• Tá Tú Anseo:
• Baile /
• Óráidí

Óráidí

"Managing an Organisation responding to Current Challenges - Lessons for Local Authorities" (28.09.2004)

Address by Ms Emily O'Reilly (Ombudsman) at Local Government Directors Association, 2004 Annual Conference

Introduction

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak at this Conference of Local Government Directors Association and particularly as it is your first Conference. I am especially pleased and gratified that you have included the Ombudsman among your guest speakers for your first conference. And on top of that, I am delighted to be back in my home town today. I was born up the road in Clonminch and if you want to know what year, you may have to apply to the Information Commissioner under Freedom of Information legislation!

My father worked for the ESB in the midland counties for many years, my two aunts worked as nurses from the 1950s to the 1970s in Tullamore General Hospital, my uncle Philip was the local undertaker, a position which is still held today by my cousin Phil O'Reilly. So all in all I am glad to see that my family has contributed some small degree of public service to this town.

The Office of the Ombudsman is twenty years old this year. Like many other organisations, it has grown and developed, not so much in size, as in maturity of corporate wisdom, in confidence, and in its ability to adapt and change to meet the demands of a changing world while its core and basic functions have remained more or less statutorily unaltered. Without resorting to 'legalese' to describe what an Ombudsman does, I would like to quote from a report last year (2003) to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on the institution of Ombudsmen:

The Swedish word "Ombudsman" translates literally as "people's representative,....Freely interpreted, it means an independent official to whom citizens can turn in confidence with complaints and who, in the interests of greater legal protection, acts as a watchdog, a warning-mechanism and a mediating body in relation to the authorities. The institution can properly be described as an independent and impartial office responsible both for maintaining and improving the quality of public administration and for correcting acts of maladministration, located between citizens and the administrative authorities and intervening either in response to individual complaints or of his/her own initiative.

That description of what an Ombudsman is and does was put together by a committee of persons from all over Europe and it also succinctly describes how the Office of the Ombudsman works in Ireland.

So for the purposes of today's conference, I would like to illustrate some lessons that you may be able to draw from the perspective of the Ombudsman and from the office's experience of dealing with Local Authorities over the last two decades or so. I hope that my comments will provide you with some food for thought and also some reassurance that you can take back to your respective authorities.

What are the Current Challenges in Managing a Public Service Organisation

As I see it, the challenges facing local authorities (LAs) are many and varied but I have decided to select a number of specific issues and to set out my comments on them under four main headings:

1. Meeting expectations
2. Process reform
3. Duty to the individual and the public interest
4. Quality of output

Meeting the Expectations of the Public (clients)

This is probably the most important and most difficult challenge for public bodies. The public no longer tolerates poor service. They may have no place else to go but they will let you know what they think of whatever it is you're offering.

Gone are the days when the public would accept being told .. it will be dealt with as soon as possible or, the person who is dealing with your case isn't here at the moment, or we have a backlog and we don't know when we will get to your case. Like every other public body, my own office sometimes has recourse to those explanations for apparent tardiness. As a complainant said to one of my staff recently ... I don't want to hear about your problems. I want to know when will I get a report from the Ombudsman.

When I was a journalist and didn't produce sparkling copy, or wrote a so-so news report or column, I was never able to add at the end; look I know this isn't as good as it should be, but I was tired, or rushed, or the children were making demands. Neither the people who employed me, nor the people who read me, were tolerant of anything that fell short of a certain standard, especially, as between, them, they were paying my wages.

So how should public bodies respond to higher public expectations of service and efficiency?

We all have options about how to respond to the growing demands from the public:

• do nothing and pretend we don't hear them; bury our head in the sand,
• be defensive and/or offer excuses but change nothing, or
• take on board what is said and look at ways in which the general level of service could be improved so that clients feel their views matter and are taken on board.

Internal Complaints Systems

On way in which LAs can move to meet the expectations of the public is to have an internal complaints/appeals system in place so that mistakes, errors and reviews of decision can be facilitated on a systematic basis. I came across a case recently where the local authority advised the client to go to the Ombudsman because it had no formalised system itself for reviewing the decision taken. While it did the person a service by referring the matter to my Office, it seemed like an avoidable indictment of itself to be confessing that it had no way of reviewing its own decisions. It is very rare for the Ombudsman to see a case where the body complained of, (and I am speaking generally) in response to a complaint, put its hands up straight away and says:

'yes we were wrong in this instance and we have or intend to make an effort to put it right by doing ...'(whatever).

The more likely response to my Office is to write a detailed report explaining/justifying what happened rather than admit, correct and tell the Ombudsman what it has done to deal with the matter and offer redress, if appropriate. Redress might be a matter as simple as an apology....saying sorry we should have done better.

In my view, internal complaints/appeals systems are indicative of a confident organisation, an organisation that has confidence in its decision-making process, confidence in its staff and, most importantly, confidence to scrutinise itself and correct itself where it has failed to meet acceptable standards. My predecessor, Kevin Murphy put a lot of effort and thought into internal complaints systems and, four years ago, published the "Ombudsman's Guide to Internal Complaints Systems" which sets out how to set up an internal complaints process and what the essential features of such a process should include.

I am aware of only 6 LAs who have set up internal appeals procedures. I strongly encourage and support the development of the internal complaints/appeals procedures within LAs as part of the overall Better Local Government and modernisation programmes. Very shortly, the existence of such a system will be as normal and as important as having e-mail or any other tool of modern business practice. My Office often asks, when dealing with a local authority about a complaint, whether an internal complaints system has been implemented and if not whether there are any plans to introduce such systems.

And you're not just doing the client a favour, you're also doing yourselves one, not least of which is that the existence of a proper internal complaints system does reduce complaints to my Office.

Staff tell me that evidence of the effectiveness of such systems is beginning to filter through in that my Office now receives fewer cases in what might be described as in the 'simple/easy' category, as internal systems are dealing with them.

This means that when a complaint is made to my Office, a great deal of the investigative work will already have been done, thus reducing the time needed to deal with my Office.

In a recent case, my Office observed the important and effective role the Complaints Officer was fulfilling in a particular local authority. The Complaints Officer, in dealing with a complaint about a planning matter had:

• explained in detail the sequence of events that occurred
• explained the steps the person could take if still aggrieved, including judicial review
• advised her of the Ombudsman's address and how to make her complaint
• explained that she had no role in planning herself but assured the person that proper procedures had been followed
• showed understanding of the person's concerns
• gave her phone no. and email address and wrote "...if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me..."

Alternatively, compare this with a response that might well have issued in a situation where no internal review structure exists:

Your application for .......... has been refused because you did not qualify under the terms of the Scheme.

Persistent Complainants

It would be naive however to pretend that such systems are the panacea for all situations and that they will not present challenges, particularly in relation to the persistent complainer. Some people just won't go away and systems need to be devised to deal effectively with such cases.

The vast majority of complainants are reasonable people but a tiny minority become totally preoccupied with their grievances. These unusually persistent complainants not only seriously disrupt their own lives, but also, by threatening and intrusive behaviour, frighten those trying to help them.

I recently came across an article on a report on a new study from Australia published in the April issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry. Experienced complaints professionals from six ombudsmen's offices completed questionnaires on both unusually persistent complainants and on a matched control group.

It was found that persistent complainants:

• pursued their complaints for longer
• supplied more written material
• telephoned more often and for longer
• intruded more frequently without an appointment and
• ultimately were still complaining when the case was closed or transferred.

The authors of the study commented that persistent complainants are searching for outcomes that a modern complaints resolution service cannot deliver. Persistent complainants used unusual methods of emphasis, such as:

• multiple underlinings,
• putting words in capital letters
• using exclamation marks and inverted commas,
• as well as extensive marginal notes.

Over half made some form of threat of violence directed at the complaints professionals. Suicide threats were also frequent, which underlines the importance of organisations not only making efforts to protect and support their staff, but also doing all they can to prevent persistent complainants damaging their own lives.

The study concludes that the next phase of research needs to include properly controlled trials of methods of complaint management aimed at preventing these destructive forms of persistent complaining. Better induction of clients into the complaints process is one possibility. Another is actively identifying, and attempting to counter, unrealistic goals on the part of the complainant.

And we wish the study the best of luck.

Can I add that in the case of my own Office we have devised a strategy aimed at coping with such cases through our own internal appeals procedure - a procedure invoked where the person is unhappy with decision of the Ombudsman. We will allow three bites of the cherry i.e. accept and process three reviews after which the complainant is told that if s/he persists with further correspondence it will be put on the file without further action or comment. It is a written framework that brings closure which I will sign off on, and staff know how it operates.

Process Reform

The process of reform under DBG is directly visible in terms of new structures and responsibilities. The benefits of such new structures will be limited in effect, however, if they are not accompanied by a review of internal processes and procedures aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness.

From my perspective, some of these processes and procedures are in urgent need of review. These include; responding to correspondence in a timely way, the streamlining of forms, and updating systems generally but particularly in the area of housing.

Responding to Correspondence

About 10% of complaints dealt with by my Office related to failure to reply to letters, phone calls, emails etc. Leaving aside the question of good manners, the failure to execute such a simple administrative function, projects a poor image of the local authority and compounds the grievance already felt by the individual about another matter entirely.

How many local authorities have policies in place to deal with the need for prompt response to correspondence? The effectiveness of any such policy also needs to be tested through internal control mechanisms/ tools that are capable of measuring performance against agreed objectives, perhaps through business planning at section/unit level as per your statements of strategy, which I am sure you all have. I understand that some local authorities have introduced an electronic tracking system for correspondence and while it may not yet be fully operational, this is a very welcome development.

In my own Office, for example, a small peer group conducts a quarterly audit on a random sample of closed cases, and reports to management on its findings by reference to agreed criteria, e.g. if an acknowledgement issued within 5 days, whether the complainant received regular updates every 6 weeks, whether the case was reviewed at regular intervals, whether the closing letter met the family test for clarity and so on. Without some system to measure performance, an organisation has no way of testing how it actually is performing.

Streamlining

Recently, my staff had discussions with staff of a local authority in relation to the type of forms issued for rent reviews. The forms lack of clarity led directly to delays in rent reviews and some degree of hardship for those involved.

The lack of consistency across local authorities is also a source of concern. Take for example:

• Disabled Persons Grant. Why not a generic scheme, that is a scheme whose core content and qualifying conditions would be the same in every local authority. This week my staff are writing to a particular local authority about their DPG Scheme which was downright confusing. The qualifying conditions were not clearly set out in their policy documentation. They were capable of misinterpretation and other 'rules of behaviour' were introduced in the course of processing the application that had no basis in the Scheme, as published. Criteria for prioritising applications is another issue where, ideally, there should be some degree of uniformity of approach. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is currently looking at this particular issue, at the request of my Office.

• Shared Ownership Scheme, in particular the Explanatory Leaflet which can be confusing, in some instances

• Planning forms and explanatory notes. It seems that when the Planning and Development Act, 2000 came into effect in March 2002, each LA did its own thing with regard to forms, advice notes etc. with the result that some did it better than others. Where it was not done properly there were some serious consequences in that inadequate information led to members of the public being misled and in some instances, losing their statutory rights. I will return to the matter of loss of statutory rights in planning, later.

While each local authority is an autonomous body, I feel I have to ask the question: Does this necessarily mean that each one has to, in effect, 're-invent the wheel' when looking at process reform and replicate the effort involved in each an every authority? I would trust that LAs are not depending on my Office to identify matters that require to be reviewed/reformed but are planning a programme of general reform which includes all forms and documentation open to the public in order to improve them for clarity, accuracy and ease of use.

Updating to Best Practice

Like my predecessor, I have concerns about the number of persons with local authority mortgages who either had no mortgage protection or, having paid mortgage protection, were unsuccessful with a claim, on death, because, as I would see it, the standards in relation to the conduct of the mortgage transactions and the forms used fell below the standard that would be acceptable in the private sector.

One area of particular concern is the health declaration form where due care would not appear to have been taken in the past with regard to statements that have been signed by mortgagees in relation to their health and where the documentation about advice given and how the transaction was processed is, in most instances, inadequate. Again, this is a matter I have taken up with the Department but that should not prevent local authorities from taking a look at their procedures in this area with regard to:

• taking steps to ensure that some evidence of good health is obtained or at least any evidence which suggests otherwise is not ignored in order to complete the transaction
• that proper advice is given and documented and that
• mortgage transactions are fully explained and conducted in a proper manner.

This means that the process of sending documents in the post to be signed should be discouraged, that all aspects of the mortgage including the health declaration should be explained by a suitably qualified/competent person and that evidence of having done so should form part of the record and be signed off by the client.

I would like to see local authorities take steps to improve all aspects of its procedures in the area of mortgages and housing loans.

Introducing a Point Scheme of Letting Priorities

Another area of housing policy that concerns me is the reluctance to introduce points schemes of letting priorities. Outside of the cities, I am aware of only one local authority that has introduced a scheme of letting priorities for allocating houses to applicants on waiting lists, based on the points system.

I fully appreciate the pressure in relation to waiting lists, particularly in view of the enormous population growth certain counties have witnessed. I also accept that the points system may not suit every local authority but, where the demand exceeds the supply of houses, the points system brings openness and transparency to the process without tying up the resources of the local authority.

Unless a local authority is in a position to meet the housing needs of all its applicants, it must prioritise, and individual applicants are entitled to know where they stand on the housing list so that they can plan their lives and have some reasonable estimate of when they can expect to be housed. I am satisfied that a workable and open system can be put in place to achieve fairness and equity in housing allocations. Because of the administrative transparency of the points system, my Office has rarely found evidence of unfairness in cases of complaint whereas, with other systems, we have found that decisions on allocations were sometimes made without a great deal of clarity with regard to qualifying criteria.

In my annual report for 2003 published last May, I gave a fairly detailed account of my dealings with a local authority concerning the introduction of a points scheme of letting priorities in which the reasons for not doing it as well as the arguments for doing it, are mentioned. I would like to commend the particular authority for grasping the nettle and I think that scheme would be a useful template for others who might be considering such a scheme. I will be paying particular attention to this issue in the course of my term as Ombudsman.

Duty to the Public and the Individual

In reflecting on the broad range of services that local authorities provide, I wonder if staff of local authorities appreciate the duty and responsibility they carry in maintaining and supporting the fabric of the community they serve and of the impact on the community of the decisions they take, be they decisions affecting individuals only or larger groups. In a preliminary report on trust in public institutions just published by MORI Ireland it is stated:

"It is clear that organisations must take into account the way in which service delivery is perceived by users and respond accordingly, if they are to retain the trust and confidence of service users in the future."

So what does the MORI report say about trust and confidence in local authorities as compared with other local services such as the local hospital and the Gardaí

You will see that trust is particularly high in local hospitals (74%) and in the local Gardaí (70%) but in local councils it is less positive with less than half (48%) expressing trust in their services. A number of health warnings of course have to be given in relation to this broad brush approach. It is unlikely for example that Gardaí in urban areas, particularly in high crime areas, would receive the same level of support as those in small rural villages and towns and local affection for the local hospital consultant or public health nurse doesn't necessarily, as we know, translate into trust in the national health service.

Nonetheless, the figures for Irish local authorities are roughly the same as those in Britain and can be given some credence. The report goes on to give some reasons why trust in them is less positive than in other local service providers.

According to the report, they are considered a lot less likely than hospitals or Gardaí to:

• learn from their mistakes or
• keep promises.

I spoke at the launch of the report last week and was fascinated by a presentation given by another speaker, Ben Page of MORI UK, who went into great detail about the other factors that affect public perception of local authorities and indeed, arguably, of all public bodies.

Communication is the overriding factor in this area. Again and again he stressed that those Local Councils that get positive feedback are those that not alone provide a good service but who systematically communicate with the public about the services they offer. Clients, customers crave information. They want to know, as clearly and as simply as possible, what the council does, how services can be applied for and who to go to if things go wrong. He said that the single best piece of literature in the armoury of any local authority, and one that received the most positive response, was an A to Z of council services.

Planning is also one of the key factors affecting public trust and confidence in local administration in Ireland. I don't need to rehash the contents of the Tribunals here except to say that with one or two exceptions, the integrity of public officials in planning matters has remained relatively untarnished and that is of some comfort to everyone working in the public service. Yet, public cynicism and scepticism remains and the factors that give rise to this include:

• lack of conviction that politicians have no direct role or influence in planning decisions,
• pre planning meetings with developers that are unrecorded giving rise to the perception that everything is sorted long before the official planning process begins
• the perception that certain people (developers) can have access to planners or the County Manager while others can not.
• failure to enforce the planning code effectively.

I appreciate that much of this is perception but the fact remains that a significant section of the public at large does not appear to share the view that all is transparent, and therein lies the challenge for local authorities.

Planning issues accounted for 27% of all local authority complaints dealt with by my Office last year. Twenty two (22%) were either resolved or partially resolved and in 36% of cases we were able to assist in some way; total benefiting = 58%. This compares with an Office average of 41%.

In relation to the administration of the planning system, the Planning and Development Act, 2000 contained amendments in relation to the circumstances in which the public can make submissions and objections to planning applications. Because of these amendments, it became extremely important that local authorities have effective systems in place to ensure they fulfil their statutory obligation to inform objectors of the planning decision made to enable the objector appeal to An Bord Pleánala, if they wished. Giving individuals inaccurate information about the receipt of planning applications after the Site Notice goes up, is another problematic area that has led to loss of statutory rights. Administrative actions that contribute directly or indirectly to a loss of a statutory right is serious maladministration for which redress by way of compensation would be recommended by my Office.

Instances of maladministration would include:

• failure to notify objectors of outcome of an application
• failure to process applications and objections correctly
• failure to give accurate and up to date information in relation to receipt dates and decision dates etc.

In the past, the amounts of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman have been relatively small (500 - 1000) in individual cases and these have remained more or less unchanged over a number of years. I consider the matter of denial of statutory right to appeal to be of such importance, in the private and public interest, that I am reviewing the amounts recommended in the past with a view to increasing the scale of compensation, with effect from 2005.

While LAs can do very little to alter public perceptions about certain aspects of the planning process itself, they certainly have scope to alter public opinion in the area of planning enforcement.

In the area of enforcement, there is evidence that big projects are receiving some attention, for example, there was the much publicised case of the marine centre in Kerry which was demolished because it was not built on the site for which permission had been granted, was larger by 350 sq. ft. and 30 ft closer to the road than had been approved.

On the other hand, there is also the Citywest case in Saggart, Co Dublin where the development was commenced although the planning application was still under appeal. The appeal has been lost, the development is unauthorised but still the development is in place. According to media reports, steps are to be taken to create a climate for the developer that will enable him to obtain permission in due course but, in the meantime, it would appear that there will be no adverse consequences for the developer for breaking the planning laws. This case is not in my Office so like the public I too am relying on media reports.* These are headline cases but we all know of instances of similar behaviour where less attention is paid because the development is smaller or small scale. I recently agreed a policy line with my staff in relation to small scale infringements of planning and, in agreeing it, I was influenced by my belief that the Planning and Development Act, 2000 enables local authorities to take on a more pro-active role, if they are disposed to doing so, to ensure, insofar as possible and without necessarily going to the courts, that everybody abides by the planning code.

The Act gives a local authority a range of powers it can use to bring about compliance without resorting to the courts and, in relation to complaints about failure to take enforcement action, my policy will be to examine whether the local authority has used the Act to its full potential and, if not, I will be asking the reasons why. So, it will not be sufficient to tell my Office that action is not being taken because the Council feels it would not win if it went to Court. There are a number of steps that can be taken before court action comes into the picture and this is where I think local authorities should be more proactive and not give up at the first attempt. In a recent case I dealt with, the local authority concerned told my Office that it was not going to take a complaint about enforcement further because, having visited the site the matter was not sufficiently serious to warrant further action. This position was taken against a background of having failed to issue a Warning Letter in the first place, as is required under the legislation. This is a simple example of the kind of instance where the local authority must be seen to use the law to full effect to bring about compliance even in a small scale development on the basis that if small scale developments are not seen to be made compliant, why should the public have any reason to believe the larger ones will either?

Quality of Outputs

Local Authorities provide of a wide, disparate range of services, from wheelie bin provision, to pothole repair, to the building of vast housing estates. And resources are limited. I should also acknowledge that the number of people who complain to my Office about LAs is relatively small in the context of the totality of transactions and functions performed by LAs and you should not lose sight of that. Nevertheless, I know from speaking to individual Managers that they are concerned about any complaint appearing in Ombudsman's Annual Report and will breathe a sigh of relief if his/her LA has escaped comment!

Many of my earlier comments this morning would suggest that there is room for improvement in the quality of work produced by some LAs including, for example, the quality of reports produced to my Office in response to complaints, and my staff deal with that matter on a one to one basis with the particular LA, or on other suitable occasions.

The question I would like to leave you with today is whether there is a danger that, the devolution of responsibilities on an area basis, will have implication for consistency in decision making and ultimately on the quality of decisions made as between areas. For example, will Directors of Services communicate effectively with their counterparts in the other areas on matters of common interest and will the lessons learnt in one area be communicated across areas in order to correct systemic problems. Without effective systems to facilitate communication between areas within a local authority and across local authorities, there will be little opportunity for cross fertilisation of new ideas, for sharing information and experience, and leaning from one another. This is a significant challenge for LAs and it would be useful if a project were undertaken to explore whether such communication systems exist, are effective, or have any impact on the quality of decision-making both within and between LAs.

Conclusion

I will confess now that I have taken full advantage of the opportunity presented today to try to get a few key messages across to Directors of Services because of the key roles you have in your respective authorities. The challenges before you are considerable and in some instances daunting. And while my Office may at times be nipping at your heels, you can be assured that we will always be supportive in your efforts at reform and improvement in the delivery of services and any guidance or assistance that we can provide will always be given, willingly. My staff make a point of telling LAs that we are not on opposite sides. True, our primary role is to represent the interests of complainants who have a genuine grievance and we do so independently and objectively. But we also complement the work of LAs and other public bodies in our common efforts to provide a better service to the public.

Many thanks for listening to me so attentively this morning. I hope this Conference is a resounding success for you and that it becomes an established forum in the future where matters that go to the heart of good governance in local administration in Ireland are articulated as part of the process of on-going reform and Delivering Better Local Government.

*Two days after the delivery of above speech it was reported in the media that the development company involved in the Citywest reference above, has been convicted and fined for carrying out unauthorised work.

Back to contents