auditor
The first priority for the newly
appointed Internal Auditor is for
that person to review each Team’s
misconduct prevention strategies
and to develop a Plan for auditing
the implementation of those
strategies and for carrying out
random and other audits.
5.1M Audit Committee – Role/Terms of
Reference
The role and terms of reference of
the Council’s Audit Committee in
relation to internal audits of
misconduct risk is to be considered
and documented. An Executive
Policy is to be developed setting
out the protocols for reporting by
the Internal Auditor to the CEO
and by the CEO to the Audit
Committee.
Estimated Cost
Internal
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Staff
Time
Nil
Internal
Auditors
Internal Auditor
Staff
time
Nil
Chief Executive Chief Executive Officer
Officer
Deadline
2 months
after
appointme
nt.
May 2014
5.2
Key Element 2: Training and Development
Estimated Cost
Implementation Action
Internal
5.2A Induction Training for new
employees
As soon as practicable after the
development of the Induction
Training Module relating to
Misconduct Prevention the training
is to be rolled out to all existing
employees. Thereafter any new
employee is to undertake the
Induction Training as a priority
after joining the City.
Staff
Time
External
Nil
5.2B Ongoing training program for
existing employees
The objective is that all existing
Staff
Nil
employees are to undergo
Time
“refresher training” in misconduct
prevention biennially.
5.2C Senior Staff – Public Sector/CCC
Training
Staff time Nil
A range of educational
opportunities exist for public sector plus the
costs of
employees. The CCC and the
conference
Integrity Coordinating Group
attendance
in the
conducts regular workshops and
forums and the APSAC Conference case of
the biis held bi-ennually. All senior staff ennial
including CEO and the Executive
Australian
Public
Management Team are to attend
Sector
these and other industry
Antigatherings as required to maintain Corruption
an up to date understanding of
Conference
best practice in misconduct
prevention.
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Human
Resource
Development
Manager Human
Resource Development
May 2014
– training
for
existing
employees
.
Ongoing
for new
employees
Human
Resource
Development
Manager Human
Resource Development
Biennially
All Team Plans All Senior Staff
Ongoing
Estimated Cost
Implementation Action
Internal
5.2D Audit Committee – training
The Council’s Audit Committee has
statutory responsibility for,
amongst other things the review of
the Chief Executive Officer’s report
concerning risk management,
internal control and legislative
compliance. The objective is for
the relevant councillors to undergo
training with respect to misconduct
risks and strategies for misconduct
prevention. The CEO and Director
Legal Services and General Counsel
are to identify suitable training
opportunities for these councillors.
5.2E List of common Misconduct
Examples – preparation and
circulation
The objective is to develop a list
of common misconduct examples
which will assist all teams to
identify misconduct risks which are
specifically applicable to their
Team. It is also an objective to
distribute this list in time to assist
Teams develop their misconduct
prevention strategies.
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Staff
Time
Nil
Not applicable
Chief Executive Officer
has responsibility for
promoting training
opportunities to the
Committee members
Annually
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
Director Legal Service
and General Counsel
Mar 2014
5.3
Key Element 3: Compliance and Detection
Estimated Cost
Implementation Action
Internal
5.3A Implementation by all Teams of
actions to address misconduct risks
All Teams are to conduct a
misconduct risk evaluation
including identifying actions to
address specific misconduct risks –
no later than April 2014. See
5.1B above.
The objective is that all Teams
commence implementation of those
actions and strategies immediately
thereafter and in accordance with
the deadlines specified in the risk
assessment. The Internal Auditor
is responsible for the oversight of
this implementation. See 5.1K and
5.1M above.
5.3B Gift Register – Periodic Review
A Gift Register is required to be
kept, and completed by employees,
under the Local Government Act
1995. The objective is that the
Gift Register is to be reviewed
regularly by the Chief Executive
Officer and the Executive Audit
Group. The review is to include
an examination of trends, recent
developments and possible noncompliance.
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Staff
Time
Nil
All Team Plans All Managers
Deadlines
as
specified
in the
initial risk
assessmen
t and
subsequen
tly in the
Team
Plans
Staff
Time
Nil
Chief Executive Joint responsibility of
Officer
Chief Executive Officer
and Executive Audit
Team
Quarterly
5.4
Key Element 4: Reporting and Investigation
Estimated Cost
Implementation Action
Internal
5.4A Misconduct Investigation Process –
Standardisation
The objective is to develop a
standard process and procedure for
investigating allegations and
incidents of misconduct. This is to
take the form of an Executive
Policy. The Policy is to include
the procedure to deal with
allegations against employees at all
levels, including the CEO and
senior staff – and allegations
against councillors.
5.4B Confidential Reporting System Establishment
The objective is to establish a
system by which the public and
employees can report allegations
and incidents of employee
misconduct – and do so
confidentially. The system is to be
available on the City’s web page
and intranet.
External
Represented
in which
Team Plan
Person Responsible
Deadline
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
Director Legal Services Jul 2014
and General Counsel is
to develop the Executive
Policy for approval by
the Chief Executive
Officer
Staff
Time
Nil
Legal Services
Director Legal Services Oct
and General Counsel is 2014
to develop the system
with implementation of
the system on the City’s
web page and intranet
to be the responsibility
of Customer and
Corporate Support
Customer and
Corporate
Support