the corporate governance of regional and local public ... · pdf filethe corporate governance...

The Corporate Governanceof Regional and LocalPublic Service Bodies inIreland

Muiris MacCarthaigh

CPMR Research Report 8

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page i

First published in 2007by the Institute of Public Administration57-61 Lansdowne RoadDublin 4Ireland

in association withThe Committee for Public Management Research

www.ipa.ie

© 2007 with the Institute of Public Administration

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or any information storage andretrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978-1-904541-59-2ISSN: 1393-9424

Cover design by Slick Fish Design, DublinTypeset by Computertype Ltd, DublinPrinted in Ireland by Future Print, Dublin

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page ii

This study would not have been possible without the goodwill and activesupport of those personnel in regional and local bodies throughout the statewho took the time to complete the questionnaires. I am also grateful to thosein the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government;Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; Education and Science; Enterprise,Trade and Employment; Communications, Marine and Natural Resources;Transport; Arts, Sports and Tourism and the Office of the Minister forChildren who helped fill any gaps that emerged in my knowledge of sub-national governance. Responsibility for the findings presented hereremain with the author.

Thanks also to the Committee for Public Management Research for itssupport and direction in the completion of the project, which is the second phase of a major programme of research into public service bodiesco-ordinated by Peter C. Humphreys. We are also grateful to Koen Verhoestand Bram Verscheure at the Instituut voor de Overheid in Leuven whofacilitated the questionnaire design and database management.

Thanks also to my colleagues Richard Boyle and Orla O’Donnell for usefulcomments on earlier drafts, as well as to Jeanette Mair and Deirdre Mooneyfor assisting with the data collection and report editing.

Muiris MacCarthaigh

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page iii

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page iv

vTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ix

1. Introduction 11.1 Setting the scene 11.2 Structure of the report 1

2. Research objectives, definitions and methodology 32.1 Terms of reference 32.2 Key definitions and concepts 3

2.2.1 Irish public service 32.2.2 Public service bodies / agencies 3

2.2.2.1 Why agencies? 42.2.2.2 What are public service bodies set up to do? 5

2.2.3 Local and regional 62.2.4 Corporate governance 6

2.3 Survey methodology 7

3. Overview of Irish public service bodies 93.1 Types of public body in Ireland 93.2 National non-commercial bodies 93.3 Commercial bodies 93.4 Local and regional non-commercial bodies 10

4. Non-commercial local and regional bodies – creation and features 134.1 Local authorities 144.2 Local and regional administration 154.3 Educational 184.4 Promotional and developmental 184.5 Co-ordination 22

4.5.1 The EU and co-ordination at local and regional level 234.6 Conclusions 24

5. Autonomy and accountability of non-commercial local and regional bodies in relation to human resources 255.1 Introduction 255.2 Strategic HR autonomy: 11 sub-sectors 255.3 Strategic HR autonomy: local authorities 275.4 Individual HR autonomy: 11 sub-sectors 285.5 Individual HR autonomy: local authorities 295.6 Summary 29

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page v

viCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

6. Autonomy and accountability of non-commercial local and regional bodies in relation to financial management 316.1 Introduction 316.2 Sources of funding: 11 sub-sectors 316.3 Sources of funding: local authorities 326.4 Financial autonomy: 11 sub-sectors 336.5 Financial autonomy: local authorities 366.6 Audits: 11 sub-sectors 376.7 Audits: local authorities 406.8 Summary 40

7. Policy autonomy and accountability of non-commercial local and regional bodies 437.1 Introduction 437.2 Deciding on target groups: 11 sub-sectors 437.3 Deciding on target groups: local authorities 447.4 Deciding on policy instruments: 11 sub-sectors 447.5 Deciding on policy instruments: local authorities 457.6 Types of strategy documents: 11 sub-sectors 457.7 Types of strategy documents: local authorities 477.8 Reporting on work done: 11 sub-sectors 477.9 Reporting on work done: local authorities 497.10 Setting goals: 11 sub-sectors 507.11 Setting goals: local authorities 517.12 Performance indicators: 11 sub-sectors 517.13 Performance indicators: local authorities 567.14 Evaluating non-financial results: 11 sub-sectors 577.15 Evaluating non-financial results: local authorities 577.16 Rewards and sanctions: 11 sub-sectors 577.17 Rewards and sanctions: local authorities 587.18 Summary 59

8. Governance structures in non-commercial local and regional bodies 618.1 Introduction 618.2 Board appointment mechanisms and composition: 11 sub-sectors 618.3 Board appointment mechanisms and composition: local authorities 638.4 Appointing and monitoring the CEO: 11 sub-sectors 638.5 Appointing and monitoring the CEO: local authorities 668.6 Results-based management and resource allocation: 11 sub-sectors 668.7 Results-based management and resource allocation: local authorities 678.8 Developing internal reporting and evaluation systems: 11 sub-sectors 688.9 Developing internal reporting and evaluation systems:

local authorities 698.10 Summary 69

9. Relationship between non-commercial local and regional bodies and parent departments and bodies. 719.1 Introduction 719.2 Contacts with departments and parent bodies: 11 sub-sectors 719.3 Contacts between local authorities and the Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government 739.4 Reporting on non-financial results and informal contact:

11 sub-sectors 75

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page vi

9.5 Reporting on non-financial results and informal contact: local authorities 75

9.6 Summary 76

10. Towards a new approach to non-commercial regional and local bodies 7710.1 Introduction 7710.2 The 11 sub-sectors – general findings 7810.3 Findings by sub-sector 7910.4 Findings for local authorities 8110.5 Recommendations for the 11 sub-sectors 83

10.5.1 Creation of new local and regional bodies 8310.5.2 HR autonomy and accountability 8310.5.3 Financial autonomy and accountability 8410.5.4 Policy autonomy and accountability 8410.5.5 Boards 8410.5.6 Relationship between local and regional

bodies and ‘parent’ organisations 8410.6 Recommendations for local authorities 8510.7 Network governance at sub-national level 85

References 87

Appendices 89

viiTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page vii

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page viii

This study provides an original quantitative andqualitative analysis of the corporate governance oflocal and regional non-commercial public servicebodies in Ireland. In so doing, it represents part of awider research programme on Irish public sectorbodies under the auspices of the Committee forPublic Management Research (CPMR)1. As noted inthe CPMR Research Report on Non-CommercialNational Agencies2, the definition of public bodiesmust be one that is not self-selecting and that canfacilitate international comparison. Therefore, asbefore, the working definition of a public servicebody is an organisation that has the followingcharacteristics,

● It is structurally differentiated from otherorganisations.

● It has some capacity for autonomous decisionmaking.

● It has some expectation of continuity over time.● It performs some public function.● It has some personnel.● It has some financial resources.

As with the study of national non-commercialbodies, public organisations operating at local andregional level were invited to complete a surveyquestionnaire in order to assess their autonomy andaccountability. This questionnaire was developedin partnership with the Instituut voor de Overheidof the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Through theCOBRA (Comparative public organisation data Basefor Research and Analysis3) research network,studies of public sector bodies have beenundertaken in Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, andprogress is underway in Italy, Germany and theNetherlands to conduct similar analyses.

The Irish questionnaire was pilot-tested in theInstitute of Public Adminsitraton and a small

number of public service bodies covered by thestudy. Amendments were made in light ofcomments received. The final questionnaireconsists of four sections, as follows:

● Section one: the organisation. This soughtinformation on the body’s history, its currentfunctions, legal status, budget and personnelnumbers.

● Section two: autonomy. This assessed theautonomy of the body in terms of HR, financeand policy.

● Section three: accountability and responsibility.This provided information on the body’s boardand financial audit functions, as well as theaccountability of the CEO.

● Section four: accountability and direction. Thisrecorded information on the body’s strategy anddirection, including its methods of performancemeasurement, as well as issues concerning thebody’s relationship to its parent body/department.

Following revision and testing of the surveyquestionnaire, letters were sent to 283 local andregional non-commercial bodies in February 2006asking them to complete the web-based question-naire (a copy of the questionnaire and this letter areincluded in appendix 4). The data from thesebodies was then entered into an electronic databasefrom which findings were derived. A response rateof 55 per cent or 157 bodies was achieved. In orderto develop a 360-degree perspective on therelationship between the bodies and ‘parent’organisations, semi-structured interviews with civilservants from various departments were alsoconducted during the drafting stage. Whereavailable, official documents on current develop-ments were interrogated and civil and public

ixTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

Executive Summary

_______________

1 www.cpmr.gov.ie2 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005)3 www.publicmanagement-cobra.org

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page ix

servants were also consulted by telephone and e-mail concerning individual local and regionalbodies.

While the majority of bodies in this study areeither indirectly elected or representative of variousstakeholder groups, local authorities are alsoincluded in order to provide a more completepicture of sub-national governance in Ireland. Forease of understanding and interpretation of results,the bodies are categorised by ‘sub-sector’. There aretwelve sub-sectors in all:

● regional authorities● regional assemblies● harbour commissions● vocational education committees● city and county enterprise boards● Partnerships● LEADER groups● regional fisheries boards● regional tourism authorities● city and county development boards● city and county childcare committees● city, county and borough councils

It should be noted that at time of writing,initiatives to change the governance structures andfunctions of several sub-sectors are underway. Thegovernment has adopted a policy to allow localauthorities, where appropriate, take over thefunctions of harbour authorities; regional tourismauthorities are being reconstituted as regionaltourism development boards with an emphasis ontheir strategic rather than administrative roles; andmany of the functions of regional fisheries boardsare to be subsumed into a new national authority.Furthermore, a ‘cohesion’ process is in progress to

provide, where possible, a merger betweenPartnerships and LEADER groups. The conclusionsand recommendations of this study in respect ofthese bodies are constructed in the context of thesereforms.

The survey examined the autonomy andaccountability of these organisations vis-à-vis their‘parent’ organisations in relation to humanresources (strategic and general), finance, policyand management structures. Some general findingsuncovered by the survey include:● The functions most commonly performed by sub-

national bodies in Ireland are direct implementa-tion of policy and co-ordination.

● Over 80 per cent of existing sub-national bodies(other than local authorities) have been createdsince 1990.

● Membership of the EU has had a strong influencein this phenomenon, both in terms of fundingand legislation for the establishment of suchbodies.

● The average staff complement per sub-sectorranged from 3 to over 700 full-time equivalents.

● Budgets ranged from circa €27,000 to €1.5billion.

The degree of autonomy that local and regionalbodies have is an important issue in terms ofgovernance. The table below demonstrates that, interms of HR (strategic and general), finance andpolicy, the degree of autonomy varies widelybetween sub-sectors, with no clear patterns orrelationships emerging. It is notable, however, thatlocal and regional bodies are, on average, likely tohave more autonomy over HR issues for individualstaff and policy than for strategic HR and financeissues.

xCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Sub-Sector Strategic HR Autonomy Financial Policy HR Autonomy for individual staff Autonomy Autonomy

Regional Authorities Minimum Low Low Moderate

Regional Assemblies Low Moderate Low High

Harbour Commissions Maximum Maximum Low Moderate

VECs Minimum Low Moderate Moderate

Enterprise Boards Minimum Low Low Moderate

Partnerships High Maximum Moderate Moderate

LEADER Maximum Maximum Moderate Moderate

Reg. Fisheries Boards Minimum Moderate Low Moderate

Reg. Tourism Authorities Low Moderate High High

Development Boards Minimum Low None Maximum

Childcare Committees Moderate High Low Moderate

Local Authorities Minimum Moderate Moderate Moderate

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page x

The detailed analysis of each sub-sector iscontained in the following chapters. What followshere are the principal findings and recommenda-tions in relation first to eleven of the sub-sectors ingeneral and then to the local authorities.

The 11 Sub-Sectors – General FindingsThe eleven (non-directly elected) sub-sectors rangeconsiderably in age and function. However, someimportant patterns emerge. Just as the study ofnational non-commercial bodies found a sharpincrease in the number of such bodies beingestablished since the early 1990s, so too do themajority of sub-national bodies (80 per cent) datefrom 1990 onward. Also, co-ordination emerges as adefining feature of sub-national government inIreland. Almost one third (32 per cent) of local andregional bodies view co-ordination as their mainrole, which demonstrates recognition of a high levelof activity diffusion at sub-national level, and theneed to avoid duplication. A further 28 per centview direct implementation of policy as theirprimary role with another 18 per cent identifyingspecialist areas of work.

In terms of secondary function, analysis of thenorm for the eleven sub-sectors again identifies co-ordination featuring strongly (23 per cent). Otherprominent roles for sub-national bodies include theprovision of information, advising, the directimplementation of policy and promotional (non-commercial) development.

There is currently considerable institutionalreconfiguration at sub-national level, and at leastthree sub-sectors (harbour commissions, regionalfisheries boards and regional tourism authorities)have recently been abolished or are in the processof reform or having their main functions subsumedby other organisations. Many Partnershipcompanies and LEADER groups have also recentlybeen merged, with more to follow. Membership ofthe EU has also resulted in institutional change atthe sub-national level, and at least half (54 per cent)of organisations other than local authorities notedthat the EU had a ‘strong influence’ on their currentorganisation form. A further 32 per cent report thatthe EU had had ‘some influence’ in this regard.

A significant number of sub-national bodies haveArticles and Memoranda of Association andinterviews suggest that the Code of Practice for theGovernance of State Bodies is used extensively.

The norm for the eleven other sub-sectors revealsthat the aspect of general HR policy which regional

and local organisations are most likely to haveautonomy over is establishing staff evaluationschemes. Few organisations had discretion oversalary levels. Local and regional bodies also haveconsiderable discretion over staff appointment and selection procedures (61 per cent) anddismissal criteria (56 per cent). Approximately halfof the bodies practise some form of internal HRmanagement devolution.

The vast majority of local and regional bodiesreceive their funding from central government.However, several raise some revenue themselves forcurrent expenditure, including harbour commis-sions and Partnership companies. The EU is also animportant source of funding for other sub-sectorsalthough this will change in the context of Ireland’smove from being a net recipient to a net donorwithin the Union. Few can take out loans or shiftbudget by year without ministerial or departmentalapproval, but many can shift budgets by function.Just over half of the eleven sub-sector respondentsreport having an audit committee in their boards,and almost all have been audited externally in thelast two years. Audits tend to focus more onfinancial results, legality and compliance andinternal control systems than on organisationalresults.

Only 15 per cent of sub-national bodies (otherthan local authorities) have discretion overdeciding on target groups, while the equivalentfigure for policy instruments is 13 per cent. Localand regional bodies are also more likely to report onstrategy, objectives, planned investment, financialand non-financial targets than national non-commercial bodies, as well as reporting on workcompleted in these areas. Eighty-nine per cent oflocal and regional bodies in the eleven sub-sectorsproduce annual reports. The vast majority alsopublicly report on financial and non-financialperformance. Fifty-six per cent state that they feelthe number of performance indicators has increasedand an equal number report that indicators are used‘to a large extent’ in their relationship with theirparent department or body. Apart from harbourcommissions, all sub-sectors’ non-financial resultsare evaluated by themselves and an external body,which may or may not be their parent department.Approximately three quarters report that there areno rewards for meeting their goals (mainly resourceincreases), while about half said sanctions existed.

Survey responses indicate that all local andregional bodies have a board (compared to 69 percent of national bodies), appointed by a variety ofmeans from popular or stakeholder election to

xiTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xi

ministerial nomination. The two largest cohorts ofrepresentatives to local and regional bodies(excluding local authorities) are stakeholderrepresentatives and members of local authoritiesnominated to serve on boards of otherorganisations. A majority of boards surveyed aremoving from being concerned with operationalissues to more strategic matters. The roles of thevast majority of CEOs (or equivalent) are put inwriting. Most CEOs are accountable for results, thefunctioning of the organisation, budget administra-tion and compliance with rules and regulations.Half of the CEOs are employed on a permanentbasis, while half are on fixed-term contracts. Themajority of CEOs are evaluated by their boards. Amajority of respondents also report that bothmanagement and boards use internal reporting andevaluation systems to enable results assessment ‘toa large extent’.

While no local politicians are on the boards ofnational non-commercial bodies, a significantnumber of city and county councillors sit on theboards of local and regional bodies. They comprise35 per cent of all board members at local andregional level. Stakeholder representativescomprise a further 31 per cent (Table 8.2). Also,while 29 per cent of board members of nationalbodies are independent experts, only 3 per cent ofthose on the boards of local and regional bodies are.There is also considerable variation across sub-sectors in terms of CEO appointment mechanisms,contracts and evaluation.

One third of local and regional bodies (other thanlocal authorities) meet with their parent departmentquarterly. Almost a quarter reported that they never formally meet with their parent department,while 36 per cent do so annually. Sixty-five per centreport that such meetings focus on the achievementand reporting of results ‘to a large extent’. Many ofthe sub-sectors have representative bodies such asthe Association of City and County EnterpriseBoards, the National Fisheries ManagementExecutive or PLANET (LEADER groups) which alsoact as conduits between local and regionalorganisations and parent bodies. Informal contactby telephone and e-mail is very common, withalmost 70 per cent of survey respondents notingthat it occurred at least once a month, if not morefrequently.

Recommendations for the 11 sub-sectorsWhile each sub-sector, insofar as possible, is treatedindividually in the following chapters, it isappropriate here to present global rather than

individual recommendations. Attention tovariations in role, composition, levels of autonomyand accountability practices between sub-sectors isdrawn throughout this study and should providefood for thought on future reforms. Again, it mustbe noted that several sub-sectors are already under-going a process of change and transformation. It isintended that these recommendations will improvethe corporate governance of local and regionalbodies in Ireland and inform the future develop-ment of sub-national government in Ireland.

Creation of new local and regional bodiesThe bodies considered in this study have multipleroles and duties, and an audit of these functions to identify those that may more appropriately be located within a single national body, includinggovernment departments, would prove useful.While a large number of local and regional bodiesare concerned with co-ordination, it is recognisedin the new National Development Plan 2007-13(p.238) and National Action Plan for SocialInclusion 2007-16 (p.79) that the county and city development boards are ‘the key coordinatingmechanism for public service delivery at locallevel’. In this respect, it is envisaged that a keyfunction of the development boards will be to avoidduplication of function at sub-national level.

A framework for clarifying what functions orservices are more appropriately performed by local,regional or national levels of government would beinstructive. The reasons for adopting sub-nationalduplicate structures instead of a centralised bodywith regional offices should be borne in mind,particularly in the context of decentralisation. Tomaximise effective networking, organisations needto adapt their internal structures and work practicesaccording to the task in hand. In part, the ‘cohesionprocess’ currently in progress for the Partnershipsand LEADER groups within certain local authoritygeographical areas provides evidence that this isalready underway.

Local and regional organisations must alsoharness their resources in tandem with other sub-national (and national) bodies. In general, given thewide variety of organisations currently operating atsub-national level, and the vast array of functionsbeing performed by them, it would not seemprudent to establish any further local or regionalbodies without detailed consideration of existingstructures and how potential reforms would affectthem. The diminution of EU influence (andparticularly funding) over many bodies may also actas a catalyst for future restructuring.

xiiCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xii

HR autonomy and accountabilityAn audit of staff numbers at sub-national levelwould be practical and should be updated at leastannually, taking seasonal variations into account.

It would also be advantageous to develop guide-lines for the devolution of internal HR managementin organisations at sub-national level.

Although salaries are controlled centrally, somecriteria for allowing local discretion over this issuewould be useful, particularly in respect ofperformance-related pay. Many local and regionalbodies report having considerable discretion overhiring of staff and more organisations could begiven greater discretion to decide on staff numberswithin a defined budget.

In this respect, it would be constructive todevelop a system for sharing resources in staffrecruitment within and across sub-sectors.

There should be a contract template for thevarious categories of staff in local and regionalbodies, particularly those who recruit seasonalstaff.

Financial autonomy and accountabilityGiven the variety of local and regional bodies inexistence, consistency around financial reportingstandards and formats should be ensured. Someguidelines for smaller bodies would be valuable inachieving this.

Value for Money audits, where they do not exist,should be introduced on a pilot basis inconjunction with the office of the Comptroller andAuditor-General.

Given that a majority of local and regional bodiesdo not currently have the ability to move budget byyear but are expected to report on future plannedinvestment, the possibility of introducing multi-annual financial packages should be considered.Further extension of the requirement for bodies toproduce multi-annual business plans would assistthis development, and the changing nature of EUfunding as a source of revenue will also requirechanges in financial management arrangements.

Consideration should be given to allowing sub-national bodies, particularly those involved incommercial development, greater freedom to takeout loans once certain criteria are met.

Policy autonomy and accountabilityEnsuring the coherence and consistency of nationalpolicies at sub-national level requires high levels oftrust between central, regional and localgovernment. Allowing greater local discretion overpolicy implementation can foster trust and improve

outcomes and can be enhanced through regularreporting mechanisms. Consideration shouldtherefore be given to allowing greater involvementof local and regional bodies in identifying policyinstruments and the target groups for policy.

Guidelines for the development and best use ofperformance indicators in sub-national bodiesshould be developed.

This study has identified very little use ofrewards and sanctions in the bodies surveyed. Theintroduction of rewards for performance andfinancial efficiency in local and regional bodiesshould be considered in the context of future publicservice modernisation. Conversely, sanctions forpoor performance should also feature in anychanges in this regard.

BoardsIn terms of the non-directly elected bodiesconsidered here, there are significant variations inboard size and composition which often bear littlerelation to the tasks required of them. The lack ofindependent experts on local and regional boards(when compared with national bodies) isprominent in this regard, while other categories ofboard member, such as local councillors andstakeholders, tend to dominate. In order to addressthis, some consideration should be given toformulating guidelines concerning the achievementof an appropriate board composition. Also, theappointment of representatives of local andregional government to the boards of nationalbodies offers opportunities for the views of sub-national government to be more formally reflected.

The demand on boards to become more strategicin carrying out their work, as evidenced by thisstudy, indicates that particular skill-sets concerningstrategic planning are required. One method ofachieving this might be to create a database ofpersons with relevant skills who are qualified toserve on boards of various kinds. A board, or adefined portion of a board, could be appointed fromthis database which could be updated on an annualbasis. This database could be ordered bygeographical area in order to suit the particularrequirements of many sub-national bodies.

Consideration should be given to ensuring thatthe Code of Practice for the Governance of StateBodies is cognisant of the needs of sub-national aswell as national bodies.

Given that a large number of the bodies surveyeddo not have internal audit committees, and the costof employing external auditors, considerationshould be given by parent organisations to

xiiiTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xiii

providing centralised training and/or resources tohelp local and regional bodies in this regard.

Relationship between local and regional bodies and‘parent’ organisations This study has identified a range of reportingpractices and accountability relationships existingbetween the organisations under examination andtheir ‘parent’ body or department. In many cases,intermediate structures are used. It is thereforerecommended that the role and responsibilities of‘parent’ departments in relation to the local and/orregional bodies under their aegis be clarified. In thisrespect, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU orService Level Agreement) should be consideredwhere they do not already exist and where there areweak statutory guidelines. MOUs are increasinglycommon in Irish public administration, and areencouraged as good practice by the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development. They areuseful for managing relationships and helpestablish basic principles and guidelines underwhich two or more entities agree to work.

Also, it is important to ensure that there areregular formal meetings between the bodies and‘parent’ organisations, and that such meetings havea clear format and purpose. Where it does notalready occur, regular attendance of seniordepartmental representatives at the board meetingsof local and regional bodies should be provided for.

Local Authorities – General Findings

The study bears out the fact that much of localauthority activity is conducted within definedstatutory frameworks, and many functions areperformed according to legislative anddepartmental guidelines. In fact, this seems to betrue of sub-national government generally andmany local and regional bodies are similarly bound.However, within the aforementioned frameworks,survey responses indicate that local authorities dohave room for policy manoeuvre, customisationand innovation.

The fact that much of local authority activity isestablished in law accounts for the fact that almostthree quarters of respondents noted that theprimary role of their local authority is the direct implementation of policy. Also, 39 per centstated that regulation is their principal secondary

function. The multi-functional role of localauthorities is reflected in the fact that co-ordination, non-commercial promotionaldevelopment and commercial development alsofeature in responses.

Local authorities display minimum levels ofstrategic HR autonomy. As per the public servicegenerally, policy on staff numbers, salary levels andconditions for promotion are set centrally for alllocal authorities. One area where they havediscretion is in relation to staff evaluation schemes.Almost every local authority practises some level ofinternal HR management devolution. In terms ofindividual HR autonomy, local authorities havemoderate levels of autonomy. Most have discretionin relation to staff promotion, evaluation, dismissaland appointments, but little discretion in relation tosalary and tenure.

Local authorities have moderate financialautonomy. In the overall, local authorities sourcesome 56 per cent of their current expenditure fromlocal sources (commercial rates 26 per cent; goodsand services 30 per cent), with the remainder beingprovided by way of government grants/subsidies(23 per cent) and general-purpose grants from theLocal Government Fund (21 per cent). For most,money from the Local Government Fund and grantsare key sources of revenue for capital and currentexpenditure, with fees and charges alsocontributing a significant portion of income. Whilea minority of councils responded that they hadaudit committees (a point also noted by the recentIndecon report on Local Government Financing4),recent legislative changes5 provide that suchcommittees will be established in all localauthorities, starting with city and county councils.They are also audited annually by the LocalGovernment Audit Service, which also undertakesvalue for money evaluations across the localgovernment sector. New financial managementsystems have also been rolled out, including theintroduction of accrual accounting and riskmanagement techniques.

In terms of target groups and policy instruments,local authorities operate within departmentalguidelines, but in general have moderate policyautonomy. Local authorities are more likely thannational bodies to produce reports on plannedinvestment, and are adept at producing multi-annual business plans. They are also the most likely

xivCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

_______________

4 Indecon Economic Consultants Review of Local Government Financing, (Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, 2006), p. xx5 Local Government (Business Improvements Districts) Act 2006, Section 5

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xiv

of all sub-national bodies to report on workcompleted and all produce annual reports. Ingeneral, local authority goals are set by theauthority, often in conjunction with the Departmentof the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. A majority report that the number ofperformance indictors has increased over the lastfive years. Most local authorities evaluate their non-financial results either themselves or inconjunction with others. Almost half of localauthority respondents reported that some form ofrewards and sanctions existed for their organisation.

For local authorities, the city or county manageris accountable for everything in the organisation tothe elected council with whom he or she worksclosely. A large number of respondents note thatinternal reporting and evaluation systems are beingextensively developed to assess results onobjectives and that divisions in the organisation aremanaged on the basis of results. However, only halfof local authority respondents felt that resources areallocated on the basis of results. Survey responsesalso indicate that local authority management ismore likely than elected members to use internalreporting and evaluation systems.

A variety of communication routes between localauthorities and the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government are utilised. Inparticular, meetings between the department’smanagement advisory committee and the Countyand City Managers’ Association provide animportant channel of communication. Meetingstend to focus on the achievement and reporting ofresults. Local authorities also regularly report onnon-financial results to the department. Consider-able work has been undertaken in recent yearstowards improving governance in local authorities

through the establishment of corporate policygroups and strategic policy committees.

Recommendations for local authoritiesThe new social partnership agreement, Towards2016, calls for further developments in respect ofimproving organisational performance andPerformance Management and DevelopmentSystems (PMDS). These issues are closely related tohuman resource functions and therefore thepossibility of local authorities developing greaterstrategic HR autonomy might usefully be explored.A more developed system of rewards and sanctionsfor performance might also be appropriate in thiscontext.

Although many local authority functions arestatutory, more emphasis should be given toensuring that there is more focus on the allocationof resources on the basis of results and greaterlinkages between strategies and outputs.

In keeping with good corporate governancepractices, methods of involving elected members inlocal authority internal reporting and evaluationsystems would be desirable.

As emphasised throughout this study, the widevariation in current corporate governance arrange-ments across and within sub-sectors make ‘one-size-fits-all’ arrangements impracticable even if itwere to be desirable. However, greater attentionmust be given to the role of non-commercial localand regional bodies in the changing landscape ofIrish public administration. It is hoped that this study will achieve its goal of advancingconsistent thinking as to how the attainment ofappropriate levels of autonomy and accountabilityfor sub-national bodies in Ireland can best beachieved.

xvTHE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xv

00 CPMR Report Prelims 19/07/2007 08:36 Page xvi

1.1 Setting the scene

The development of new organisational arrange-ments has been a defining feature of modern Irishpublic administration. It follows a pattern commonto OECD states, which has seen public administra-tions internationally respond to a variety ofchallenges, including demands for greaterefficiency and productivity. While academic andpractitioner focus has tended to be on theemergence of non-departmental public bodies (oragencies) at the national level, there have also beensome important developments at the sub-nationallevel, which forms the subject of this report.

As part of its work programme, and in response toa specific suggestion arising at the ImplementationGroup of Secretaries General, the Committee forPublic Management Research (CPMR) agreed tocommence a research project on the ‘CorporateGovernance of Agencies’ in Ireland. The first step inthis process involved the creation of a completedatabase of all public bodies operating in Ireland. Intotal, 601 such bodies were identified in a studyconducted in 2003 and, subject to minor revisionsin the context of new bodies emerging and othersbeing reformulated since then, this database hasformed the basis for more detailed analysis. Thestudy of national non-commercial bodies wascompleted in 2005 and approved for publication bythe Committee as CPMR Research Report No. 6,titled The Corporate Governance of Agencies in

Ireland: Non-Commercial National Agencies. Thiscurrent research report represents the next step inthis wider project, and is concerned with thecorporate governance of non-commercial sub-national bodies.

1.2 Structure of the report

Following on from this introductory chapter;Chapter 2 describes the research objectives, some

key definitions and the research projectmethodology.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of Irish publicservice bodies, including the rationale behind theuse of local and regional bodies in Irish publicadministration and the distribution of functionsbetween national and sub-national levels ofgovernment.

Chapter 4 categorises the various types of sub-national body surveyed for this study and presentsaggregate descriptive findings for each type.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 consider the autonomy andaccountability of local and regional bodies in termsof human resources, finance and policy.

Chapters 8 and 9 analyse the governance struc-tures in non-commercial local and regional bodies,and the relationship between such bodies and theirparent departments or bodies.

Chapter 10 summarises the research’s mainfindings and the recommendations emerging fromthem.

1THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE BODIES IN IRELAND

1Introduction

01 CPMR Report Body 19/07/2007 08:37 Page 1

2.1 Terms of reference

The CPMR agreed the following terms of referencefor an overarching thematic research programme onthe corporate governance of public sector bodies.

● Map the development of Irish public serviceagencies over time in order to obtain a clearerunderstanding of the range and variety of suchbodies, in terms of their role, function, corporategovernance and accountability relationships.

● Place this information within a wider inter-national context.

● Identify and discuss key and/or emergentgovernance issues for the future, as well aspossible ways forward in the light of identifiednational and international good practice.

It was agreed that this project would involvedetailed analysis of three different categories ofstate bodies in Ireland:

● national non-commercial bodies● local and regional non-commercial bodies and● local and national commercial bodies.

This study addresses the analysis of the local andregional non-commercial bodies.

2.2 Key definitions and concepts

Before presenting findings from the responses toa survey that provides the main data sources for thisstudy, it is important to clarify the meaning of someterms used in this study. The key terms are the ‘Irishpublic sector/service’, ‘public service bodies/agencies’, ‘local and regional’, and ‘corporategovernance’.

2.2.1 Irish public serviceA distinction must be drawn between the publicsector and the public service. The definition of the

public sector developed by Humphreys andGorman (1987) and currently used by the CentralStatistics Office6 is as follows:

An Irish public sector organisation is defined asany employing body which: (a) directly derivesthe majority of its share capital from Irish publicfunds, or (b) has the majority of its Board/Executive members appointed by an IrishMinister, or (c) directly derives the majority of itsrevenue from Irish public sources. The Irishpublic sector comprises the following administra-tive sub-sectors: the Oireachtas (or NationalParliament) and the Judiciary, the Civil Service,the Garda Síochána (or National Police Force),the Defence Forces, the Local Authorities, theHealth Services, education, the HarbourAuthorities and the State-Sponsored Bodies …Private sector employing organisations aredefined as the residuum (Humphreys andGorman, 1987:8).

The ‘public sector’ therefore comprisesorganisations that are both commercial and non-commercial in character, i.e. bodies that both doand do not derive the bulk of their revenue fromtrading and commercial activities. For example, notonly does it include civil service departments,schools and hospitals, but it also includes largeenterprises in the transport and energy sectors.Also, as well as local authorities, our definitionencompasses regional authorities and bodies. Forthe purposes of this phase of the study, the publicservice does not refer to commercial bodies i.e.those public bodies that for all or a substantial partof their income, depend on the production of goodsor services that are sold directly to the public.

2.2.2 Public service bodies/agenciesInternationally, the development of public bodies

outside of central government ministries and


2Research objectives, definitions and methodology

____________

6 See Central Statistics Office Statistical Bulletin Vol. LXXVI No. 3, (September 2001), pp. 649-650, Dublin: Central Statistics Office.


offices has become a particular focus of attention in the study of public administration andgovernment. Terms such as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (QUANGO), non-departmental body and executive agency havebecome commonplace. However, the wide rangeand variety of such bodies means that identifyingan all-encompassing definition has provedproblematic7. There is consensus, however, that theissues of autonomy and accountability are central toour understanding of these organisations, andidentifying the correct balance between these twofactors remains at the heart of much public sectorreorganisation.

As noted in the CPMR Research Report on Non-Commercial National Agencies8, the definition ofagencies must be one that is not self-selecting andthat can facilitate international comparison. There-fore, as before, the working definition of an agencyis a public service body that has the followingcharacteristics.

● It is structurally differentiated from otherorganisations.

● It has some capacity for autonomous decisionmaking.

● It has some expectation of continuity over time.● It performs some public function.● It has some personnel.● It has some financial resources9.

The IPA Yearbook and Diary refers to state-sponsored bodies (SSBs) as being in general ‘bodies,with powers and duties set by statute or byministerial authority, whose staffs are not civilservants and to whose governing boards or councilsthe government appoints some or all of themembers’. However, it is noted that some suchbodies may in fact be staffed by civil servants10.

In this study, the term public service body orbodies is used to cover both local authorities and

local or regional agencies. In order to delineatefurther the jurisdiction of public service bodies forthe purposes of this study, the database used heredoes not include the following entities within thepublic service:

● The Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas● government departments/offices that have direct

ministerial level representation in cabinet● local/regional offices/branches of civil service

departments/offices● cross-departmental teams● tribunals of inquiry● task forces● non-statutory advisory committees● The Judiciary● The Defence Forces● An Garda Síochána● The Coroner’s Service● The Sheriff’s Service● town councils● individual hospitals and educational institutions● cooperative societies and voluntary organisations● European institutions and international organisa-

tions (apart from those established following the1999 Belfast Agreement).

Thus the 2003 survey identified 211 publicservice bodies operating (on a non-commercialbasis) at national level in Ireland, and a further 283operating at local and regional level.

2.2.2.1 Why agencies?The study of national non-commercial bodies inIreland summarised the main reasons for‘agencification’11. To briefly recap, there are fivereasons12 identified in the literature on national-level public sector organisations, of which eitherone or a multiple can explain the reason for theestablishment a new public sector body.

4COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

_______________

7 See Thynne, I. “State Organisations as agencies: an identifiable and meaningful focus of research?” Public administration anddevelopment Vol. 24 (2004), pp. 1-9; OECD Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities and other Government Bodies (OECD:Paris, 2002), p. 9; Pollitt, C.; Talbot, C.; Caulfield, J. and A. Smullen (eds) Agencies: How Governments do things through Semi-Autonomous Organisations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 10.8 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005).9 It should be noted that in responding to the survey questionnaire, a small number of bodies stated that they had no dedicated budgetor no full-time staff, and were thus technically in breach of the definition above. However, as they were isolated cases, a more informedpicture is provided by including them in the survey.10 Institute of Public Administration Yearbook and Diary 2006 (Dublin: IPA, 2005), p. 183.11 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), pp. 4-712 In a recent study of French quasi-autonomous agencies, Elgie (2006) identifies eight hypotheses for the establishment of agencies:greater efficiency, demonstrating commitment, blame-shifting, political uncertainty, institutional isomorphism, state tradition, politicalleadership and the spread of NPM norms.


(1) Economic/efficiency reasons Pressure to increase the productivity and efficiencyof public sector administrations has encouraged the‘contracting out’ of state services to specialistpublic bodies. This offers opportunities for greateroperational flexibility and more efficient use ofresources.

(2) Changing expectations in societyPublic demands for better and more individually-tailored services has resulted in the creation of newbodies which are viewed as delivering on thesedemands more easily than, for example, agovernment department. Also, public expectationsfor greater involvement in various stages of thepolicy cycle have resulted in more emphasis onconsultation and ‘stakeholder’ participation in thework of public bodies. This is particularly evidentin the case of stakeholder appointments to theboards of such organisations.

(3) Political reasons The logic here is that removing the implementationof policy programmes from civil servicebureaucracies to public bodies facilitates moredecisions being made using economic andefficiency rather than political criteria. Establishingan independent body to deal with political issuescan also allow politicians to publicly demonstratetheir commitment to these issues. Thus ‘agencies’can provide political credibility.

Setting up an independent agency to deal withpolitically problematic issues can also help thepolitical administration to deal with a problematicpolicy area without being seen as directlyresponsible for it. Experience elsewhere would tendto suggest however that instead of deflectingattention, public bodies involved in politicallysensitive issues tend to attract above averageattention from the media13.

Also, political actors may seek the establishmentof a new organisation in order to solve problems intheir policy field. Alternatively, a new body mightbe established to lead change that might otherwisebe directed by forces external to government.Finally, agency-type status may in some cases allowa government to exert more direct political controlover a policy programme, as it is able to appoint theleadership of the organisation and set objective

performance criteria against which to judge itssuccess or otherwise.

(4) SpecialisationThe need for specialist skills and technicalexpertise may result in the establishment of a neworganisation that can employ persons from outsidetraditional civil service structures. It is proposedthat this is itself a form of efficiency in policydelivery as it allows departments more time tofocus on policy development, while the new bodyfocuses on more administrative and implementa-tion tasks.

(5) ‘Isomorphic’ factors This refers to a phenomenon whereby neworganisations are established in order to reflectwhat is regarded as best practice or the mostappropriate form for particular service delivery oractivity. As will be identified later, the EU hasplayed a prominent role, both passively andactively, in the establishment of new organisationsin member states. These include bodies establishedto attract EU funds as well as those created todistribute EU funding. Isomorphism is therefore astrong factor in understanding the rationale behindthe establishment of many local and regional bodiessuch as LEADER groups.

To these five must be added another to take intoaccount the specific role of sub-national bodies.

(6) Sub-national devolutionWhile many of the same principles and rationaleapply to the establishment of sub-national bodes asfor national bodies, including efficiency and (local)specialisation, the establishment of sub-nationalbodies can also represent the devolution of func-tions from the centre. Principally, such devolutionallows for public services to be put closer to theirusers and provide for more local forms ofaccountability and legitimacy through localstakeholder involvement. This is particularly trueof those organisations with directly or indirectlyelected local representatives on their boards.

2.2.2.2 What are public service bodies set up to do?The study by McGauran et al14 found that publicbodies or agencies are established to deliver one ora number of the following specific functions:


_______________

13 Hogwood, B.; Judge, D. and McVicar, M. “Agencies and Accountability” in Rhodes, R. (ed.) Transforming British Government: VolumeI: Changing Institutions (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).14 See McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), pp. 7-8.


● implementing policy● regulation ● advice and policy development● information● research● representation● commercial development● registration● tribunals.

In order to include the range of sub-nationalbodies examined in this report, two furtherfunctions must be added to this list: co-ordinationand promotional development. As Chapter 5details, a number of local and regional bodies inIreland consider their primary tasks to be one ofthese latter two functions. Co-ordination is a corepreoccupation of public administration but is usedin varying contexts. For our purposes, co-ordina-tion is the process by which managementinstruments and measures are used to counteractfragmentation, specialisation or proliferation15.Promotional development is distinct fromcommercial development as it concerns non-profitdevelopment.

2.2.3 Local and regionalAll states define territory for the purposes ofgoverning. Roche refers to local government as ‘asystem of administration in political sub-divisionsof a state, by elected bodies having substantialcontrol of local affairs, including the power toimpose taxes’16. Similarly, John argues that centralto the definition of local government is that it is ‘ademocratically elected authority that exercisespolitical choices within denoted boundaries’17.These views of local government, however, fail toadequately incorporate the many non-electedbodies and organisations that operate within andacross local government boundaries.

A public service body, therefore, may operate

within either a national or a sub-national territorialjurisdiction18. In this study, local and regionalpublic service bodies refers to those publicorganisations operating within a defined sub-national geographical area; and different publicbodies may (or may not) operate within the samedefined territory19.

Also, functions performed by local and regionalpublic service bodies may be duplicated in a rangeof areas, with each body having the same functionsand powers. Town councils aside, county and citycouncil areas are generally, but not always, thesmallest unit within which a local public servicebody operates in this study. However, some localbodies, such as Partnerships, LEADER companiesand harbour commissioners do not follow county orcity boundaries. Similarly, the seven regionalfisheries boards are concerned with activities interritories that are not, for example, congruent withthe geographical boundaries of the eight regionalauthorities.

2.2.4 Corporate governanceThe final term to be defined here is ‘corporategovernance’. It is the subject of varying interpre-tations according to the field of inquiry. Forexample, in financial management literature,corporate governance is concerned with the designof mechanisms that assure providers of capitalsecurity of return on their investment20. As theconcept has been applied to the public sector, it hasbecome associated not only with financial reportingand controls but also standards of behaviour andorganisational structures and processes. This studyuses the definition of corporate governance asprovided by the Australian National Audit Office,which states that:

Broadly speaking, corporate governance generallyrefers to the processes by which organisations aredirected, controlled and held to account. Itencompasses authority, accountability, steward-


_______________

15 See Verhoerst, Koen and Geert Bouckaert (2005) “Machinery of Government and Policy Capacity: The Effects of Specialization andCoordination” in Martin Painter and Jon Pierre (eds): Challenges to State Policy Capacity.( London: Palgrave); G.B. Peters (1998) refersto co-ordination as ‘an end-state in which the policies and programmes of government are characterized by minimal redundancy,incoherence and lacunae’ in “Managing Horizontal Government: The politics of co-ordination” Public Administration Vol 76 (2): 295-311.16 Roche, D. Local Government in Ireland (Dublin: IPA, 1982), p. 1.17 John, P. Local Governance in Western Europe (London: Sage, 2001), p. 34.18 There are of course also international cross-border bodies but they do not form part of this study.19 Rhodes defined sub-central government as ‘the arena of political activity concerned with the relations between central politicalinstitutions in the capital city and those sub-central political organisations and governmental bodies within the accepted boundaries ofthe state’. (1998: 14).20 Kirchmaier, T. and Grant, J. “Corporate ownership structure and performance in Europe”, European Management Review (2005) Vol.2 231-45.


ship, leadership, direction and control exercisedin the organisation’21.

As detailed below, the principal corporategovernance issues of concern to this study are theissues of function, autonomy, accountability anddirection in respect of local and regional non-commercial public service bodies. This will helpaddress the dearth of knowledge concerning issuesof governance and accountability in Irish publicsector bodies22.

2.3 Survey methodology

As with the study of national non-commercialbodies, public organisations operating at local andregional level were invited to complete a surveyquestionnaire in order to assess their autonomy andaccountability. This questionnaire was developedin partnership with the Instituut voor de Overheidof the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The Instituuthad already utilised a similar questionnaire in asurvey of Flemish agencies in 2002, and using thisquestionnaire as a template meant that comparableinternational information on the structure of publicbodies would be available. Through the COBRA(Comparative public organisation data Base forResearch and Analysis) research network, similarstudies of public sector bodies have beenundertaken in Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, andprogress is underway in Italy, Germany and theNetherlands to conduct similar analyses.

The Irish questionnaire was pilot-tested withinthe Institute of Public Administration and a smallnumber of the public service bodies covered by thestudy. Amendments were made in light ofcomments received. The final questionnaireconsists of four sections.

– Section one: the organisation. This soughtinformation on the body’s history, its currentfunctions, legal status, budget and personnelnumbers.

– Section two: autonomy. This assessed theautonomy of the body in terms of HR, financeand policy.

– Section three: accountability and responsi-bility. This provided information on the body’s

board and financial audit functions, as well asthe accountability of the CEO.

– Section four: accountability and direction. Thisrecorded information on the body’s strategyand direction, including its methods ofperformance measurement, as well as issuesconcerning the body’s relationship to its parentbody/department.

Following revision and testing of the surveyquestionnaire, letters were sent to 283 local andregional non-commercial bodies in February 2006asking them to complete the web-basedquestionnaire (a copy of the questionnaire and thisletter are included in appendices 4 and 5). Theoption of completing the questionnaire in hardcopy (paper) format was also offered to respondentsand eleven relevant bodies that did not have webaccess returned the survey in this form. The datafrom all the responses was then entered into anelectronic database from which findings werederived. By the deadline of 20 March, a response ofapproximately 34 per cent (ninety-six organisa-tions) had been achieved and with follow up letters,e-mails and phone calls a response rate of 55 percent (157 bodies) was reached by early May23.

Table 2.1 below details the response rates fromthe various catorgories of local and regional bodies.

Within the responses, however, there were somevariations in terms of consistency and someorganisations did not complete all four sections,returning only the first two or three sections. Norespondent did not complete section 1. Theincomplete responses nonetheless yield usefulinformation and the exact total number of responsesfor each section are set out in Table 2.2.

All survey respondents were asked to state theirposition in the organisation, and where anyorganisation responded to the survey more thanonce, the response of the more senior respondentwas preferred. In all, 57 per cent of respondentswere CEOs or equivalents, with a further 20 percent holding positions as senior managers in theorganisation. All responses therefore represent thebona fide opinions of senior public servants fromthe perspective of their particular organisation.

In order to develop a 360-degree perspective on


_______________

21 Australian National Audit Office Principles and better practices: Corporate governance in Commonwealth authorities and companies,Discussion paper (Canberra: ANAO, 1999), p. 122 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 3123 This included two postal responses.


the relationship between bodies and ‘parentorganisations’, semi-structured interviews withcivil servants from various departments were alsoconducted during the drafting stage. As well ashelping to explain the many inter-relationshipsbetween local, regional and national bodies, theseinterviews also provided clarity around anypotentially contradictory findings. Where available,official documents on current developments wereinterrogated and civil and public servants were alsoconsulted by telephone and e-mail concerningindividual local and regional bodies.

As detailed below, the principal areas ofinvestigation in this report concern key elements ofcorporate governance – autonomy and account-ability in relation to human resources, financialmanagement and policy; as well as the structuresand arrangements governing the relationshipbetween local and regional bodies and their parentbody or department. Otherwise, the number of validresponses for each sub-sector or question were usedas the total rounding up to 100 per cent.

It must also be noted that at time of writing,initiatives to change the governance structures and

functions of several sub-sectors are in progress. Thegovernment has adopted a policy to allow localauthorities, where appropriate, take over thefunctions of harbour authorities; regional tourismauthorities are being reconstituted as regionaltourism development boards with an emphasis ontheir strategic rather than administrative roles; andmany of the functions of regional fisheries boardsare to be subsumed into a new national authority.Furthermore, a ‘cohesion’ process is underway toprovide, where possible, a merger betweenPartnership and LEADER groups. The conclusionsand recommendations of thus study in respect ofthese bodies are constructed in the context of thesereforms.

The next chapter considers the range and type oforganisations identified in the initial 2003 databaseof public sector bodies.


Table 2.1: Response rate for Regional and LocalNon-Commercial Public Bodies

Category of Number Number % ResponseBody of Bodies of Rate

Contacted Responses (approx)

County/City Enterprise Boards 35 20 57

City/County Development Boards 34 17 50

LEADER 38 19 50Childcare Committee 33 19 57Partnerships 36 18 50Regional Tourism Authorities 6 2 33

Regional Authority 8 6 75Regional Assembly 2 2 100Vocational Education Committees 34 17 50

Harbour Commissions24 10 6 60Regional Fisheries Board 7 3 43

City/County Councils 34 25 73.5Borough Councils 5 1 20Other 2 2 100Total 283 157 55

Table 2.2: Responses by Category andQuestionnaire Section

Category Number of Section Section Section Sectionof Body Responses 1 2 3 4

County/City Enterprise Boards 20 20 19 19 18

City/County Development Boards 17 17 15 16 14

LEADER 19 19 18 17 17Childcare Committee 19 19 17 15 15

Partnerships 18 18 17 17 16Regional Tourism Authorities 2 2 2 2 2

Regional Authority 6 6 5 5 4Regional Assembly 2 2 2 2 2Vocational Education Committees 17 17 15 14 13

Harbour Commissions 6 6 6 6 6

Regional Fisheries Board 3 3 3 3 3

City/County Councils 25 25 22 22 22

Borough Councils 1 1 1 1 1

Other 2 2 2 2 2

Total (%) 157 (55) 157 (55) 144 (51) 141 (49)135 (47)

_______________

24 There are harbour authorities at Kilrush and Youghal which, under Section 2 of the 1946 Harbours Act, are administered by theelected Urban District (now Town) Councils. However, it is now the policy of the Department of Transport to develop legislation in orderto rationalise existing practice whereby local authorities administer these harbours. The operation of certain other harbours has alreadybeen assumed by local authorities; for example Ballyshannon and Buncrana Harbours are administered by Donegal County Council.


In this chapter, the types and number of publicbodies operating in commercial and non-commercial fields at local, regional and nationallevels in Ireland are considered. This informationwill be drawn from the database originallycompiled in 2003, reproduced here at Appendix 2.

3.1 Types of public body in Ireland

Public bodies in Ireland operate at either a nationalor sub-national level. Furthermore, they can operateon either a commercial or non-commercial basis.Chapter 5 of CPMR Research Report No.6 byMcGauran, Verhoest and Humphreys discusses indetail the numbers and main features of the 601bodies first compiled in a 2003 database of publicsector organisations25. Rather than repeat thatanalysis here, a brief comment on the principalfindings of their analysis of the 211 non-commercial bodies operating at national level isprovided, which will provide a context forcomparisons with the sub-national bodiesexamined in this report.

3.2 National non-commercial bodies

While there have been some changes to the totalnumber of national non-commercial bodies inIreland since the CPMR Research Report waspublished (particularly in respect of theamalgamation of several health bodies within theHealth Service Executive), the number remainsclose to 200. In general, these bodies are stand-alone and do not have duplicates. Some keyfindings of this report are worth restating here26.

The most common functions identified for thenational non-commercial bodies are the provisionof policy advice (23 per cent), policyimplementation (15 per cent), regulation (13 per

cent) and the provision of information (13 per cent).The health sector accounted for the largest cohort ofagencies (14 per cent), followed by education (9 percent), justice (7 per cent) and research (7 per cent).The majority (60 per cent) of national bodies wereestablished during the 1990s and 2000s, althoughapproximately half of the bodies responding to thesurvey noted that they had had a previousexistence.

The survey population ranged from small bodieswith only a part-time staff member to a largeorganisation of over 2,000 employees and a budgetof over €1 billion. The median staff cohort is thirtyand the median budget €3,828,000. In the absenceof a legal framework for the establishment of publicbodies in Ireland, there is considerable variety ofautonomy and governance structures within thenational bodies. Therefore the study identified that39 per cent of organisations were statutorycorporations (established by primary legislation),30 per cent were corporate bodies (established bysecondary legislation), 2 per cent were publiccompanies and 4 per cent were private companies.While the majority of agencies are established bystatute, no common framework exists on whatmatters are to be regulated in the piece of lawestablishing an organisation (e.g. a statute, aministerial order). Thus the report argued thatmany organisations had been set up in an ad hocmanner, tailored to suit specific policy or servicedelivery requirements.

3.3 Commercial bodies

The analysis of public sector commercial bodieswill form the final stage of the study on thecorporate governance of public sector bodies inIreland. These bodies are also known as stateenterprises or semi-state companies and are


3Overview of Irish public service bodies

_______________

25 Another analysis of public bodies in Ireland is provided by Clancy, P. and Murphy, G. Outsourcing Government: Public Bodies andAccountabilty (Dublin: TASC/New Island, 2006)26 More detailed analysis can be found in pages 50-66 of the CPMR Research Report No. 6


established for reasons different from the non-commercial bodies, normally market failure toprovide certain public goods. Such bodies areprimarily involved in the provision of goods andservices on a commercial basis. They can operate ateither a national (Electricity Supply Board, Bord naMóna) or sub-national level (port companies).

3.4 Local and regional non-commercialbodiesAs noted in Chapter 2, there are 283 bodiesoperating on a non-commercial basis at local andregional level in Ireland27. These organisationscombine to form the complex system that is Irishsub-national government, an aspect of Irishgovernment and administration that has receivedfar less analysis and academic treatment thancentral government28. This dearth of analysis is allthe more surprising given that many policies ofcentral government would fail without the ability ofsub-national public bodies to appropriatelyimplement them. For example, the bulk of publiccapital investment in Ireland is implemented bylocal and regional organisations, and almost 20 percent of public expenditure is at sub-national level29.Also, a simple dichotomy of hierarchical local-central relations obscures the many alternativeforms of engagement between local and centraladministrations and within sub-nationalgovernment itself. Of course, while an account ofsub-national government cannot be divorced fromthe reality of central government in a unitary state,a fuller account of the contribution of sub-nationalbodies to national government, including theiraccountability and autonomy, is necessary to betterunderstand policy making in Ireland.

One of the principal understandings of whypublic bodies or ‘agencies’ emerge is that a decisionis taken to create a ‘purchaser-provider’ split, and toalter the organisational identity of a service deliverybody by removing it from within a pre-existingstructure (such as a department/ministry) andgiving it an identity of its own. The service itself isnot altered, but the department cedes a measure of

direct control over service provision and mustcreate a new accountability relationship to com-pensate. The same understanding can be applied tothe establishment of local and regional bodies –central government requires their co-operation as itdoes not possess a monopoly over certain resourcessuch as local understanding of need. Also, it issuggested by proponents of participativedemocracy (and federalists) that the devolution offunctions to sub-national level offers greateraccountability to the people than centralisedgovernment does30. Non directly-elected bodiestend not to claim the same democratic legitimacy asthose that are directly elected, for example localauthorities in Ireland are constitutionallyrecognised as champions of the community31.Recognising this, Norton identifies that sub-national bodies do not ‘govern’ insofar as they donot have scope for making trade-offs between arange of public functions (a defining feature ofelected local authorities), but are instead chargedwith performing specific functions on grounds ofefficiency32.

As later chapters will detail, the growth infunctions now performed at sub-national level inIreland has not necessarily been at the expense ofcentral or local government. Rather, the existence ofa large proportion of local and regional bodiesrepresents growing public demands for publicservices as well as the provision of structures tomore effectively channel and co-ordinate sub-national activity. Few of these bodies are concernedwith policy making but instead engage in serviceprovision. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 4,the period of expansion in the number of national-level public bodies during the 1990s has beenmatched by a similar growth at the sub-nationallevel. The involvement of networks of actors in thevarious sub-national fora examined heredemonstrates that focusing on simple central-localrelations is not sufficient, and that local govern-ment has been transformed into an intricate systemof ‘local governance’33. Similarly, focusing on localauthorities as the unit of analysis in sub-nationalgovernment may present a misleading picture.


_______________

27 If we add to this number those sub-national bodies operating commercial enterprises (such as port companies) the figure rises toapproximately 300.28 Some exceptions to this include Roche (1982) and more recently Callanan and Keogan (2003). Chubb (1982) also provided someanalysis of local government in his work on Irish government and politics. 29 Dexia Sub-national public finance in the European Union (Dexia Economic Outlook, November 2006), pp. 9-11.30 Rubin, E. “ The myth of non-bureaucratic accountability and the anti-administrative impulse” in Dowdle, M.W. Public Accountability:Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in Law and Society, 2006), p. 53.31 See Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann – The Constitution of Ireland.32 Norton, A. International Handbook of Local and Regional Government (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1994), pp. 42-4.


While recent years have witnessed expansion inthe scope of activity at sub-national level, periods ofcontraction are not unusual, involving bothamalgamation and the shifting of functions‘upwards’ from sub-national to national level. Anexample of the former would be a programme attime of writing to provide a more coherent structurefor LEADER groups and Partnership companies.Similarly, the functions of many harbourcommissions are being transferred to localauthorities. In the case of functions movingbetween levels of government, the policy areas ofAgriculture and Health have seen shifts fromcentral to local and back in the decades sinceindependence. In 1931, the Agriculture Actapproved the formal appointment of countycommittees of agriculture which would operateindependently of county councils34. They wereabolished under the Agriculture (Research, Trainingand Advice) Act, 1988 and their work replaced by anational body called Teagasc35. The Health Act of1970 established regional health boards to assumethe functions of local authorities in relation to theadministration of health services, a function thathad become statutory in 1947. However, the 2004Health Act abolished these boards and transferredtheir functions to the Health Service Executive, anational body.

In 1995, the government established a DevolutionCommission to conduct a ‘whole of government’examination of activities performed at the differentlevels of administration and make suggestions onwhich functions could appropriately be devolved tolocal authorities. The commission identified areassuch as tourism, economic development, educationand social welfare as examples where localgovernment involvement could be enhanced36. Italso recommended that committees at nationallevel representative of government departments,local authorities, service providers and user groupsbe established to discuss policy issues related tolocal government. Furthermore, in its SecondReport it recommended the closer alignment of

local government with local development agenciesand groups, and this was subsequently pursuedthrough the city and county development boards37.However, it has been suggested that there is scopefor further improvement in the formal mechanismsof communication between national and sub-national government in order to ensure coherencein policy making38.

Internationally, what functions or services aremore appropriately performed by local, regional ornational levels of government has never beendefined. While divisions of responsibility betweenlevels of government frequently provoke tensions infederal systems, the web of formal and informalmodes of communication between the ‘centre’ andlocal and regional government ensures that suchtensions are alleviaated. Of course, central govern-ment is not a unitary actor and managing the arrayof local and regional bodies identified in this studyrequires considerable efforts at co-ordination.

Within sub-national government in Ireland, thereare extensive formal and informal connections andactivities that link local and regional bodies. Therecent creation of city and county developmentboards represents institutional innovation for thepurposes of rationalising and co-ordinating theseactivities within local authority areas. Similarly, theencouragement of interest-group bargaining as ameans of problem-solving has resulted in newinteractions at sub-national level as well as a rangeof new local bodies such as Partnership companies.

Traditionally, local government in Ireland hasbeen conceived of as the sum of local authorities,with elected members responding to local needs atthe helm of each. However, while local authoritieswere and are central to our understanding ofgovernment beyond the centre, such a minimalistview of local government fails to take into accounta range of actors at local (and regional) level whichhas existed since the earliest decades of the state’sindependence. As this study demonstrates, a movefrom government to ‘governance’39 at the sub-national level is not necessarily a new phenomenon


_______________

33 A similar case has been made in the British context by King, D. and Stoker, G. (eds) Rethinking local democracy (Basingstoke:Macmillan, 1996).34 Roche, D. Local Government in Ireland (Dublin: IPA, 1982), p. 60.35 O’Sullivan, T. “Local Areas and Structures” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA,2003), p. 41.36 Devolution Commission Interim Report (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1996), pp. 27-28; Devolution Commission Second Report (Dublin:Stationery Office, 1997), p. 15.37 Devolution Commission Second Report (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1997), p. 17.38 Keogan, J. F. “Reform in Irish Local Government” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J.F. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin:IPA, 2003), p. 87. For analysis of this issue in relation to social inclusion, see O’Riordáin, S. Poverty and Social Inclusion: Linking Localand National Structures (Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency, 2006).39 Rhodes, R.A.W. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press, 1997); Pierre, J. and Peters, G.B. Governance, Politics and the State (London: Macmillan, 2000); Kooiman, J. Governingas Governance (London: Sage, 2003).


in Ireland, and multiple actors have been involvedin service delivery at local level for many decades.Clearly, recent years have witnessed acceleration inthe number of such bodies in response to changingeconomic circumstances, modes of problem solvingand co-ordination requirements. As a consequence,there are few policy areas in which local authoritiesmust not also consult with other sub-national (andnational) bodies before taking action.

Rhodes defines ‘sub-central’ government as ‘thearena of political activity concerned with therelations between central political institutions inthe capital city and those sub-central politicalorganisations and governmental bodies within theaccepted boundaries of the state’40. A key questionthat arises when attempting to understand therelationship between central government and sub-national government is whether or not therelationship is a principal-agent one, common totheories of public administration, or if the principleof partnership is adopted. The interviewsundertaken as part of this research identify thatpartnership and consultation are key concerns ofgovernment departments when communicatingwith local and regional bodies, and input to policymaking is normally provided through formalchannels or ‘recognised [representative] bodies’.

Apart from offering greater devolution of power,therefore, sub-national government also offersdiversity in response to local need and the wishes of the population. This is in contrast to a centralising policy, whereby governmentdepartments would use a number of regionalexecutive offices to provide services. This lattermodel is advocated as providing more consistentapplication of state policy and the removal ofpotential for internal conflict between thedepartment and local bodies, and between one localorganisation and another. In Ireland, such acentralising policy occurs in relation to some policyareas, for example the health services.

In Britain, the establishment of ‘local quangos’(particularly during the 1980s) has been understoodin the context of New Public Management reforms,political necessity, and a belief in broadeningparticipation in local governance41. In many cases,local quangos divested local authorities offunctions in areas such as education and health,and were the subject of concern in this regard42.

This is consistent with economic and rationalchoice theories of why public bodies or agencies arechosen – they allow for an ‘unbundling’ ofgovernment in order to achieve more efficient andresponsive performance. However, simple dis-aggregation does not adequately explain thephenomenon in the Irish case, and the reasons forestablishing various sub-national bodies aredetailed in Chapter 5. The majority of local andregional bodies established during the 1990sundertook new functions, rather than removingfunctions from local authorities, and theirrelationships with ‘parent’ organisations havedeveloped in a variety of ways. If anything, thediversity of local and regional bodies examinedhere demonstrates the path-dependent and largelyuncoordinated manner in which Irish publicadministration has evolved; the autonomy andaccountability of many sub-sectors being predi-cated on existing organisational structures andheavily influenced by administrative culture.

The process of agencification at national level, aswell as the use of contract arrangements such aspublic-private partnerships, demonstrates theincreased fragmentation of government in Ireland.At sub-national level, such fragmentation alsoexists. Bodies such as the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the National Roads Authority havechanged the institutional environment in whichlocal authorities must operate. Equally, theemergence of new sub-national bodies poses newchallenges. For instance, as well as variouscharitable organisations such as housingassociations, local authorities must work with arange of limited companies including childcarecommittees and Partnerships. As later chaptersidentify, local politicians are appointed to theboards of organisations in every sub-sectorsurveyed in this study, thus providing a channel ofcommunication between local authorities and non-elected bodies. Within the non-elected sub-nationalstate, therefore, there is considerable variety ofoperation and composition, and given the movetowards greater fragmentation and interdependencein recent years, this study provides a timelyexamination of local and regional non-commercialbodies in Ireland. Chapter 4 will consider thesebodies individually in more detail.


_______________

40 Rhodes, R.A.W. Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: The sub-central governments of Britain (London: Unwin, 1988), p. 14.41 Stoker, G. Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 32-3.42 Hall, W. and Weir, S. The Untouchables: Power and Accountability in the Quango State (London: Scarman Trust, 1996).



The survey population for this study consisted of283 non-commercial local and regional bodies. Asalready noted, with the exception of two bodies, allof the population are duplicates, i.e. eachorganisation had a sister body performing similarwork but in different geographical area. Theresponse to the survey of 157 bodies included thesetwo non-duplicate bodies and in order to maintainconfidentiality and avoid distortion of theexamination of any sub-sector by including one orboth non-duplicate body, it was decided afterexamination not to include them in the analysis.Therefore our aggregate survey response consists of155 non-commercial local and regional bodies intwelve sub-sectors (see listing below). This and thefollowing chapters consider in detail the datareceived from these bodies. As previouslyindicated, the findings represent the bona fideopinions of respondents from these organisations.

For ease of understanding and in order todemonstrate the range and variety of bodies underconsideration, the twelve sub-sectors are categor-ised here into five sectors (local and regionaladministration, educational, promotional anddevelopmental, co-ordination, and localauthorities). As local authorities have a directconstitutional and electoral mandate, they aretreated separately in all subsequent empiricalchapters. While other sub-sectors will also betreated individually, where appropriate, each willbe compared with the norm for the eleven sub-sectors as a whole. Including local authorities aspart of aggregate findings for local and regionalbodies would not only fail to give due cognisance totheir distinct statutory and constitutional identitybut would also skew the interpretation of findingspresented here. Reference will also be made asnecessary to the study of national non-commercialbodies by McGauran, Verhoest and Humphreys43.

The five sectors and their constituent sub-sectorsare:

1. Local AuthoritiesCity, County and Borough Councils

2. Local and Regional Administration● Regional Authorities● Regional Assemblies● Harbour Commissions

3. Educational● Vocational Education

Committees

4. Promotional and Developmental● City and County

Enterprise Boards● Partnerships● LEADER Groups● Regional Fisheries Boards● Regional Tourism

Authorities

5. Co-ordination● City and County

Development Boards44

● City and County Childcare Committees

4Non-commercial local and regional bodies –

creation and features

_______________

43 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005).44 Though described as ‘development’ boards, the principal functions and raison d’être of city and county development boards is co-ordination of activities, and therefore they have been included under this heading rather than that of ‘promotional and developmental’.

Local Authorities

11 Sub-Sectors

⎫⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎬⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎭

⎫⎬⎭



Before considering in more detail the role, size andother descriptive issues of the organisations underexamination, a useful comparison is drawn herebetween national non-commercial bodies and theeleven sub-sectors (local authorities are excluded)in terms of primary and secondary function.

Table 4.1 Primary/Main45 Function (%)

Function National Norm for elevenBodies Local and

% RegionalSub-Sectors %

To advise 23 1Direct implementation

of policy 15 28Provision of information 13 2Commercial development 3 7Promotional (non-commercial)

development 6 6Co-ordination 4 32Regulation 13 6Other 18 18Total 95* 100

*The remaining 5 per cent of national bodies are involved inregistration which was not asked of local and regional bodies.

In terms of secondary function, for the eleven sub-sectors other than local authorities, the norm is asfollows:

Co-ordination 23%Provision of information 20%To advise 20%Direct implementation of policy 16%Promotional (non-commercial) development 11%

More detailed analysis of these figures follows asthe bodies in each category are described bydrawing on the information provided by surveyrespondents.

4.1 Local authorities

Under this category are included the twenty-ninecounty, five city and five borough councils. While seventy-five town councils also exist, theirlimited range of functions precluded them from

consideration in the study. A majority of localauthority respondents (65 per cent) traced theircontemporary formal legal status to the pre-Independence 1898 Local Government (Ireland)Act, which provided for the rationalisation of localauthority structures and functions and establishedthe local authorities as corporate bodies withelected councils. Demonstrating the historical rootsof local government in Ireland, some 11 per cent ofresponses reported even earlier legal establishmentand almost half of all respondents (46 per cent)noted that their local authority had a previousexistence. However, following recent legislationsuch as the 1993 Local Government (Dublin) Actand the 2001 Local Government Act, a number oflocal authorities also identified more recent years asthe point of their establishment.

While the Republic of Ireland has historicallybeen divided into twenty-six county areas, there arein fact twenty-nine County Councils. This arisesdue to the division of Tipperary into NorthTipperary County Council and South TipperaryCounty Council46, and of the former County Dublininto Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councils in 199447. The five citycouncils are Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick andWaterford.

The only other category of local authorityconsidered here are the borough councils, of whichthere are five – Kilkenny, Drogheda, Clonmel, Sligoand Wexford. Their status arises from theirhistorical receipt of a self-governing charter, andwhile the 2001 Act in effect repealed their charters,within their boundaries the borough councilsperform many of the same functions as city andcounty councils. However, in some functional areasthe county council in which the borough council issituated will have final responsibility48. The finaltype of local authority, town councils, have electedcouncils usually consisting of nine members. Underthe 2001 Act, the seventy-five town councils areprincipally concerned with promoting thecommunity interest and some planning andhousing functions within the town boundary areas.Following a referendum in 1999, a new Article(28A) was inserted into the Constitution which

_______________

45 The National Non-Commercial Study asked respondents to identify the main function of their organisation, while the Local andRegional Non-Commercial study asked for ‘primary’ and ‘secondary functions’.46 This dates from the division of the county area into north and south ridings in 1838.47 By virtue of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993.48 O’Sullivan, T. “Local Areas and Structures” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA,2003), pp. 41-81.



strengthened the recognition of local authoritiesand the requirement for regular local elections49.

As Roche identifies, the services traditionallyprovided by Irish local authorities arise from‘history, accident [and] tradition’50, as much asthrough agreed division of labour between levels ofgovernment. Currently, the work of Irish localauthorities is normally categorised into nineprogramme groups. These are:

(1) Housing and Building(2) Road Transportation and Safety(3) Water Supply and Sewerage(4) Development Incentives and Control (Planning)(5) Environmental Protection(6) Recreation and Amenity(7) Agriculture, Education, Health and Welfare(8) Community and Enterprise(9) Miscellaneous Services.

The amount of time spent working on each oftheir programme group areas varies significantly,and the survey responses identified that by far themost common policy fields local authorities operatein are infrastructure, environment and localdevelopment. Also, as Figure 4.1 demonstrates, 73per cent of local authorities saw their primaryfunction as direct implementation of policy, withthe next most common response being regulation (8 per cent). This is in contrast to the study ofnational bodies where only 15 per cent of bodiesidentified direct implementation of policy as theirmain function, and the norm for the eleven othersub-sectors where the corresponding figure is 28per cent. In terms of secondary function, thefindings demonstrate that 39 per cent of localauthorities chose regulation (compared to only 2per cent for the eleven other sub-sectors), 15 percent chose co-ordination, 15 per cent chosepromotional (non-commercial) development andalmost 12 per cent commercial development.

In terms of personnel, the survey showed thatlocal authorities range in size from 100 to 6,800full-time equivalents, with the average localauthority having 707 staff. Budgets for 2005 rangedfrom €15 million to €1.5 billion but figures canchange significantly year on year depending on thecapital projects being undertaken by individuallocal authorities. The adoption of annual budgets is

a matter for the elected members, who determine inthe budget the annual rate on valuation (local taxrate) on commercial properties and the level ofcharges for goods and services to be provided.

4.2 Local and regional administration

There are three sub-sectors involved in local andregional administration – Regional Authorities,Regional Assemblies and Harbour Commissions.

Regional authoritiesWhile Ireland is divided into four provinces –Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connaught – theprovincial areas have never been used foradministrative or government purposes, and theyare principally used today by sports organisa-tions51. Regional government, in the traditionalcontinental European sense, has not thereforeofficially featured in the Irish system of govern-ment. However, for the administration of EUfunding, new administrative regions were createdin 1994 and 1999, and are included in this study.

Eight regional authorities were established underthe Local Government Act, 1991 (Regional

_______________

49 Local authorities were implicitly recognised in Articles 12.4.2, 15.2 and 22.1, but no time limits to the lifetime of elected councilspreviously existed.50 Roche, D. Local Government in Ireland (Dublin: IPA, 1982), p. 751 With the exception of Dublin, the provinces also form the constituency boundaries for European Parliament elections.

Fig. 4.1 Local Authorities – Primary Function

4%

73%

4%

8%

11%

To advise

Direct implementation of policyPromotional (non-commercial)developmentRegulationOther



Authorities) (Establishment) Order 1993. Eachregional authority is indirectly elected, and consistsof members from a number of local authorities asfollows:Border: Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Louth, Monaghan

and SligoDublin: Dublin City, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown,

Fingal and South DublinMid-East: Kildare, Meath and WicklowMidlands: Laois, Longford, Offaly and WestmeathMid-West: Clare, Limerick City, Limerick County

and North TipperarySouth-East: Carlow, Kilkenny, South Tipperary,

Waterford City, Waterford County and WexfordSouth-West: Cork City, Cork County and KerryWest: Galway City, Galway County, Mayo and

Roscommon

Regional authorities elect a chairperson annuallyfrom amongst their membership, and are assisted bya director and policy and administrative staff.Results show the average staff complementstanding at 4.6 full time equivalents. Under the1991 Act, the principal roles of the authorities areto promote the co-ordination of public serviceprovision and to monitor the delivery of EUStructural Fund assistance in the regions. This isborne out by the survey results, with two thirds (67 per cent) of regional authorities reporting thatco-ordination is their primary function (withanother 17 per cent stating that the primaryfunction is to ‘promote co-ordination of theprovision of public services in the region’). Half ofthe regional authorities also identified provision ofpolicy advice as their principal secondary function.

Survey results show that the authorities areinvolved in many policy areas, including localdevelopment, infrastructure, environment andequality. The authorities have specific responsi-bility for:

● reviewing the development plans of localauthorities in their region and in adjoiningregions in order to develop a long-term planningframework;

● preparing regional planning guidelines andregional economic and social strategies;

● promoting cooperation, joint actions, arrange-ments and consultation among local authoritiesand other public bodies52.

In order to fulfil these functions, each authority hasboth an operational committee and an EUoperational committee. The operational committeeis chaired by the chairperson of the regionalauthority and comprises senior management fromthe constituent local authorities and other relevantpublic sector bodies operating in the region. Theoperational committee prepares the work of theregional authority and assists and advises it onmatters relating to its functions. Also, each regionalauthority has a designated city/ county managerfrom one of its local authorities to further enhancethe linkages between the local authorities and theregional authority.

The EU operational committee consists of:

● the authority’s chairperson● the manager of each constituent city and county

council● the chairperson and one other representative of

each constituent city and county council● the chairperson and one other representative of

any constituent borough council and certaintown councils

● representatives of certain state agencies ● representatives of interested parties including

trade unions, farmers and employers53.

This committee assists the regional authority inmatters relating to EU assistance and reviewing theimplementation of various EU operational programmes in a region. While the regionalauthorities are involved with many issues of serviceprovision, they do not have executive functions anddo not provide services directly to the public.Regional authorities are under the aegis of theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. Amongst those regional authoritiesresponding to the survey, the budgets forperforming their duties ranged from €320,000 to €3million.

Regional assembliesAs well as regional authorities, another branch ofIrish local and regional administration was createdunder strong EU influence. In order to apply for the2000 to 2006 round of EU structural funds, thegovernment established by Statutory Instrument anew regional tier of government in 1999. The

_______________

52 See the website of the Irish Regions Office at http://www.iro.ie/regional_authorities.html.53 Callanan, M. “Regional Authorities and Regional Assemblies” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out(Dublin: IPA, 2003: 429-444), p. 434.



country was divided into two regions (according toregional authority boundaries) with an associatedregional assembly for each region. The regionalassemblies are named after the general geographicalarea under their jurisdiction for the purposes of thedisbursement of funds.

The first region is the Border, Midlands andWestern Regional (BMW) Assembly, with itsheadquarters at Ballaghaderreen. It consists oftwenty-nine elected members drawn from thirteenlocal authorities. They are Cavan, Donegal, Galway,Laois, Leitrim, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Monaghan,Offaly, Roscommon, Sligo and Westmeath. TheBMW Region achieved Objective 1 status forstructural funds for the period 2000-6.

The Southern and Eastern (S&E) RegionalAssembly consists of forty-one elected membersfrom the local authorities of Dublin City, DunLaoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, South Dublin, Carlow,Tipperary South, Waterford City, Wexford,Kilkenny, Cork City and County, Kerry, Clare,Limerick City and County, Tipperary North,Kildare, Meath, Wicklow. The S&E Region achievedObjective 1 (in transition) status for the period2000-6.

Each regional assembly employs fourteenpersonnel including a director as well as policy andadministrative staff. The survey responses mirroredthe official roles of the assemblies which are to:

● manage their respective Regional OperationalProgramme (below) under the National Develop-ment Plan

● monitor the impact of the EU programme underthe National Development Plan/CommunitySupport Framework within their region

● promote the co-ordination of public serviceswithin the region

● make public bodies aware of the regionalimplications of their policies, plans andactivities54.

The Regional Operational Programmes for eachregional assembly bring together a wide range ofinitiatives at both regional and local level. Theycover regional and local infrastructure, localenterprise development, agriculture and ruraldevelopment, social inclusion and childcare. Aswith the regional authorities, the assemblies are

under the aegis of the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government, butalso work closely with the Department of Finance.

Harbour commissionsThe final sub-sector involved in local and regionaladministration is the harbour commissions. The1946 Harbours Act is still the principal governinglegislation for the commissions. It created a newlegal basis for the control and work of harbourauthorities which, as and from 2006, are theresponsibility of the Department of Transport. Tenof the authorities are known as harbour commis-sions (Bantry Bay Harbour Commission was createdunder the 1976 Harbours Act55), although the termis frequently interchanged with harbour authority.The harbour commissions are corporate bodiesadministered by commissioners and therefore fulfilthe criteria necessary for our definition of a publicservice body. However, the size, nature andhistorical legacy of their creation makes harbourcommissions unique when compared with othersub-sectors as the empirical chapters herein detail.

Harbour commissions are elected in the sameyear as local authority elections and consist ofrepresentatives of stakeholders such as harbourusers and local authorities, and ministerialappointees. While not specifically commercialbodies, harbour commissions do collect rates andcharges as set by the minister, and as far as possibleare required to be self-financing. The minister alsoretains control over the disposal and acquisition ofassets. As noted above, two town councils atKilrush and Youghal are in fact the harbourauthorities for their harbours, and while theharbour at Annagassan technically hascommissioners, they are inactive and it is de factoadministered by Louth County Council.

In January 2005, the government published its‘Ports Policy Statement’. It states that the continuedoperation of many of the regional harbours underthe outdated provisions of the Harbours Act 1946 isunsustainable on the grounds of good governance. Italso reiterates the view that these harbours wouldbest achieve their potential through their transfer tolocal authority ownership. However, in harbourswhere significant commercial traffic exists,consideration is to be given to bringing the harbourunder the control of a port company.

_______________

54 More details on the work of the regional assemblies are available at www.bwmregionalassembly.ie and www.seregionalassembly.ie.55 O’Sullivan, T “Local Areas and Structures” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA,2003), p. 65.



The Department of Transport is currently workingwith the Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government to advance the implementa-tion of the Ports Policy Statement with regard to thetransfer of the designated regional harbours to theirrespective local authorities, where appropriate, andwill proceed individually in conjunction with therelevant local authorities and harbour authorities,having regard to local requirements in each case.

The survey responses identify that harbourcommissions are involved in the local develop-ment, infrastructure and natural resources policyfields and see their primary and secondary duties asmainly involving regulation, co-ordination anddirect implementation of policy. There isconsiderable variation in the size and numbers ofstaff employed by the commissions, with the staffcomplement ranging from one part-time harbourmaster to five full time equivalents. Responsessuggest that the average for each commission is2.75. The budgets for harbour commissions for 2005ranged from €22,000 to €500,000. Most harbourcommissions are self-financing with respect tocurrent expenditure, with finances being raisedthrough berthing fees and tonnage charges. Somecapital revenue (approximately €4 million in 2006)is made available for maintenance and repairs bycentral government, but significant capitalinvestments do not arise.

4.3 Educational

There is only one sub-sector considered under thissector: vocational education committees.

Vocational education committeesVocational education committees (VECs) wereestablished as statutory corporate bodies under theVocational Education Acts, 1930 to 2001, and areunder the supervision of the Department ofEducation and Science. As originally conceivedunder the 1930 Act, ‘vocation’ meant bothcontinuation in education and technical (asopposed to academic) education56. VECs weretherefore designed to be responsive to localeducational needs and many of them were formedout of the previously existing technical instructioncommittees. Today they are involved in not onlysecondary but also post-secondary further

education and back-to-education programmes. The1930 Act established thirty-eight VECs but this wasreduced to thirty-three following a reorganisation in1998. While their jurisdiction broadly follows localauthority boundaries, they do not come under thecontrol of city and county management. However, amajority of the members of each VEC are electedmembers of local authorities, and they havereserved functions as established under the 2001Act.

The principal role of VECs is to provide,administer and manage vocational schools andcommunity colleges. In this respect, 53 per cent ofsurvey responses identified the direct implementa-tion of policy as the primary function of VECs, withco-ordination (12 per cent), provision of informa-tion (6 per cent) and regulation (6 per cent) alsofeaturing. They employ administrative and teachingstaff and provide education and ancillary servicesfor their administrative areas. The average staffcomplement (including teachers) for VECs is 432.They are overwhelmingly funded by the state butalso receive revenue from local rates. Budgets for2005 ranged from €8.5 to €140 million. The mostrecent legislation pertaining to VECs, the VocationalEducation (Amendment) Act, 2001 reformed thefinancial, management and accountabilitystructures in order to better achieve localrequirements57.

4.4 Promotional and developmental

Within this sector, there are five sub-sectors – cityand county enterprise boards, Partnerships,LEADER companies, regional fisheries boards andregional tourism authorities. The vast majority ofrespondents from each sub-sector identified bothdevelopmental and promotional (both commercialand non-commercial) work as part of their primaryand secondary functions and are therefore groupedtogether in this large sector.

City and county enterprise boardsEnterprise boards were first established in 1993 toencourage local enterprise and entrepreneurship.They emerged out of a pilot project that providedproject grants in ten counties in western Ireland58.However, they only achieved legal recognition ascompanies limited by guarantee by virtue of Section

_______________

56 Coolahan, J.Irish Education: history and structure (Dublin: IPA, 1981), p. 9657 Curry, J. Irish Social Services (4th ed.) (Dublin: IPA, 2005), p. 9058 Sabel, C. Ireland: Local Partnerships and Social Innovation (OECD: Paris, 1996), p. 46



10 the Industrial Development Act, 1995. There arecurrently thirty-five enterprise boards and with theexception of one local authority area (County Cork)their geographical areas of operation are consistentwith local authority boundaries. Co-ordination andsupervision of their efforts comes within thejurisdiction of the Department of Enterprise, Tradeand Employment.

Survey responses demonstrate that the mainpolicy fields in which enterprise boards functionare enterprise, local development and training.Their principal role is to help establish andthereafter support the development of employmentthrough small enterprises, defined as thosebusinesses employing ten or less people. Thissupport takes various forms, including financialassistance and business advice. The sectors thatenterprise boards are most closely involved withare manufacturing, services and tourism59. Whileone third of respondents identified commercialdevelopment as their primary function and 11 percent promotional (non-commercial) developmentand regulation respectively, 39 per cent reportedthat direct implementation of policy is their maintask. In terms of secondary functions, 38 per cent ofrespondents identified the provision of advice.

Interestingly, while 40 per cent of respondentsnoted that the EU had had ‘some influence’ on theestablishment of their enterprise board, theremaining 60 per cent found it had had a ‘stronginfluence’. Three quarters of the respondents notedEU funding as the reason for this.

The board of each enterprise board normallyconsists of an independent chairperson andfourteen ordinary members. The ordinary membersusually consist of four local authority electedmembers and a combination of representatives fromstate organisations, the social partners (i.e. umbrellaorganisations for the trade unions, employers,farming and NGO sectors) and local business ordevelopment organisations. The composition ofeach board is described in its Articles andMemorandum of Association. Each enterpriseboard has a chief executive officer and a smallnumber of staff, with the average complement offull time equivalents being four. Budgets range from€686,000 to €1.2 million.

Partnerships Partnerships (also known as Area Partnerships or Partnership Companies60) are independentcompanies limited by guarantee principallyinvolved in issues related to social inclusion andlocal community development. A report on theirwork published by the OECD in 1996 viewed themas ‘extraordinarily innovative’ and noted themanner in which they, amongst other things,widened participation in processes of change andadapted national policies to meet local need61.

Each Partnership has Memoranda and Articles ofAssociation. Most were established during the1991-6 period in areas of disadvantage and withrelatively high levels of long-term unemployment,and 83 per cent of respondents stated that the EUhad some or a strong influence on theirestablishment. There are thirty-eight partnershipscurrently in existence and each has a board ofdirectors drawn at local level from representativesof the social partners, various state organisationsand community and voluntary organisations activein economic and social development62. Originally,Partnerships did not include local electedcouncillors but this situation has since beenchanged to include them. Their work has beenunderwritten by various national social partnershipagreements and more recently the NationalDevelopment Plan 2000-6. Indeed, their creationfollowed substantially from the rationale that thesuccess of social partnership at national level couldbe replicated at local level though the structuredorganisation of stakeholder groups.

Each Partnership is required to prepare a localdevelopment plan to counter disadvantage and toimplement that plan. Funding is derived throughPobal, a not-for-profit company that managesprogrammes on behalf of the Irish government andthe EU, aimed at promoting social inclusion,reconciliation and equality. Partnerships haveevolved significantly in recent years and theNational Development Plan 2000-6 also requiredthem to take an active role in tackling issues ofsocial exclusion. Furthermore, many Partnershipsare also involved in the delivery of otherprogrammes such as LEADER (below) and LocalEmployment Service. Survey results show that

_______________

59 Keyes, J. “Community and Enterprise” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003),p. 29060 There are also thirty-one ‘Community Partnerships’ and two ‘Employment Pacts’ funded by Pobal but they do not form part of thisstudy.61 Sabel, C. Ireland: Local Partnerships and Social Innovation (OECD; Paris, 1996)62 Keyes, J. “Community and Enterprise” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003),p. 290


35 per cent of Partnerships see co-ordination astheir primary function, followed closely by directimplementation of policy (29 per cent). There aresignificant differences in the size of Partnershipcompanies, with some having as few as five staff toothers with as many as seventy. The average staffcomplement is thirty. Budgets for 2005 ranged from€850,000 to €3.5 million. At time of writing, aprocess is underway to provide, where possible, amerger between Partnerships and LEADER groups(below) within, again as far as is possible, localauthority geographical areas. This process, knownas the ‘cohesion process’ is being directed by theDepartment of Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs and is designed to provide Partnershipcompanies in all areas of the country. At time ofwriting, twelve partnership companies operatewithin LEADER structures.

LEADER GroupsLEADER is an acronym for Liasions Entre Actionsde Développement de l’Économie Rurale (LinksBetween Development Actions for the RuralEconomy). It is an EU initiative designed to fosterrural development at the local level through‘groups’, and since 2002 has been supervised by theDepartment of Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs. It began in Ireland in 1991 with theestablishment of sixteen LEADER I groups, and wasfollowed with LEADER II for the period 1994-9.LEADER II witnessed the establishment of thirty-four local action groups and three sectoral bodies,Irish Farm Holidays, Irish Country Holidays andMuintir na Tíre. LEADER + is the third suchprogramme and covers the period 2000-6. It is part-financed by the EU but the exchequer nowcontributes a significant portion of the overallrevenue. However, 90 per cent of respondentsstated that the EU still had a ‘strong influence’ ontheir organisation’s current form. As with itspredecessors, funding is channelled through localaction groups which have responsibility forimplementing business plans drawn up for theirarea63. A website – the Irish Leader Support Unit –(www.ilsu.ie) also exists to support the LEADERgroups in their work.

LEADER groups are private companies and theirwork includes activities such as the marketing ofgoods, rural tourism and supporting small firms,

and through the county and city development boardstructures (below), attempt to work in a co-ordinated manner with other local bodies. Twenty-eight per cent of respondents to the survey notedthat their primary task is the direct implementationof policy, while 17 per cent identified promotional (non-commercial) development, 11 per centcommercial development, 11 per cent co-ordinationand 33 per cent identified other primary functionssuch as rural development.

Each LEADER group has a board comprisingrepresentatives of local communities, state bodies,local authorities and social partners (whichincludes farming interests). While there are noministerial representatives, they also tend to have arepresentative from the county enterprise board inorder to avoid duplication of effort. The member-ship of the board can change annually. The averagestaff complement is nineteen and budgets for 2005ranged from €384,000 to €3.5 million. As notedabove, work is currently underway on the creationof a unified structure for the LEADER groups andPartnerships in rural areas.

Regional fisheries boardsThere are seven regional fisheries boards. Theyhave their origins in the Inlands Fisheries Trust andBoards of Conservators. As statutory bodies underthe 1980 Fisheries Act (amended slightly in 1999),they have responsibility for the conservation,protection, development, management andpromotion of inland fisheries in their region. In thisregard, two thirds of survey respondents identifiedregulation as their primary task. The boards areappointed through a combination of ministerialappointment and election by stakeholders asdescribed in the 1980 Act and range from twenty-one to twenty-three members. The average staff sizeof each fisheries board is forty including a chiefexecutive and a complement of staff involved inadministration and outdoor work. The chiefexecutive is recruited through the PublicAppointments Service and other staff are recruitedlocally. Budgets for 2005 ranged from €2.4 to €3.5million, and the boards tend to raise approximately20 per cent of their income through licence fees andfisheries rates.

They are supported by and report to the CentralFisheries Board, a national body that advises the


_______________

63 O’Sullivan, T “Local Areas and Structures” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA,2003), p. 72.


Minister for Communications, Marine and NaturalResources, and the Inland Fisheries, Marine Leisureand Research Division of the department. Theregional fisheries boards may have representationon regional authorities or regional assemblies,although the jurisdictions of regional fisheriesboards, regional authorities and regional assembliesare not congruent.

Several consultancy reports have been producedin recent years concerning aspects of inlandfisheries and the regional fisheries boards64. Acomprehensive report published in 2005 criticisedthe manner in which the inland fisheries sector(including the regional fisheries boards) wascurrently governed and noted that the inlandfisheries sector involved a range of private interestsand state actors. Apart from the Department forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resources,these included the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, and up to fifteenother state bodies (excluding local authorities)65. Itrecommended that the functions traditionallyexercised by the regional fisheries boards betransferred to various departments, existingagencies (such as the Marine Institute) and a newregulatory body. It also proposed that a NationalInland Fisheries Authority would employ staff invarious regions to carry out its functions rather thanthere being duplicate independent bodies.

It also advocated that the state should withdrawfrom ownership in favour of regulated ‘communityownership’66. The review also recommended theestablishment of five statutory ‘Regional Consulta-tive and Advisory Councils’ to provide input intopolicy development. It stated that the councilsshould be ‘broadly representative of the totality ofthe local stakeholder community’ and be estab-lished on a statutory basis67. At time of writing, theregional fisheries boards are still operating andfurther analysis of the proposed reforms isunderway.

Regional tourism authoritiesUntil their abolition in mid-2006, the regional

tourism authorities were public companies limitedby guarantee, and with their own memoranda and

articles of association. Originally established byBord Fáilte (now Fáilte Ireland) in 1964, thecompanies were charged with the promotion oftourism and related products in their respectiveregions. They also co-ordinated the work of countytourism committees which existed within theirjurisdictions. Membership of the authorities washeld by local authorities and members of thetourism industry who paid an annual membershipfee which gave them voting entitlements for boardmembers. While eight ‘regional tourismorganisations’ were originally established, this hassince been reduced to six and the name regionaltourism authority has been in use since 1996. Thecompanies also operate networks of touristinformation offices.

As later chapters identify, regional tourismauthorities enjoy significant levels of autonomyfrom both Fáilte Ireland and the Department of Arts,Sports and Tourism. They are financed by FáilteIreland (which receives its funding from thedepartment), local authorities, membershipsubscriptions and revenues generated through somecommercial activities. Each regional tourismauthority has a board consisting of elected andappointed members, including representation fromFáilte Ireland, with whom they are required to workclosely. Unlike many other local and regionalbodies, the regional tourism authorities do not haveany ministerial nominees on their boards.

While the principal duties of the regional tourismauthorities as reported in the survey are theimplementation of policy and promotional (non-commercial) development, survey respondentsnoted that their secondary functions also includedcommercial development and co-ordination. Unlikethe majority of local and regional non-commercialbodies, respondents from regional tourismauthorities reported that the EU has had noinfluence on their current form. The average staffcomplement is seventy-five full time equivalents,and budgets for those responding ranged from €2.6to €7 million in 2005.

A consultancy report published in 2005advocated an enhanced brief for the tourismauthorities, with more emphasis on their strategic


_______________

64 See for example Gap Gemini Ernst & Young Human Resource Strategy Review: Future State Design Report into the Central andRegional Fisheries Boards (Dublin: 2001) and Price Waterhouse Review of the Organisation and Management Structure of the FisheryService (Dublin: 1996)65 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Review of the Inland Fisheries Sector in Ireland – Stage 1 (Dublin:FGS Consulting, 2005), p. vi66 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Review of the Inland Fisheries Sector in Ireland – Stage 1 (Dublin:FGS Consulting, 2005), p. xv67 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Review of the Inland Fisheries Sector in Ireland – Stage 1 (Dublin:FGS Consulting, 2005), p. xxii


rather than administrative roles. This has beenapproved by the minister and at time of writingprogress is underway on the establishment of sixnew Regional Tourism Development Boards68 toperform these new functions. During 2006 theregional tourism authorities abolished themselvesfollowing acceptance of the restructuring proposalsby each board and an EGM of members. The boards’functions and any assets have been assumed byFáilte Ireland. The new boards will have anindependent chair appointed by Fáilte Ireland, twolocal authority elected representatives, two localauthority managers, four tourism industryrepresentatives and one other Fáilte Irelandappointee.

4.5 Co-ordination

As already noted above, non-commercial local andregional bodies in many sub-sectors are involved inco-ordination activities alongside their otherfunctions. However, the primary role of the bodiesin two sub-sectors – city and county developmentboards and childcare committees - are explicitly co-ordinating ones and so are considered togetherhere.

City and county development boards

In 1998, the Report of the Task Force on theIntegration of Local Government and LocalDevelopment Systems recommended closer linksbetween local authorities and local developmentbodies such as LEADER groups, enterprise boardsand Partnership companies (above). As a result, cityand county development boards (CDBs) wereestablished in 2000 in each of the thirty-four countyand city council areas to provide more coherentdelivery of services, as well as to identify and fillgaps in service delivery. CDBs are normallyfacilitated by the local authority’s community andenterprise section. While CDBs have a particularcommitment to tacking social exclusion andpromoting local development69, respondents to thesurvey noted that they are involved in a very widerange of activities, including training, socialservices, environment and enterprise. Sixty-five percent of respondents stated that their primaryfunction is co-ordination.

The boards comprise representatives of localauthorities (both elected and administrative),national bodies (such as An Garda Síochána,Enterprise Ireland and FÁS), the social partners,local development bodies (such as LEADER groups,enterprise boards and childcare committees) andvarious other local non-governmental organisationsand charities. All city and county councils nowhave a ‘community and voluntary forum’ whichprovides a network mechanism for community andvoluntary groups to nominate their representativesto the CDB, as well as to local authority strategicpolicy committees, enterprise boards, Partnershipsand other local bodies.

In 2002, each CDB adopted its ten-year strategyfor ‘economic, social and cultural development’,which followed a design template created by theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. The role is also explicitly recognisedin national strategies such as the NationalDevelopment Plan 2007-13, Towards 2016 and theNational Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-16.The average number of staff facilitating the work ofCDBs is five. City and county development boardsdo not normally have their own budget butindirectly can control resources ranging from€27,000 to €4 million. The unique nature of cityand county development boards is such that manyof the survey respondents noted difficulties ingiving responses to questions concerning suchissues as human resources where they have little ifany function.

City and county childcare committeesThe final sub-sector to be considered are the cityand county childcare committees. There are thirty-three childcare committees, operating in eachcounty and city area (with the exception of GalwayCounty and City which share one such committee).They were established as companies in 2001 andoperate as working groups of the city and countydevelopment boards. Their role is to advance theprovision and co-ordination of quality childcareservices through the implementation of five-yearstrategies. Mirroring this, 74 per cent of surveyrespondents stated that their primary function is co-ordination.

The boards of management of childcare


_______________

68 The consultancy report had proposed they be called Regional Tourism Partnerships.69 Keyes, J. “Community and Enterprise” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003),p. 292


committees comprise representatives of local andregional state organisations, the social partners,parents, childcare providers and voluntaryorganisations involved with childcare. The averagestaff complement is 3.5 full time equivalents andbudgets for 2005 ranged from €199,000 to€500,000. The committees received funding underthe National Development Plan 2000-6 and 74 percent of respondents noted that the EU had a ‘strong’influence on their childcare committee, particularlyin terms of funding. Since 2003, childcarecommittees are formally represented on city andcounty development boards (above). Their work isco-ordinated by the Childcare Directorate which,since 2005, operates within the Office of theMinister for Children. The directorate had formerlybeen housed within the Department of Justice,Equality and Law Reform.

4.5.1 The EU and co-ordination at local andregional levelWhile a wide range of activities are performed bylocal and regional bodies, they are not necessarilyas diverse or specialised as those performed bynational bodies. As noted above, while 4 per cent ofnational bodies consider co-ordination to be theirprimary function, almost a third of sub-nationalbodies identified it as their primary function,indicating either a high diffusion of activity at locallevel, or else a concern over possible duplication ofactivity. Focusing on the issue of co-ordination as aprimary or secondary function, a breakdown bylocal authority and the other eleven sub-sectors isdetailed below, as is the influence of the EU on eachorganisation’s current form as perceived byrespondents.

Table 4.2 demonstrates that co-ordination


Table 4.2: Co-ordination as a function of local and regional bodies

Type of Local or Co-ordination Co-ordination Yes the EU had Year of Regional Agency identified as identified as a strong establishment

primary function (%) secondary influence on (modal function (%) the organisation’s response)

current form (%)

Local Authorities 0 15 56 1899Regional Authorities 67 20 100 1994Regional Assemblies 0 100 100 1999Harbour Commissions 17 0 0 1946Vocational Education Committees 13 13 38 1930Enterprise Boards 0 13 60 1993Partnerships 36 36 50 1991-6LEADER 11 30 90 1994-6Regional Fisheries Boards 0 0 0 1980Regional Tourism Authorities 0 50 0 1991Development Boards 65 20 18 2000Childcare Committees 74 18 74 2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

%

19301900 1940 1946 1960 1970 1980 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Fig. 4.2: Establishment by year of bodies whose primary function is co-ordination (%)


features more strongly for some bodies than others,and there are some commonalities between suchorganisations. For example, of those organisationswhich most positively identified co-ordination astheir principal task (regional authorities,Partnerships, development boards and childcarecommittees), all were established since the early1990s. Figure 4.2 shows that the vast majority ofsub-national bodies who identified co-ordination astheir primary function were established since 1994.

For the two sub-sectors that responded 0 per centto co-ordination as a primary function (regionalassemblies and regional tourism authorities), itfeatured strongly as their main secondary function– 100 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. Also,more than half (54 per cent) of organisations otherthan local authorities noted that the EU had a‘strong influence’ on their current organisationform. A further 32 per cent reported that the EU hadhad ‘some influence’ in this regard70.

4.6 Conclusions

The fact that much of local authority activity isestablished in law accounts for the fact that almostthree quarters of respondents noted that theprimary role of their local authority is the directimplementation of policy. While only 8 per centidentified regulation as their primary role, 39 percent stated that it is their principal secondaryfunction. The multi-functional role of localauthorities is also reflected in the fact that co-ordination, non-commercial promotionaldevelopment and commercial development alsofeature in responses. Local authorities must alsowork in partnership with a significant number oflocal and regional bodies across various policyfields.

The other eleven (non-directly elected) sub-sectors range considerably in age and function.However, some important patterns emerge. Just as

the study of national non-commercial bodies founda sharp increase in the number of such bodies beingestablished since the early 1990s, so too do themajority (80 per cent) of sub-national bodies datefrom this period onward. Also, co-ordinationemerges as a defining feature of sub-nationalgovernment in Ireland. Almost one third (32 percent) of local and regional bodies view co-ordination as their main role, which could indicateeither a high diffusion of activity at local level, orelse a concern over possible duplication of activity.A further 28 per cent viewed direct implementationof policy as their primary role with another 18 percent identifying specialist areas of work.

In terms of secondary function, analysis of thenorm for the eleven sub-sectors again identified co-ordination as featuring strongly (23 per cent). Otherprominent roles for sub-national bodies include theprovision of information, advising, the directimplementation of policy and promotional (non-commercial) development.

There is currently considerable institutionalreconfiguration at sub-national level, and at leastthree sub-sectors (harbour commissions, regionalfisheries boards and regional tourism authorities)have recently been abolished or are in the processof reform or having their main functions subsumedby other organisations. Many Partnershipcompanies and LEADER groups have also recentlybeen merged, with more to follow. Membership ofthe EU has also resulted in institutional change atthe sub-national level; at last half (54 per cent) oforganisations other than local authorities noted thatthe EU had a ‘strong influence’ on their currentorganisation form. A further 32 per cent reportedthat the EU had had ‘some influence’ in this regard.A significant number of sub-national bodies haveArticles and Memoranda of Association andinterviews suggest that the Code of Practice for theGovernance of State Bodies is used extensively.


_______________

70 For more on the influences of the EU on sub-national government, see John, P. “The Europeanisation of Sub-national Governance”Urban Studies, Vol.37 (5-6), 2000, pp. 877-94


5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the autonomy and accountability ofthe 155 non-commercial local and regional bodieswho responded to this survey with regard to humanresources is considered. Similar to the study ofnational non-commercial bodies, the analysis ofsub-national bodies reveals considerable variationin average staffing numbers. Between sub-sectors,these range from approximately three full-timeequivalents (harbour commissions) to severalhundred (local authorities).

The survey considered two key issues in terms ofhuman resources – the extent to which the bodieshad autonomy on strategic HR policy, andautonomy for general HR issues affecting individualstaff members such as numbers, appointments,

salaries, promotion, tenure, evaluation anddismissals. The matrices used to perform thisanalysis are set out in Appendix 3. The issues ofstrategic HR autonomy for the eleven sub-sectorsand the local authorities are examined in the firstinstance, before consideration of general HRautonomy.

5.2 Strategic HR autonomy: 11 sub-sectors

Figure 5.1 illustrates that the aspect of general HRpolicy which both national, regional and localorganisations are most likely to have autonomy overis establishing staff evaluation schemes. At theother extreme, setting salary level is the single issue


5Autonomy and accountability of non-commercial local

and regional bodies in relation to human resources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Staff numbers

Staff appointment/selection*

Salary

Promotion conditions

Tenure

Evaluation schemes

Dismissal criteria*

National bodies Local Authorities Norm for 11 sub-sectors

Fig. 5.1: Organisation can set general policy for the following issues without ministerial/departmental influence (%)

*Figures for staff appointment/selection and dismissal are not available for national bodies.


which such bodies are least likely to haveautonomy over, due to the centralisation of publicsector pay in the Department of Finance. Largevariations emerge between national bodies andlocal and regional bodies (other than localauthorities) over deciding on staff numbers. Anaverage of 40 per cent of sub-national bodiesreported having autonomy over this issue while thesame is true for only 8 per cent of national bodies.In terms of conditions for promotion, nationalbodies (42 per cent) and other local and regionalbodies (45 per cent) have far more discretion thanlocal authorities (17 per cent). Local and regionalbodies (42 per cent) and local authorities (44 percent) also have more discretion over staff tenurethan national bodies (29 per cent). Local andregional bodies also have considerable discretionover staff appointment and selection procedures (61per cent), and dismissal criteria (56 per cent).

Figure 5.1 illustrates that the general HR policyissue that diverges most from the national agenciesis the setting of staff numbers. Within the sub-sectors themselves there are considerablevariations, as Figure 5.2 illustrates. In general, staffnumbers for local and regional bodies are capped bythe Department of Finance. LEADER groups,Partnerships, childcare committees and regionaltourism authorities reported comparatively highlevels of autonomy over the ability to set staffnumbers. However, the organisations must exercisefinancial prudence in doing so and the cost of

employing staff must be met within their budget.The exceptional nature of the founding legislationfor harbour commissions means that any staff thatare employed (including harbour masters), aretechnically employed by the commissionsthemselves. This explains the unusual result inFigure 5.2 for the commissions. HR issues forregional fisheries boards are co-ordinated centrallyby a HR director from the Central Fisheries Board.The autonomy enjoyed by regional tourismauthorities over the issue is in large part due to thefact that the seasonal nature of tourism alsodemanded such flexibility over hiring staff.

A considerable gap also emerges in respect of theability of local and regional bodies to set salaries,when compared with national bodies. A detailedanalysis of the eleven sub-sectors in Figure 5.3shows that all the harbour commissions and asizable percentage of LEADER groups andPartnership companies have autonomy oversalaries. As noted above, interviews suggest thatLEADER groups and Partnerships are encouragedby the Department of Community, Rural andGaeltacht Affairs to maintain financial prudency,and to keep within their budget when deciding onsalaries. As they are private companies, the terms ofsocial partnership agreements do not as such applyto them in terms of salary increases, although linksare increasingly made in relation to the publicservice modernisation agenda. The autonomy ofharbour commissions in this regard is again due to


0

20

40

60

80

100

Sub-Sector

Yes No

Regional A

uthorities

Regional A

ssemblies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEAD

ER

Regional Fisheries B

oardsR

egional Tourism A

uthoritiesD

evelopment B

oards*

Childcare C

omm

ittees

%

* This bar identifies the fact that 40 per cent of city and county development board responses were incomplete

Fig. 5.2: Staff Numbers: Ability to set general policy without ministerial/departmental influence


historical reasons. For other bodies with largestaffing complements, such as VECs and regionalfisheries boards, no local autonomy over salaryexists. The Department of Education and Scienceapproves annually the staffing allocations for VECsand terms and conditions are set centrally inconjunction with the Department of Finance.

Combining the questions concerning the overallaverage level of strategic HR autonomy using thematrix identified at Appendix 3, the followingdistinctions between sub-sectors are revealed inTable 5.1

Table 5.1 Strategic HR

Level of Strategic HR Autonomy Sub-Sector

Maximum Harbour CommissionsLEADER groups

High Partnerships

Moderate Childcare Committees

Low Regional AssembliesRegional Tourism Authorities

Minimum Local AuthoritiesRegional Authorities VECsEnterprise BoardsRegional Fisheries BoardsDevelopment Boards

None

While no sub-sector reported having no strategicHR autonomy, quite a number have a limitedamount of such autonomy. Two sub-sectorsinvolved in commercial issues, Partnerships andLEADER groups, exhibit high to maximum levels ofgeneral HR autonomy. Enterprise boards do not. Forreasons described above, harbour commissions alsohave maximum independence over general HRissues.

The bodies surveyed were also asked to whatextent internal HR management autonomy wasextended downwards in their organisation to lowermanagement levels. Twenty-six per cent of localauthorities reported that this happened in theirorganisations ‘to a large extent’, with 70 per centreporting ‘to some extent’. For the other eleven sub-sectors, the norm is 15 per cent reporting ‘to a largeextent’, 36 per cent reporting ‘to some extent’ and22 per cent reporting not at all. A breakdown bysub-sector is detailed in Figure 5.4.

Regional tourism authorities are the sub-sectorwhere such devolution of authority over HR is mostlikely to happen, while it also occurred to varyingdegrees in the other sub-sectors with the exceptionof regional authorities.

5.3 Strategic HR autonomy: local authoritiesUsing a matrix (see Appendix 3) for identifying thelevel of autonomy local authorities have in relationto strategic HR autonomy, it is evident that on


0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No

Regional Authorities

Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR

egional Tourism Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

%

Fig. 5.3: Staff Salary Levels: Ability to set general policy without ministerial/departmental influence


average local authorities display minimum levels ofsuch autonomy (see Table 5.1). Local authoritieshave no discretion in setting general policy for staffnumbers, salary levels or conditions for promotion,which are instead established at central level by theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment and the Department of Finance. Theterms of the social partnership agreements also playa role in pay-related issues. A minority of localauthorities responded that they did have someability to set policy over staff appointment andselection, tenure and criteria for dismissal. The areawhere a majority of local authorities do havediscretion is in relation to staff evaluation schemes.

5.4 Individual HR autonomy: 11 sub-sectors

In respect of being able to decide on the terms andconditions of individual members of staff withoutministerial or departmental influence, Table 5.2identifies the differences between the various non-commercial local and regional bodies by using themethodology as set out in Appendix 3.

The table reveals that the three sub-sectors mostlikely to have maximum HR autonomy forindividual members of staff are the same as thoseidentified as having high to maximum general HRautonomy (see Table 5.1). These are Partnerships,LEADER groups and harbour commissions.

Partnership companies liase closely with Pobal inrelation to HR. At the other end of the table, as withautonomy for general HR policy, enterprise boards,regional authorities, VECs and development boardsachieved a low score for individual HR autonomy.Local authorities, regional fisheries boards andchildcare committees achieved slightly betterscores for individual HR autonomy than they didfor strategic HR autonomy. While regional tourismauthorities had relatively high levels of policy andfinancial autonomy (below), their HR autonomy islargely decided by a common HR policy with Fáilte


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Does not happen To some extent To a large extent Not applicable


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

itteesFig. 5.4: Does the organisation extend management autonomy for HR to lower levels?

(%)

Table 5.2: HR autonomy for individual staff

Level of HR Autonomyfor individuals Sub-Sector

Maximum PartnershipsLEADERHarbour Commissions

High Childcare Committees

Moderate Local AuthoritiesRegional Fisheries BoardsRegional AssembliesRegional Tourism Authorities

Low Regional Authorities VECsEnterprise BoardsDevelopment Boards*

None

*The results for city and county development boards included many‘non-applicable’ responses, due to the nature of the boards and theirwork.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Salary Promotion Tenure Evaluation Dismissal Appointment

Yes for all staff Yes for most staff Yes for some staff No

Fig. 5.5: Can local authorities decide on the following for individual members of staff? (%)

Ireland. Interviews suggest that regardless of theirlevel of HR autonomy, many sub-national bodiestended to liaise with their parent department inorder to ensure payment increases under thevarious social partnership arrangements.

5.5 Individual HR autonomy: local authorities

As Figure 5.5 shows, local authorities have leastdiscretion over the setting of salary levels forindividual staff members, with 88 per centreporting not being able to do so at all. In terms ofpromotion, however, 44 per cent report that thatthey can decide on this for most individual staff,with a further 26 per cent stating that they can do sofor all staff. Forty-four per cent also said they hadno say over the tenure of individual employees, and39 per cent stated that they are able to decide on theappointment of individual staff.

Using the matrix for gauging the levels ofautonomy different sub-sectors have overindividual HR issues, it is demonstrated that localauthorities have a moderate level of autonomy.

5.6 Summary

The norm for the eleven sub-sectors reveals that theaspect of general HR policy which regional andlocal organisations are most likely to haveautonomy over is establishing staff evaluationschemes. Few organisations had discretion oversalary levels. Local and regional bodies also reportconsiderable discretion over staff appointment and

selection procedures (61 per cent), and dismissalcriteria (56 per cent). Approximately half of thebodies practise some form of internal HRmanagement devolution.

Regional authorities have minimum levels ofstrategic HR autonomy and low HR autonomy forindividual staff. Also, they do not practice internalHR management devolution.

Regional assemblies have low levels of strategicHR autonomy and moderate levels of HR autonomyfor individual staff. However, both assemblies usesome forms of internal HR management devolution.

Of all sub-sectors, harbour commissions havemaximum strategic HR autonomy, including thegreatest autonomy over setting staff numbers andsalaries as these roles rest with the commissionersthemselves. They also have maximum HRautonomy for individual staff, though staff numberstend to be small.

Vocational education committees have minimumstrategic HR autonomy, with no ability to set staffnumbers or salary levels, which is instead decidedupon centrally. They also have low HR autonomyfor individual staff.

City and county enterprise boards also haveminimum strategic HR autonomy and low HRautonomy for individual staff.

Partnership companies also report having a highdegree of autonomy over the ability to set staffnumbers and salaries. Overall, while they liaiseclosely with Pobal, they have high strategic HRautonomy and maximum HR autonomy forindividual staff.


LEADER groups have maximum autonomy overstrategic HR policy, including a lot of autonomyover their staff numbers and salaries, once financialprudence is exercised. They also have maximumHR autonomy for individual staff.

Prior to their abolition in 2006, HR-related issuesfor regional fisheries boards were centrally co-ordinated by the Central Fisheries Boards, andtherefore the boards themselves had minimumstrategic HR autonomy and moderate HR autonomyfor individual staff.

Reflecting their company-like status, regionaltourism authorities displayed high levels ofautonomy over the ability to set staff numbers.However, they had limitations in respect of otherHR issues and overall had low strategic HRautonomy. All of them also practised internal HRmanagement devolution and had moderate HRautonomy for individual staff.

City and county development boards display

minimum strategic HR autonomy and low levels ofHR autonomy for individual staff.

A large number of city and county childcarecommittees also reported being able to set staffnumbers without ministerial or departmentalinfluence. Combining their results reveals that theyhave moderate levels of strategic HR autonomy andhigh levels of HR autonomy for individual staff.

Local authorities display minimum levels of self-reported strategic HR autonomy. Policy on staffnumbers, salary levels and conditions forpromotion are set centrally for all local authorities.One area where they have discretion is in relationto staff evaluation schemes. Almost every localauthority practises some level of internal HRmanagement devolution. In terms of individualself-reported HR autonomy, local authorities havemoderate autonomy. Most have discretion inrelation to staff promotion, evaluation, dismissaland appointments, but little discretion in relation tosalary and tenure.



6.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the funding of local and regionalnon-commercial bodies is considered. As well asidentifying the sources of funds for each sub-sector,their financial autonomy and accountability is alsoconsidered. In general, non-commercial publicbodies depend on sources of funding outside ofdirect levying of charges or sale of products andservices for their survival. While some of the localand regional non-commercial bodies do set chargessuch as commercial rates (local authorities) orharbour fees (harbour commissions), the primarysource of capital and current revenue for the vastmajority is central government. This is in contrastto the situation in many EU member states. Forexample, in 2005, less than 10 per cent of sub-national revenues in Ireland were raised throughsub-national taxes, while the EU average was over42 per cent71. As detailed below, many local andregional bodies also identify the EU as an importantsource for their funding, which is normally routedthrough central government. Financial account-ability is a key element of corporate governance

requirements and this chapter also considers thevarious audit mechanisms employed in this regard.

6.2 Sources of funding: 11 sub-sectorsAs noted in Chapter 5, the budgets for local andregional non-commercial bodies range from thosewho have very small budget allocations to thosewith a budget of €1.5 billion for 2005. In general,local and regional bodies (including localauthorities) do not differ significantly from nationalbodies in terms of funding sources, as Figure 6.1demonstrates. The principal deviation occurs inrespect of EU funding, with 14 per cent of local andregional bodies (other than local authorities)reporting that the EU is their primary source ofincome. However, this EU money is channelledthrough central government. Sixty-five per cent oforganisations in the eleven sub-sectors identifiedtheir primary source of income as direct allocationfrom central government, while 77 per cent ofnational non-commercial bodies did so.


6Autonomy and accountability of non-commercial local and

regional bodies in relation to financial management

_______________

71 Dexia Sub-national public finance in the European Union (Dexia Economic Outlook, November 2006), p. 15.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

From Government EU Fees/Charges Gifts/Spon./Memb. Other

Fig. 6.1 Primary sources of income (%)

National Bodies

Local Authorities

Norm for 11 Sub-Sectors


However, closer examination of the resultsbetween each local and regional sub-sector revealsthat there can be considerable variation in theprimary sources of income (Figure 6.2).

Regional authorities, regional assemblies and cityand county development boards receive transfersfrom local authorities to fund their work. Thedevelopment boards are also encouraged to seekfunding from other state bodies for any initiativesthey undertake. For harbour commissions, theprimary source of income reported by respondentsis berthing fees and tonnage charges, although theamounts levied are controlled by the Minister forTransport (who consults with the Attorney-Generalbefore approving new rates). Regional tourismauthorities also receive funding from tourismorganisations and local authorities. Both LEADERgroups and childcare committees report that EUfunding forms a considerable part of their income.Enterprise boards in the Border area have access toEU funds such as INTERREG and PEACE, as well asfrom the International Fund for Ireland. WhilePartnerships receive their funding from governmentunder the National Development Plan, it is in factdistributed to them by Pobal.

The level of discretion afforded to public bodies

in the management of their funds is an importantfactor in understanding how they perform theirwork. The study of national non-commercial bodiesfound that only 1 per cent of them had maximumfinancial autonomy, while 41 per cent hadmoderate financial autonomy72. Interestingly, thisdid not reflect the situation in relation to policyautonomy, where 44 per cent of national bodiesreported maximum or high policy autonomy inrelation to policy instruments and target groups fortheir work73. The position with regard to local andregional bodies is considered here in more detail.

6.3 Sources of funding: local authorities

Local taxation takes the form of rates on commercialproperties. While this forms a large portion of localauthority revenue (26 per cent in 2006), localauthorities are dependant on central governmentfor income (44 per cent in 2006). Seventy per centof respondents noted that transfers from centralgovernment were their principal source of income.Almost every local authority response identifieddirect government funding and fees and charges astheir primary and secondary sources of income.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

From Government

EU

Fees/Charges

Gifts/Spon./Memb.

Other


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oards

Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.2: Primary Sources of Income

_______________

72 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 90.73 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 154


Customer service charges are another source ofincome for all local authorities. In the case of someurban authorities, commercial rates, fees andcharges are in fact the primary source due to thegreater number of commercial premises in theauthority’s jurisdiction. Fees and charges includeplanning fees, housing rents and developmentlevies.

6.4 Financial autonomy: 11 sub-sectorsFor the eleven sub-sectors, there is some variationin the pattern of financial autonomy. Furthermore,mixed responses within some sub-sectors indicatethe context-specific nature of this issue. Taking theeleven sub-sectors in total, over a third cannot takeout loans, while almost 50 per cent report beingable to do so, including those who can only do sowith permission from their parent departmentand/or the Department of Finance74. In terms ofsetting charges, 57 per cent are able to do so eitherof their own accord or within guidelines set by theminster or his/her department. However, a quarterdid not have this power. Almost three quarters oflocal and regional bodies stated that they couldshift budget allocation by function withinguidelines, but over half said that they could not doso between years. Disaggregating these figures, thebar charts below exhibit the different results foreach sub-sector.

Figure 6.3 illustrates that the organisations withthe greatest discretion to take out loans are theregional tourism authorities (100 per cent), theLEADER groups (61 per cent) and Partnershipcompanies (56 per cent). Normally, such loans aresubject to board approval and if they are over acertain limit are subject to approval by theDepartment of Finance. The approval of Pobal isnormally required for loans taken by Partnerships.Other bodies, such as childcare committees,development boards and regional fisheries boardshave little discretion to take them out. Theremaining organisations have freedom to act withinconditions set by the relevant minister ordepartment.

In terms of setting charges for services, Figure 6.4reveals that only regional tourism authorities havefull discretion to do so, while regional assemblieshave none whatsoever. Charging for goods orservices does not arise to any great extent for cityand county development boards. Regional fisheriesboards have a high level of autonomy over chargesfor their services, although as noted in Chapter 5,the relevant minister sets upper limits to suchcharges. A substantial percentage of enterpriseboards, Partnership companies and childcarecommittees also reported a strong degree ofindependence over this issue. For Partnershipcompanies, interviews suggest that their principalcharges relate to training courses, which they alsosubsidise. The same is true for enterprise boards


_______________

74 For some organisations, particularly city and county development boards, issues such as loans and charges do not arise.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sub-Sector

Yes, without approval

Yes, with approval

No


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ER


oards

Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.3: Can the organisation take out loans? (%)


which have some discretion over the fees they maycharge for business training and mentoringprogrammes. Similarly, some VECs offer specialeducational programmes at subsidised rates.

Figure 6.5 below identifies that with theexception of harbour commissions and develop-ment boards, all sub-sectors have considerablediscretion over their ability to shift budget alloca-tions, once it is within limits set by the minister or

department. The results for regional assembliesreflect the fact that while they have discretion tomove their administrative budgets, the fact that theimplementation of their multi-annual operationalprogrammes is agreed in advance means anymovement of funds, either across function or year,must be negotiated with the relevant Departmentsand the EU Commission.

In terms of shifting budget allocations between


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

itteesYes, without approval

Yes, with approval

No

Sub-Sector

Fig. 6.4: Can the organisation set charges for services? (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Yes, with approval

No


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Sub-Sector

Fig. 6.5: Can the organisation shift budget between different functions? (%)


years, Figure 6.6 identifies that only one sub-sector– regional tourism authorities – is not prevented tosome degree from so doing. A substantialpercentage of all other sub-sectors are limited inthis regard and several have no discretionwhatsoever, including regional fisheries boards anddevelopment boards. With the agreement of theDepartment of Education and Science, some VECsare allowed to carry a surplus forward, in theinterest of prudent financial management. How-ever, any deficits incurred are the responsibility ofthe VEC.

Combining the results shown in Figures 6.3, 6.4,6.5 and 6.6 (see Appendix 3) identifies varyinglevels of financial autonomy for each sub-sector, asTable 6.1 depicts.

While no sub-sector has maximum financialautonomy, regional tourism authorities have a highlevel of control over the raising and use of funds.The high level of financial autonomy contrasts withthe low level of strategic HR policy and moderatelevels of HR autonomy for individual staff whichthe tourism authorities had.

The results for local authorities indicate that theyhave moderate financial autonomy, the same asVECS and the bodies involved in socialdevelopment – partnerships and LEADER groups.Despite their remit of encouraging local economicdevelopment, enterprise boards have little financialautonomy and the Department of Enterprise, Tradeand Employment has substantial control over theirfunding. Enterprise boards that receive funding

through INTERREG and PEACE retain someautonomy over the use of these funds.

In terms of extending internal financial manage-ment autonomy to lower management levels, alllocal authorities responded that this happened intheir organisations. This has been supported bynew financial management systems and therecruitment of professional accountants. For theother eleven sub-sectors, the norm is 21 per centreporting that such devolution occurs ‘to a largeextent’, 45 per cent reporting ‘to some extent’, and13 per cent reporting that it did not happen. Abreakdown of these results by sub-sector is detailedin Figure 6.7.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Yes, with approval

No

Sub-Sector


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.6: Can the organisation shift budget between years?

Table 6.1: Financial Autonomy of Sub-Sectors

Level of Financial Autonomy Sub-Sector

Maximum Financial Autonomy

High Financial Autonomy Regional Tourism Authorities

Moderate Financial Autonomy Local Authorities VECsPartnershipsLEADER

Low Financial Autonomy Regional AuthoritiesRegional AssembliesHarbour CommissionsEnterprise BoardsRegional FisheriesBoardsChildcare Committees

No Financial Autonomy Development Boards


The organisations which are most likely to havemanagement autonomy for finance extendeddownwards ‘to a large extent’ are the regionaltourism authorities (50 per cent), LEADER groups(38 per cent), enterprise boards (35 per cent) andregional fisheries boards (33 per cent). It alsooccurred to some extent in VECs, Partnerships andchildcare committees.

6.5 Financial autonomy: local authorities

Table 6.2 outlines the different responses toquestions concerning loans, charges and budgets bynational, local and regional bodies. For localauthorities, the vast majority of responses reflectedthe fact that they are empowered to take out loanswithin conditions set by the relevant minister. Thisis particularly the case in respect of capitalborrowing where EU limits may apply. However,demonstrating the fact that some charges (such asplanning fees) are set nationally, while others (suchas development levies) are set locally, there is analmost even split in responses concerning theability to set charges without such approval fromthe relevant minister. In terms of shifting budgetallocations, local authorities can do so acrossfunction more easily than between years. Capitalbudgets are to a large extent determined centrally,and on major budget allocations for nationallyimportant programmes it is also possible forfunding to be shifted by the relevant departmentbetween local authorities depending on localprogress. However, funding for capital projects isnow in three-year envelopes and can therefore runover year-on-year in some cases.

Table 6.2: Autonomy of local and regional bodies:financial management (%)

National Local Norm for 11Bodies Authorities Sub-Sectors

Can the organisation take out loans?Yes, fully without priorapproval or conditionsset by Min/Dept. 3 4 22Yes, with prior approvalor within conditions 34 87 27No 47 9 38N/A 15 0 13

Can the organisation set charges for services?Yes, fully without priorapproval or conditionsset by Min/Dept. 42 48 33Yes, with prior approvalor within conditions 28 52 24No 17 0 24N/A 13 0 19

Can the organisation shift its budget allocation by function?Yes, fully without priorapproval or conditionsset by Min/Dept. 42 52 11Yes, with prior approvalor within conditions 28 39 61No 17 9 20N/A 13 0 8

Can the organisation shift its budget allocation betweenyears?Yes, fully without priorapproval or conditionsset by Min/Dept. 9 22 6

Yes, with prior approvalor within conditions 19 30 33No 59 48 52N/A 13 0 9


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Does not happen

To some extent

To a large extent

Not applicable


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.7: Does the organisation extend management autonomy for finance to lower levels? (%)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.8: Does the organisation have an audit committee? (%)

6.6 Audits: 11 sub-sectors

Fifty-three per cent of state bodies in the elevensub-sectors had an audit committee. Within the sub-sectors, the averages fluctuated between those thathad none and those that did for every organisationin their sub-sector, as Figure 6.8 demonstrates. Themost common membership numbers for suchcommittees is either four or five, although onerespondent noted that their organisation’s auditcommittee had eleven members. Neither regionalassemblies nor regional authorities have internalaudit committees, but are audited by theComptroller and Auditor-General’s office. Only onedevelopment board reported having such acommittee, due to the fact that many of them do nothave direct control over a budget but instead have

indirect influence over spending in certain areas.Every enterprise board, vocational educationcommittee, regional fisheries board and regionaltourism authority has an audit committee. Pobalaudits the Partnership companies, and is itselfaudited by the Comptroller and Auditor-Generaland the Department of Community, Rural andGaeltacht Affairs.

Leaving aside regional authorities and regionalassemblies who have no audit committees, there aredifferences in the forms of expertise available onthe audit committees themselves where they exist.Apart from development boards, most auditcommittees contain at least one member with auditskills and one member with experience of generalmanagement, as Figure 6.9 identifies.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Audit & Accounting

General Management

Other

Harbour C

omm

issionsVEC

s

Enterprise BoardsPartnerships

LEADER

Regional Fisheries BoardsRegional Tourism

Authorities

Development Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.9 Does the organisation have at least one member of the audit committee with expertise in thefollowing areas? (%)


Apart from having audit committees, publicbodies at local and regional level are also subject tooccasional audits. While 12 per cent of nationalnon-commercial bodies reported that they were notaudited either externally or internally75, thecorresponding average figure for local and regionalbodies is only 5 per cent. Figure 6.10 demonstratesthat few organisations relied on internal auditservices alone, with an average of 42 per cent acrossthe eleven sub-sectors opting for both an internaland external audit. Interviews identified that where

board members do not have sufficient auditexperience, it is commonplace to engage externalconsultants to prepare their annual accounts. Bothregional assemblies relied completely on anexternal audit service, while 83 per cent of harbourcommissions, 73 per cent of childcare committees,65 per cent of Partnerships and 60 per cent ofregional authorities did likewise. Many local andregional bodies (excluding local authorities) arealso audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.


0

20

40

60

80

100

An external audit service

An internal audit service

Both


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missioners

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.10 What type of audit service does the organisation use? (%)

_______________

75 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 103.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Financial Results Organisational Results

Legality andCompliance

Internal ControlSystems

Other

National Bodies

Local Authorities

Norm for 11 Sub-Sectors

Fig. 6.11 What is audited in the internal or external audit process? (%)


Of those national non-commercial bodies whichwere audited externally, 94 per cent reported thatthe audit had occurred in the last two years76. Thecorresponding average figure for local and regionalbodies is 99 per cent. Looking at what issues areconsidered in the course of the audits revealsbroadly similar results between the national bodies,local authorities and the norm for the eleven sub-sectors, as Figure 6.11 demonstrates. In each fieldconsidered (except ‘other’), local and regionalbodies experience greater auditing coverage than donational bodies77. The greatest variation betweenthe categories of organisation occurred over theissues of financial results, and legality andcompliance.

Looking in more detail (Figure 6.12) at the issuesconsidered in the internal and external auditprocesses for the eleven sub-sectors, with theexception of city and county development boardsall sub-sectors score positively for audits offinancial results and internal control systems.Audits of legality and compliance issues alsofeature strongly, with the exception of harbourcommissions and development boards. Apart fromthe ‘other’ category, the greatest variation occurs inrespect of organisational results, with resultsranging from 17 to 100 per cent, with an overallaverage of 45 per cent. For both regional assembliesand regional authorities, an external audit is

conducted annually by the Local GovernmentAudit Service. As regional assemblies receive EUfunding for several different types of activity, theyare subject to a range of national and EU auditscovering such other issues as documentation andprocesses.

Apart from routine internal and/or externalaudits, local and regional organisations may besubject to ad-hoc audits, organised by themselves,their parent body or another body such asgovernment or the Houses of the Oireachtas. For theeleven sub-sectors outside of local authorities, thereis considerable variation as to who sponsored suchaudits. While at least half of the regionalauthorities, harbour commissions, vocationaleducation committees, regional fisheries boardsand development boards did not experience an ad-hoc audit, very few organisations (9 per cent)carried out such an audit themselves or engaged aconsultant to do it (3 per cent). One third of theselocal and regional bodies are subject to an ad-hocaudit organised by their parent body, and this isparticularly true for regional assemblies, vocationaleducation committees, enterprise boards, LEADERgroups and childcare committees.

A third of the organisations in the eleven sub-sectors experienced an ad-hoc audit organised bycentral government. The sub-sectors mostfrequently experiencing this are the regional


_______________

76 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 103.77 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K & Humphreys, P The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial National Agencies(Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p. 103; Results of NationalDatabase Survey.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Financial Results

Organisational Results

Legality and Compliance

Other

Internal Control Systems


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 6.12: What is audited in the internal or external audit process? (%)


assemblies, enterprise boards, Partnerships,LEADER groups and regional tourism authorities.Finally, a number of organisations, and particularlyregional tourism authorities (50 per cent) andPartnerships (41 per cent) reported having had ad-hoc audits organised by the Houses of theOireachtas/Comptroller and Auditor-General.

6.7 Audits: local authorities

While every organisation that responded to thesurvey had a board (or Council), only 13 per cent oflocal authorities reported having an auditcommittee78. However, the Local Government(Business Improvements Districts) Act 2006provides for the mandatory establishment of suchcommittees and for widely enhanced functions.Each local authority reported having being auditedeither by an external body (such as the LocalGovernment Audit Service) or an internal one. Alllocal authorities reported that they had beenaudited within the last two years and twenty-threevalue-for-money reports have been published by theLocal Government Audit Service in recent years.Local authorities also conducted occasional ad-hocaudits, and 29 per cent have carried out their owninternal ad-hoc audit within the last five years.Twenty-nine per cent also reported that such anaudit had been organised by the Department ofEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government.Thirteen per cent responded that the governmenthad organised an audit, and 3 per cent had invitedan external consultant to conduct a non-routineaudit. Twenty-six per cent of local authoritiesreported that no ad-hoc audits had taken placewithin this period.

6.8 Summary

The vast majority of local and regional bodiesreceive their funding from central government.Some do raise their own revenue for currentexpenditure, including harbour commissions andPartnership companies. The EU is also an important

source of funding for other sub-sectors. Few cantake out loans or shift budget by year withoutministerial or departmental approval, but can shiftbudgets by function. Just over half of the elevensub-sector respondents reported having an auditcommittee in their boards, but almost all have beenaudited externally in the last two years. Audits tendto focus more on financial results, legality andcompliance and internal control systems, than onorganisational results.

For regional authorities, the primary source ofincome is transfers from local authorities, andresults indicate that they have low financialautonomy. They have no internal audit committeesbut are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

As with regional authorities, regional assemblieshave low financial autonomy and their primarysource of income is transfers from local authorities.Their funding is distributed as agreed under theNational Development Plan 7-year framework.Neither have an internal audit committee but theComptroller and Auditor-General audits them.

Harbour commissions generate their own currentexpenditure themselves through charges and fees,within limits set by the minister. Overall they havelow financial autonomy.

Vocational education committees have moderatefinancial autonomy and in general budgets aretightly controlled by the Department of Educationand Science. All of them have audit committees.

City and county enterprise boards do not have thefreedom to take out loans and display low financialautonomy. All of them have audit committees ontheir boards.

A majority of Partnerships responded that theycould take out loans without having to seek theapproval of the department or minister. However,the approval of Pobal is normally necessary. Overallthey have moderate financial autonomy.

A large portion of LEADER groups’ funding isderived from the EU, and they have moderatefinancial autonomy. A majority of respondentsreported that they have freedom to take out loanswithout departmental approval.


_______________

78 A report by the Value for Money Unit of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2000 identifiedshortcomings in local authorities’ internal audit procedures and guidelines were published the following year. A review of localgovernment financing published in 2006 also addressed the issue of local authority audit practices and recommended ‘changes inlegislation to permit councils to appoint outside experienced specialists to audit committees [and] the establishment by all localauthorities of audit committees focussed on securing on-going efficiency’, Indecon (2005) Review of Local Government Financing,Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, p. xx. Following the publication of the review, the departmentpublished a report advocating the establishment of internal audit committees in all local authorities and drafted a recommended ‘AuditCommittee Charter’ to aid the work of such committees.


Regional fisheries boards had a large degree ofdiscretion over setting charges for services butotherwise had low financial autonomy. Each had anaudit committee.

Of all sub-sectors, regional tourism authoritieshad the highest financial autonomy, and could takeout loans and set charges as they wished. Theyreceived funding from membership fees, localauthorities and grants from Fáilte Ireland. They arealso most likely to extend financial managementautonomy downwards internally and each of themhad an audit committee.

Budgets for city and county development boardstend to be small and are normally transferred fromlocal authorities. They have no financial autonomy.

City and county childcare committees derivemost of their income from EU grants. They have lowlevels of financial autonomy.

Local authorities have moderate financialautonomy. In the overall, local authorities sourcesome 56 per cent of their current expenditure fromlocal sources (commercial rates 26 per cent; goods

and services 30 per cent), with the remainder beingprovided by way of government grants/subsidies(23 per cent) and general-purpose grants from theLocal Government Fund (21 per cent). For most,money from the Local Government Fund and grantsare key sources of revenue for capital and currentexpenditure, with fees and charges alsocontributing a significant portion of income. Whilea minority of councils responded that they hadaudit committees (a point also noted by the recentIndecon report on Local Government Financing79),recent legislative changes80 provide that suchcommittees will be established in all localauthorities, starting with city and county councils.They are also audited annually by the LocalGovernment Audit Service, which also undertakesvalue for money evaluations across the localgovernment sector. New financial managementsystems have also been rolled out, including theintroduction of accrual accounting and riskmanagement techniques.


_______________

79 Indecon Economic Consultants Review of Local Government Financing, (Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, 2006), p. xx.80 Local Government (Business Improvements Districts) Act 2006, Section 5


7.1 IntroductionIn this chapter, autonomy and accountability forpolicy amongst local and regional bodies isanalysed. The organisations surveyed were asked todetail the level of discretion available to them todecide on the group to which they should directtheir activities. They were also questioned abouttheir ability to decide on what they believed to bethe most appropriate policy instruments for thoseactivities.

7.2 Deciding on target groups: 11 sub-sectorsFor the eleven sub-sectors, the most pronouncedareas of difference in comparison with the nationalbodies occurs in relation to their ability to decideon target groups. Fifty per cent of local and regionalbodies have discretion over their target groups,

once that discretion is exercised within ministerialor departmental limits. However, as Figure 7.1illustrates, only 15 per cent of local and regionalbodies have almost complete freedom in decidingon their target groups. While the study of nationalbodies found that they made important inputs intonational policy81, not least because 23 per centclaimed to provide policy advice, the sameindependence is not evident for local and regionalbodies. Less than a quarter have the ability topursue their own courses of action in respect ofdeciding on their target groups, while the majorityare obliged to operate within certain constraints, orin some cases are given no discretion at all. Formany sub-national bodies, local discretion in theimplementation of high-level goals and objectives istolerated, but drifting outside of agreed orestablished frameworks is not.

In terms of the ability of local and regional bodies


7Policy autonomy and accountability of non-commercial

local and regional bodies

_______________

81 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p.114.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

N/A

%

National Bodies Local Authorities Norm for 11 Sub-Sectors

Organisationprincipallydecides

Organisationdecidesfollowing

consultationwith Min/Dept

Organisationdecideswithin

Min/Deptlimits

Min/Deptdecidesfollowing

consultationwith

organisation

Min/Deptdecides

Legislationdictates

decisionstaken

Other

Fig. 7.1: Can organisation decide on the target group for its actions/functions? (%)


to decide on the policy instruments necessary todeliver their functions, a similar pattern emerges.

7.3 Deciding on target groups: local authoritiesFor local authorities, there are also some importantdifferences between their work and the work ofnational bodies in terms of their ability to decide ontarget groups. While 36 per cent of national bodiesreported that they decided on their target groups,only 13 per cent of local authorities did so. Thisagain reflects the statutory nature of much localauthority work. Conversely, while 39 per cent oflocal authorities responded that they decide ontheir target group within conditions set by theminister or department, only 12 per cent of nationalbodies claimed to be restricted in this way.

7.4 Deciding on policy instruments: 11 sub-sectorsThe norm for the eleven sub-sectors of local andregional bodies demonstrates that the biggestdifference when compared with national bodies isin respect of ability to decide on policyinstruments. Figure 7.2 illustrates that only 13 percent of the organisations in the eleven sub-sectorsenjoyed discretion to decide themselves on theappropriate policy instruments necessary toconduct their work. However, interviews suggestthat changes in policy tend to be agreed inconsultation with parent departments, and thatonce such changes are within statutory frameworks

there is normally little difficulty. Reflecting this,while only 17 per cent of national bodies are boundin their decisions on policy instruments byministerial or departmental limits, 52 per cent ofsub-national bodies must take these limits intoaccount.

Focusing on the response ‘organisation decideswithin min/dept limits’, which is the most commonresponse to both the issue of selecting a target groupand choosing policy instruments, Figure 7.3illustrates the variations within the eleven sub-sectors. The sub-sectors most likely to have to actwithin departmental limits are the harbourcommissions, LEADER groups, enterprise boardsand VECs. In the case of enterprise boards, theDepartment of Enterprise, Trade and Employmentestablishes high-level targets and principles whichare then interpreted locally by the boards. Regionaltourism authorities are not constrained to anysignificant degree on either issue by their parentbody. This reflects the fact that they are largelyindependent of the Department of Arts, Sports andTourism and Fáilte Ireland.

Similarly, many city and county developmentboards enjoy a large degree of discretion overdeciding on target groups (47 per cent) and policyinstruments (40 per cent), and so in Figure 7.3 arelatively low number report being constrained bythe Department of Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. Only 40 per cent of regionalauthorities reported having discretion over thesefunctions. Regional fisheries boards, on the otherhand, had both their target groups and policyinstruments established by other means –


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

National Bodies Local Authorities Norm for 11 Sub-Sectors

N/AOrganisationprincipallydecides

Organisationdecidesfollowing

consultationwith Min/Dept

Organisationdecideswithin

Min/Deptlimits

Min/Deptdecidesfollowing

consultationwith

organisation

Min/Deptdecides

Legislationdictates

decisionstaken

Other

Fig. 7.2: Can organisation decide on which policy instrument it will use? (%)


principally legislation. The fisheries boards alsooperate a range of bye-laws and ministerialapproval is necessary for amendments or theintroduction of new such laws. The regionalassemblies have their target groups set out in theirRegional Operational Programme.

Using a matrix for policy autonomy (seeAppendix 3) based on the results in Figures 7.1 and7.2, the following Table (7.1) identifies on a scalethe variations on policy autonomy emergingbetween the sub-sectors.

Table 7.1: Policy autonomy

Level of Policy Autonomy Sub-Sector

Maximum Development BoardsHigh Regional Assemblies

Regional Tourism Authorities

Moderate Local AuthoritiesRegional AuthoritiesHarbour CommissionsVECsEnterprise BoardsPartnershipsLEADERRegional Fisheries BoardsChildcare Committees

Low

Minimum

None

Interestingly, while regional tourism authoritiesachieve a ‘high’ level in terms of policy autonomy,interviews suggest that many felt they had little

input into policy formulation at a higher level inrespect of tourism. This is recognised in the factthat one of the reasons the new regional tourismdevelopment boards have been established is toprovide for greater input by the regions into tourismpolicy.

7.5 Deciding on policy instruments: local authoritiesFor local authorities, one of the biggest areas ofdeviation from national bodies concerns the abilityto independently decide on policy instruments.Only 9 per cent of local authorities reported thatthey decide on their policy instruments themselves,compared to 36 per cent of national bodies (Figure8.2). Also, 57 per cent of local authorities are boundin their decisions concerning what they believe tobe appropriate policy instruments by ministerial ordepartmental limits.

7.6 Types of strategy documents: 11 sub-sectorsOnce target groups and policy instruments havebeen decided upon, it is necessary for organisationsto have a means of reporting on the implementationof policy. The survey asked respondents to identifywhether or not they produce documents whichconsider such issues as strategy, investment andfinancial targets. Another question asked howsuccessful the organisation has been in achievingits goals in respect of these issues. Figure 7.4 showsthat broadly similar patterns emerged between


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees%

Target Group

Policy Instrument

Fig. 7.3: Organisation decides within min/dept limits


national bodies and local and regional organisa-tions in terms of producing reports for governmentdetailing planned strategy and objectives. Forplanned investment reports, the norm for the 11other sub-sectors is 56 per cent, again higher thanfor the national bodies. Local and regional bodiesare also more likely than national bodies to producereports on planned financial and non-financialtargets.

Looking in more detail at the figure for plannedinvestment for local and regional bodies, only twoof the five sub-sectors identified in Chapter 4 as

‘Promotional and Developmental’ organisations –enterprise boards and LEADER groups – havenotably high positive response rates (Figure 7.5).Interviews corroborate that LEADER groups submitregular business plans, although the averageinvestment in projects is relatively small at€20,000. The other sub-sectors – Partnershipcompanies (58 per cent), regional fisheries boards(50 per cent) and regional tourism authorities (50per cent) – include a substantial proportion oforganisations that do not report in advance onplanned investment. Regional assemblies have


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategy Objectives PlannedInvestment

Financial Targets Non-FinancialTargets

Norm for 11 sub-sectors

National bodies

Local Authorities

Fig. 7.4: Does a document go to government specifying the following? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 7.5: Does a document go to government detailing planned investment? (%)


operational programmes which detail proposedinvestment across a range of areas. In many sub-sectors, including harbour commissions anddevelopment boards, capital investments tend notto arise in the course of the organisation’s work. ForPartnerships, any investment plans must receivecity/county development board endorsement aswell as the support of Pobal.

In general, where sub-national bodies areembarking on capital investments, appropriatebusiness plans are required. For VECs, the 2001Vocational Education (Amendment) Act requireseach committee to create a five-year plan as well asannual service plans which are submitted to theDepartment of Education and Science. Also, someorganisations have their investments funded as partof the National Development Plan. Severalorganisations, particularly city and countydevelopment boards, are not involved ininvestments and therefore such documentationdoes not arise.

For the eleven sub-sectors, the use of multi-annual business plans varies substantially, with 21per cent stating they did not use them, 23 per centstating they used them ‘to some extent’ and 32 percent stating ‘to a large extent’. There are also sub-sector specific arrangements. For example, regionalassemblies operate within a 7-year framework asestablished under the National Development Plan,and report annually on their progress. Regionalauthorities have a ‘designated manager’ from one ofthe local authorities within their jurisdiction, with

whom they discuss progress and future plans. Amore detailed breakdown by sub-sector is given inFigure 7.6 below.

In the case of regional fisheries boards, while amulti-annual business plan does not arise in thecontext of proposals to the boards, they do produceannual business plans which are agreed with thedepartment.

7.7 Types of strategy documents: local authoritiesAs Figure 7.4 (above) illustrates, a much largerpercentage of local authorities (90 per cent) producereports on planned investment than nationalbodies. This is because such plans are required bythe Department of Finance in order to ensureNational Development Plan funding is secured.Furthermore, 52 per cent of local authorities alsoreported that the use of multi-annual business plansoccurs ‘to a large extent’ in their organisation, whilea further 44 per cent said that this happened ‘tosome extent’.

7.8 Reporting on work done: 11 sub-sectorsReporting on work done in document format is acentral part of the accountability regime of localand regional bodies to central government, as wellas to the public. Organisations were asked abouttheir reporting on how successful the organisation


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Does not happen

To some extent

To a large extent

Not applicable


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 7.6: Does the organisation prepare multi-annual business plans?


has been in achieving its targets, objectives,planned investments, financial and non-financialtargets. For all local and regional bodies, Figure 7.7demonstrates that the combined average result ishigher than for national bodies across all fiveissues. While results for reporting on strategy andobjectives is broadly similar, larger differencesopened up when comparing results for reporting onplanned investment, financial and non-financialtargets.

As with Figure 7.4, the issue of plannedinvestment reveals the greatest disparity between

local authorities, national bodies and the norm forthe other eleven sub-sectors. A closer examinationof the responses by the eleven sub-sectors (Figure7.8 below) reveals a broadly similar pattern to theresults on advance reporting (Figure 7.5). Giventheir role in promoting commercial development,reporting by Partnership groups (58 per cent) issomewhat lower than it is for enterprise boards (94per cent) and LEADER companies (75 per cent).Nonetheless, interviews suggest that Partnershipsproduce both annual and interim reports for Pobal,and that for Parliamentary Questions, the


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategy Objectives PlannedInvestment

FinancialTargets

Non-FinancialTargets

National bodies

Local Authorities

Norm for 11 sub-sectors

%

Fig. 7.7: Does the organisation report in a document on how it has delivered on the following? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A

Regional AuthoritiesRegional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs


LEADER


Authorities

Developm

ent BoardsC

hildcare Com

mittees

Fig. 7.8: Does the organisaton report in a document on investment targets? (%)


Department for Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs can easily access information as required.VECs also show some variation between thenumber who report on achievement of plannedinvestment (60 per cent) and those who do not (30per cent). Interviews suggest nonetheless that thereis significant central control over the building ofnew schools and other educational establishmentswith which the VEC may be involved. Regionalassemblies must present an annual implementationreport to the EU Commission which details progresson their work, including investment targets.

An average of 89 per cent of local and regionalbodies also produce annual reports. As Figure 7.9illustrates, a high percentage of harbourcommissions (83 per cent) do not produce suchreports, due to their small size and lack ofassociated personnel. A large minority of city andcounty development boards (44 per cent) andLEADER groups (35 per cent) also do not producethem, as do a small minority of VECs (14 per cent),childcare committees (13 per cent) and Partnershipcompanies (12 per cent). In the case of VECs,annual reports are a relatively new phenomenon.Development boards have discretion over whetheror not to publish them.

In some departments, annual reports are often‘checked’ against the requirements of the Code ofPractice for State Bodies before being signed off bythe secretary-general. Childcare committees arerequired to draw up an Annual Progress Report

which reflects on their achievements; provide anoverview of work completed during the year; andidentify the extent to which targets were reachedand objectives were met. Some bodies also producequarterly reports to their parent departments andinterviews revealed that monthly financial reportsare common.

Survey respondents were also asked about theextent to which public reporting on financial andnon-financial issues happened in theirorganisation. As Figure 7.10 demonstrates, broadlysimilar results occurred for reporting on both issuesby the eleven sub-sectors. Fifty-nine per cent saidthat they reported on financial performance ‘to alarge extent’ and 63 per cent reported the same fornon-financial issues.

7.9 Reporting on work done: local authoritiesFigure 7.7 (above) illustrates that when compared toboth national bodies and the norm for the otherlocal and regional bodies, local authoritiesdemonstrate a high level of reporting across all ofthe issues raised, with at least 85 per cent statingthat they reported on each of the five issues. As wellas reporting on specific strategic issues, the localand regional bodies were questioned as to whetheror not they produced an annual report. Annualreports are normally public documents and becauseof this will present different forms of information


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes

No


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 7.9: Does the organisation produce an annual report? (%)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Organisation sets goals

Organisation sets goals, Department co-operates

Department sets goals, organisation co-operates

Department sets goals

than the more strategic policy-based documentsoutlined above. While 81 per cent of nationalbodies82 did so, every local authority did so asrequired under the Section 221 of the 2001 LocalGovernment Act. Also, the vast majority of localauthorities stated that public reporting on financial

(100 per cent) and non-financial performance (96per cent) happened ‘to a large extent’ in theirorganisations.

7.10 Setting Goals: 11 sub-sectors

In terms of setting goals for the various local andregional bodies to achieve, some differences emergeas demonstrated in Figure 7.11 below. While in nocase does the parent body decide the goals of anylocal and regional body without at least someconsultation, no sub-sector reported that all itsrespondents have full freedom to set its goals. In thecase of harbour commissions and city and countydevelopment boards, a significant majority ofrespondents reported having the ability to set theirgoals. Conversely, a significant minority of LEADERgroups, Partnership companies and regionalfisheries boards reported having such discretion,with most responding that they set goals inconsultation with their parent body or department.In the case of Partnerships, the body with whomgoals are agreed is Pobal. In the case of LEADERgroups, the Department of Community, Gaeltachtand Rural Affairs is responsible for co-ordinatingthe achievement of targets under the LEADER+programme.

A broadly similar pattern as that for localauthorities (below) emerges for the norm of theeleven sub-sectors in terms of whether the type ofgoals established by organisations are in


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Not at all To some extent To a large extent N/A

Financial Performance Non Financial Performance

Fig. 7.10 Is there public reporting by theorganisations in the 11 sub-sectors on financial

and non-financial performance? (%)

Fig. 7.11: Does the organisation set goals?

_______________



quantitative or qualitative format. Eighty per centreported that they used both, with 10 per centresponding that their goals are exclusivelyqualitative or quantitative respectively. Figure 7.12disaggregates these figures by sub-sector. Bothregional assemblies noted that all of their goals arequalitative.

7.11 Setting Goals: local authorities

Fifty-seven per cent of local authorities report thatthey set their own goals, while a further 30 per centstate that their goals are set in conjunction with thedepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. Only 13 per cent reported that thedepartment set the goals for their local authority toachieve. The variety in figures reflects the fact thatlocal government policy making involves a varietyof actors and interviews confirm that partnershipand consultation are principles informing theprocess. Local authorities tend to have considerablelocal discretion in helping to achieve nationalpolicies and targets, in order to ensure successfulimplementation. The majority (79 per cent) of localauthority respondents stated that their goals are setin both quantitative and qualitative formats, withonly 17 per cent responding that they areexclusively quantitative

7.12 Performance indicators: 11 sub-sectorsThe public sector modernisation agenda places anemphasis on improving the ability of the Irishpublic service to measure and assess the quality ofits output. Performance indicators have thereforebecome a common feature of many public organisa-tions. In terms of the number of performanceindicators in the strategy statements of theorganisations in the 11 sub-sectors, the norm isapproximately 26 per cent for both the 11-20 and21-49 range of indicators (see Figure 7.13). Oncloser examination, however, a large percentage ofthe organisations involved in local and regionaladministration (regional authorities, regionalassemblies and harbour commissions) reportedhaving no indicators whatsoever in their strategystatements, as represented in Figure 7.13. At theother extreme, 43 per cent of development boardsand 27 per cent of childcare committees respondedthat they use over fifty indicators in their strategystatements. Amongst the other six sub-sectors, amajority of respondents have at least twentyindicators in their statements.

Turning to the question of whether or not thenumber of indicators has increased in recent years,the norm for the eleven sub-sectors reveals that 56


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Qualitative

Quantitative

Both

Fig. 7.12: Are the goals of the organisation set in qualitative or quantitiative terms?


per cent of respondents felt that they had increased,with only 11 per cent responding that the numberhad decreased. Again the vast majority oforganisations involved in local and regionaladministration (regional authorities, regionalassemblies and harbour commissions) produceddifferent results from other sub-sectors, mainlystating that there had been no change in the numberof indicators in the last five years. With theexception of regional fisheries boards (33 per cent)

and city and county development boards (31 percent), a majority of all other sub-sectors argued thatthe number of indicators had increased.Interestingly, 34 per cent of the regional fisheriesboards and 38 per cent of the city and countydevelopment boards responded that the numberhad decreased, as Figure 7.14 illustrates.

When asked if they believed the indicators intheir organisation’s strategy statements reflected thefull range of their activities, the norm for the eleven


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Sub-Sector

None

10

11 to 20

21 to 49

50+

Fig. 7.13: How many indicators are there in the organisation's strategy statement?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Sub-Sector

More indicators

Less indicators

No change

Fig. 7.14 How has the number of indicators changed in the last 5 years?


sub-sectors revealed that just over half (51 per cent)did so ‘to a large extent’. A further 39 per cent feltthat they did so ‘to some extent’. This reflected thepattern across almost all sub-sectors. As Figure 7.15identifies, regional authorities (50 per cent) andharbour commissions (83 per cent) expressed thestrongest response to the category of ‘to a small/noextent’.

An average of 56 per cent of local and regionalorganisations (other than local authorities) statedthat their indicators are used ‘to a large extent’ intheir relationship with their parent department orbody. As Figure 7.16 depicts, this is particularlytrue for the childcare committees (87 per cent),Partnership companies (86 per cent) and LEADERgroups (77 per cent). In the latter case, whileLEADER groups are required to complete ‘indicatorsheets’, they are collectively responsible forachieving targets under the LEADER programme,and this work is co-ordinated by the department.Partnership companies have a certain number ofkey performance measures to achieve in relation tothe Local Development Social Inclusion Programme(LDSIP). They are also used in reporting to the

regional assemblies in the context of NDP funding.A further 25 per cent of local and regional bodies

noted that indicators are used for this purpose ‘tosome extent’, most notably regional fisheries boards(67 per cent), VECs (54 per cent) and regionaltourism authorities (50 per cent). Nineteen per centof the bodies, including both regional assembliesand 80 per cent of harbour commissions, reportedthat they are not used for this purpose to any greatextent, if at all.

Looking in more detail at what the indicatorsmeasure, respondents were asked to identify theextent to which indicators measured the following:

● effects on society● quality of services● use of resources● activities and task performance● quantitative results● qualitative results.

In terms of measuring the effect on society of theorganisation’s work, Figure 7.17 demonstrates thatone third of the harbour commissions, half of the


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR

egional Fisheries Boards

Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Sub-Sector

To a large extent

To some extent

To a small/no extent

Fig. 7.15: To what extent do the indicators reflect the full range of the organisation’s

activities? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a large extent

To some extent

To a small/no extent


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

itteesFig. 7.16 To what extent are indicators used in

the relationship between the organisation and the parent body? (%)



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.17: To what extent do the indicatorsmeasure the effect on society of the

organisation's work? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.18: To what extent do the indicatorsmeasure the quality of the organisation's

services? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.19: To what extent do the organisation’s indicators measure its use

of resources? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.20 To what extent do the organisation'sindicators measure its activities and task

performance? (%)


regional authorities, and both regional assembliesreported that their indicators did not measure it. Asfor the other sub-sectors, with the exception of theregional fisheries boards and regional tourismauthorities, at least a quarter reported that theirindicators measured the effect of their work onsociety, with a majority stating that they did so ‘tosome extent’.

As for quality of services, Figure 7.18 shows that100 per cent of the regional tourism authoritiesresponded that their indicators measured this issue.Regional assemblies are again the exception withnone of their measures doing so. The other sub-sectors represent a mix of ‘to some extent’ and ‘to alarge extent’, with more organisations reporting thattheir indicators did so ‘to a large extent’ than for theeffect on society of their work (Figure 7.17).

When asked whether or not the indicatorsmeasured the organisation’s use of resources, withthe exception of regional authorities (0 per cent)and development boards (38 per cent), at least 50per cent of all-sub-sectors reported that they did so‘to a large extent’. Figure 7.19 shows particularlypositive responses from VECs, enterprise boardsand childcare committees.

In terms of measuring activities and taskperformance, apart from regional authorities (50 percent), an overwhelming number of organisationsreported measuring these issues, as Figure 7.20shows. At least 50 per cent of each stated ‘to a largeextent’.

Indicators measuring quantitative results are alsovery common as Figure 7.21 illustrates, and tendedto be more common than those measuringqualitative results (Figure 7.22). A very largepercentage of city and county enterprise boards (94per cent), Partnership groups (80 per cent), LEADERcompanies (67 per cent), and 100 per cent of cityand county childcare committees reported that theindicators do so ‘to a large extent’.

While the number of organisations respondingthat their indicators did not measure qualitativeresults did not alter dramatically from those inFigure 7.21, there is in general less responses of ‘toa large extent’ and instead more of ‘to some extent’across the sub-sectors. Comparing Figures 7.21 and7.22, only city and county development boardsreported that more of their indicators measuredqualitative rather than quantitative results ‘to alarge extent’.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.21: To what extent do the organiation'sindicators measure quantitative

results? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

blies

Harbour C

omm

issions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

PartnershipsLEAD

ERR


Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.22: To what extent do the organisation'sindicators measure qualitative

results? (%)


7.13 Performance indicators: local authoritiesFor local authorities, a revised set of forty-two‘service indicators’ were published in 200483 whichcover the breadth of tasks undertaken by localgovernment from water quality to expenditure ontraining and development. Figure 7.23 indicatessome variation in the number of indicatorsappearing in local authority strategy statements.Eighty-three per cent of local authority respondentsalso noted that the number of indicators hadincreased in the last five years, with 9 per centfinding that there is now less and a further 9 percent saying there is no change.

In terms of how well the indicators reflect the fullrange of local authority activities, 52 per cent ofrespondents felt that they did so ‘to a large extent’,35 per cent ‘to some extent’ and 13 per cent ‘to asmall/no extent’. Furthermore, while 61 per cent oflocal authorities stated that indicators are only used‘to some extent’ in their relationship with theDepartment of Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, 22 per cent noted that they used themfor this purpose ‘to a large extent’.

While financial audits are considered elsewherein this report, the organisations were also surveyedabout the extent to which the indicators they usedmeasured the following issues:

● effects on society● quality of services● use of resources● activities and task performance● quantitative results● qualitative results.


4%4%

53%

10

11 to 20

21 to 49

50

39%

Fig. 7.23: Number of indicators in local authority strategy statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Effects onSociety

Quality ofservices

Use ofresources

Activities andtask

performance

Quantitativeresults

Qualitativeresults

To a large extent To some extent Not at all

Fig. 7.24 To what extent do local authority indicators measure the following? (%)

_______________

83 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Delivering Value for Money: Service Indicators in Local Authorities(2004).


_______________

84 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p.121-2.

For local authorities, the indicators over-whelmingly measured all of the above issues either‘to a large extent’ or ‘to some extent’, as Figure 7.24demonstrates.

7.14 Evaluating non-financial results: 11 sub-sectorsFor the eleven sub-sectors, a majority of theorganisations are evaluated by various methodsconcerning non-financial results. Apart fromharbour commissions (who are largely subject toself-evaluation) and regional authorities, all sub-sectors are at a minimum evaluated by their parentdepartment, with many also being evaluated bythird parties as Table 7.2 demonstrates. The sub-sectors subjected to the most third party evaluationare the VECs, enterprise boards and Partnerships,followed closely by LEADER groups, developmentboards and childcare committees.

7.15 Evaluating non-financial results:local authoritiesFor local authorities, the evaluation of non-financial results is conducted by a variety of actorsas Table 7.3 demonstrates. A substantial proportionof local authorites evaluate their own non-financialresults, while a number of respondents alsoreported that the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government employs otherparties (such as the Office for Local AuthorityManagement) to do so.

Table 7.3 Who evaluates the non-financial resultsof the local authority (%) (n=23)?

Organisation evaluates non-financial results 78%

Department evaluates non-financial results 30%

Third party directed by organisation evaluates non-financial results 4%

Third party directed by department evaluates non-financial results 39%

Others evaluate non-financial results 30%

Nobody evaluates non-financial results 0%

7.16 Rewards and sanctions: 11 sub-sectorsThe study of national non-commercial bodiesidentified that systems of rewards and sanction areunderdeveloped, and that sanctions are more likelyto be implemented than rewards84. Where rewardsdid exist, they usually took the form of moreresources for the organisation, rather than increasedoperational autonomy. Financial bonuses forindividual members of staff, apart from the CEO, arenot common outside of payments for adherence tothe terms of social partnership agreements. For the


Table 7.2 Who evaluates non-financial results? (Shaded box indicates positive response)

Sub-Sector Organisation Parent Third Third Others Nobodyparties, parties,

itself Department under the under thedirection direction of

of org. parent body


Regional Assemblies

Harbour Commissions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER

Regional Fisheries Boards


Development Boards

Childcare Committees


eleven regional and local sub-sectors, 73 per cent oforganisations said that there is no reward formeeting their goals. Twenty-three per cent said theyare rewarded ‘to some extent’, while only 5 per cent(mainly regional tourism authorities) said they arerewarded ‘to a large extent’, as Figure 7.25illustrates. One third of the harbour commissionsalso reported being rewarded ‘to a large extent’ forgood results or meeting targets (although on closerexamination such rewards tended to be simplyensuring maximum budget allocation). As withnational bodies, the rewards for local and regionalbodies tend to be increases in resources (which mayalso occur in mid-year), although some respondentsdid respond that they received greater autonomy forgood performance.

Local and regional bodies tended not to be overlyconcerned with sanctions for poor performance,and 49 per cent of respondents stated that they didnot exist for their organisation. A further 48 percent responded that they existed ‘to some extent’while 4 per cent stated they existed for them ‘to alarge extent’ (mainly VECs and LEADER groups), asFigure 7.26 depicts. For the national bodies, themost common form of sanction is a reduction in

financial allocations, which occurred when anorganisation underspent its annual budget85. Asimilar pattern emerges for local and regionalbodies and by far the most common sanction is lessresources or delaying payments until certain taskshave been completed. Regional tourism authoritiesare the most likely to suffer from them. However,with one exception, neither increases nor decreasesin staff or management wages feature as a reward orsanction for the sub-national bodies.

7.17 Rewards and sanctions: local authoritiesFor local authorities, while a majority (56 per cent)responded that there are no rewards extended tothem, a large minority (44 per cent) said that theyare rewarded ‘to some extent’ for the performance oftheir tasks. In terms of sanctions, 47 per cent oflocal authorities responded that there are nosanctions for poor results or failing to achievetargets, while an almost equal number (48 per cent)reported that sanctions did exist to some extent.Five per cent responded that they existed ‘to a largeextent’.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%R

egional AuthoritiesR

egional Assemblies

Harbour C

omm

issionsVEC

s

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Sub-Sector

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.25: To what extent are there rewards for the organisation when it has good results or reaches its targets? (%)

_______________

85 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p.122


7.18 Summary

Only 15 per cent of sub-national bodies (other thanlocal authorities) reported having discretion overdeciding on target groups, while the equivalentfigure for policy instruments is 13 per cent. Localand regional bodies are also more likely to report onstrategy, objectives, planned investment, financialand non-financial targets than national non-commercial bodies, as well as reporting on workcompleted in these areas. Eighty-nine per cent oflocal and regional bodies in the eleven sub-sectorsproduce annual reports. The vast majority alsopublicly report on financial and non-financialperformance. Fifty-six per cent stated that they feltthe number of performance indicators hadincreased and an equal number reported thatindicators are used ‘to a large extent’ in theirrelationship with their parent department or body.Apart from harbour commissions, all sub-sectors’non-financial results are evaluated by themselvesand an external body, which may or may not betheir parent department. Approximately three-quarters reported that there are no rewards formeeting their goals (mainly resource increases),while about half said sanctions also existed.

Regional authorities have moderate policyautonomy. They do not use performance indicatorsin their strategy statements.

Regional assemblies have high levels of policy

autonomy. They do not use performance indicatorsin their strategy statements but those indicators thatexist focus principally on their use of resources.

Of all sub-sectors, harbour commissions are themost likely to have to operate within ministerial ordepartmental limits on target groups and policyinstruments. Overall they had moderate policyautonomy. They tend not to produce reports due totheir size and do not use performance indicatorseither. Almost all of them reported that they settheir own goals.

Vocational education committees have moderatepolicy autonomy, applying local discretion to goalsand objectives set centrally. Their performanceindicators tend to focus extensively on the use ofresources.

City and county enterprise boards have littlediscretion over deciding on policy instruments, andeven less on target groups. They have moderatepolicy autonomy overall. They are the organisationsmost likely to produce documents on plannedinvestment for their parent departments. A majorityof respondents noted that sanctions existed forthem for not meeting targets.

Partnerships have moderate policy autonomy.Most of them produce multi-annual business plansand planned investment requires CDBendorsement. Most of them set their goals in co-operation with Pobal and the department.Indicators played an important role in their


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sub-Sector


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

To a large extent

To some extent

Not at all

Fig. 7.26: To what extent are there sanctions for poor results or not meeting targets? (%)


relationship with their parent body, and are used inreporting to the regional assemblies

LEADER groups have moderate policy autonomy,including little discretion over deciding on targetgroups and policy instruments. After enterpriseboards, they are most likely to submit documentson planned investment to their parent department.A number of LEADER groups do not produceannual reports. Most of them set their goals in co-operation with the department. Indicators playedan important role in their relationship with theirparent body.

Regional fisheries boards have moderate policyautonomy. Most of them set their goals in co-operation with the department. A majority ofrespondents noted that sanctions existed for themfor not meeting targets.

Regional tourism authorities are the sub-sectorwith the greatest discretion over deciding on targetgroups and policy instruments and overall had highpolicy autonomy. They are most likely of all sub-sectors to produce multi-annual business plans.Half of the respondents noted that the performanceindictors in their strategy statements reflected theirwork only to a small, if any, extent. Rewards existfor the authorities, as do sanctions but to a lesserextent.

Within their co-ordinating role, city and countydevelopment boards have maximum policyautonomy, and reported having a large degree ofdiscretion over deciding on target groups andpolicy instruments. A large minority of the boardsdo not produce annual reports. Almost all of theboards report having freedom to set their goals. A

large number of them reported having over fiftyperformance indicators in their strategy statement,although many also noted the number of indicatorshad decreased. They are the only sub-sector toidentify that more of their indicators measuredqualitative rather than quantitative results.

City and county childcare committees reportedhaving moderate policy autonomy. Indicatorsplayed an important role in their relationship withtheir parent body and tended to focus mainly onuse of resources, activities and tasks andquantitative results. A majority of respondentsnoted that sanctions existed for them for notmeeting targets.

In terms of target groups and policy instruments,most local authorities state that they operate withindepartmental guidelines, but in general hadmoderate policy autonomy. Local authorities aremore likely than national bodies to produce reportson planned investment, and are adept at producingmulti-annual business plans. They are also the most likely to report on work completed, and allproduce annual reports. Local authority goals areset either by the authority or in conjunction withthe Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A majority reported that thenumber of performance indictors has increasedover the last five years. Most local authoritiesevaluate their non-financial results eitherthemselves or in conjunction with others. Almosthalf of local authority respondents reported thatsome form of rewards and sanctions existed fortheir organisation.



_______________


Table 8.1: Method of board member appointment and average board size (shaded box indicates positive response)

Sub-Sector Averageboardsize

Regional Authorities 29

Regional Assemblies 35

Harbour Commissions 7

VECs 17

Enterprise Boards 12

Partnerships 20

LEADER 13

Regional Fisheries Boards 22

Regional Tourism Authorities 12

Development Boards 23

Childcare Committees 16


8.1 Introduction

Boards are an essential element of the governancemachinery for many public bodies. Whereas 69 percent of national bodies surveyed by McGauran etal86 had a board, 100 per cent of local and regionalbodies responded that they had one. In this chapterthe composition and role of these boards areconsidered, as well as the role and accountability ofthe CEOs (or equivalent) of sub-national bodies.

8.2 Board appointment mechanisms andcomposition: 11 sub-sectors

For the eleven sub-sectors, the method of appoint-ment and average size of boards is as laid out inTable 8.1.

The organisations with the most diverse methodof board nominations are harbour commissions andenterprise boards, with organisations from bothsub-sectors deriving their board membership from the full range of methods listed here. LEADERgroups, regional fisheries boards and child-care committees have their boards appointed from a combination of appointments by ministers,stakeholders, indirect election and othernominations. In the case of the childcarecommittees, this latter category included forexample, community and voluntary repre-sentatives. For regional fisheries boards, licensedanglers are entitled to elect board members. A moredetailed breakdown of numbers is presented inTable 8.2.

8Governance structures in non-commercial local and

regional bodies

Ministerappoints

Ministerafter formal/

informalconsultation

withorganisation

Ministerafter

nominationby and/or

consultationwith

stakeholders

Membersappointed by

election

Membersappointed bystakeholders

Other


As is clear from the above table, the two largestcohorts of representatives to local and regionalbodies (excluding local authorities) are stake-holder representatives, and members of localauthorities nominated to serve on boards of otherorganisations. Local authority representation onboards offer greater democratic legitimacy to non-directly elected local and regional bodies. Infact, for many local and regional bodies, new boardsare elected in the same year as local authorityelections. Central government representativesaccount for a relatively small percentage of total

board appointments. When compared with thecorresponding figures for national level bodies,some variations emerge as revealed in Figure 8.1.

The most significant difference occurs in respectof elected members, with no national bodies havingmembers of local authorities on their boards. Thereare also comparatively few independent experts onthe boards of local and regional bodies (3 per cent)when compared with national bodies (29 per cent).In respect of government representatives, while thepercentage of central (departmental) representatives


Table 8.2: Total number of representatives on 11 sub-sectors’ boards (n=141)Sub-Sector Central Other Trade Employer Employee Stake- Inde- Elected Other Total

Govt Govt Union Reps Reps holder pendent Members*Reps Reps Reps Reps Experts

Regional Authorities 146 146

Regional Assemblies 70 70

Harbour Commissions 6 12 3 3 2 6 12 44

VECs 3 1 23 28 139 49 243

Enterprise Boards 4 25 18 21 2 75 28 48 16 237

Partnerships 1 69 40 30 12 111 5 48 20 336

LEADER 14 4 8 2 129 6 55 3 221

Regional Fisheries Boards 1 3 15 40 7 66

Regional Tourism Authorities 2 1 1 6 13 23

Development Boards 25 60 13 19 10 107 22 96 14 366

Childcare Committees 24 9 9 10 135 2 42 4 235

Total 37 206 91 91 63 608 63 703 125 1987

Total % 2% 10% 5% 5% 3% 31% 3% 35% 6% 100%

* Refers to elected local councillors appointed by their councils to serve on boards.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

National Bodies

Local and Regional Bodies

Central G

ovt Reps

Other G

ovt Reps

Trade Union R

eps

Employer R

eps

Employee R

eps

Stakeholder Reps

Indep. Experts

Elected Mem

bers

Other

Fig. 8.1: Representation of groups on boards (%)


for local and regional bodies (2 per cent) is less thanfor national bodies (10 per cent), there arecomparatively more persons appointed from non-departmental state organisations to local andregional bodies (10 per cent) than national bodies (4per cent). For example, many of the city and countydevelopment boards have large numbers ofrepresentatives from organisations such as theHealth Service Executive and FÁS.

Many boards are also moving from beingprincipally concerned with control over opera-tional issues to concern with strategic control. Forthe eleven sub-sectors, 22 per cent responded thatthis is happening ‘to a large extent’, 43 per cent ‘tosome extent’ and 11 per cent responded that it isnot happening. It is most commonly happening to alarge extent in regional tourism authorities (50 percent), LEADER groups (31 per cent), enterpriseboards (28 per cent) and VECs (25 per cent). A moredetailed breakdown is described in Figure 8.2below.

8.3 Board appointment mechanisms andcomposition: local authoritiesThe ‘Boards of Directors’ for local authorities are infact the council of popularly elected members. Forthe city, county and borough councils whoresponded to the survey, the number of suchmembers ranged from twelve to fifty-two, with anaverage size of twenty-five. These councils remainin place until the following local election – a period

of five years. As demonstrated in Figure 8.1 above,a significant proportion of local politicians are alsoboard members of other local and regionalorganisations. Interestingly, 17 per cent of localauthority respondents reported that their electedcouncils were ‘to a large extent’ moving from beingprincipally concerned with control overoperational issues to being concerned with morestrategic control. A further 70 per cent noted this tobe true ‘to some extent’.

8.4 Appointing and monitoring the CEO:11 sub-sectorsFor the eleven sub-sectors, on average two thirds ofresponding organisations reported that their CEO(or equivalent) is appointed by the board. A further12 per cent stated that the board appointed the CEOafter consulting with the organisation. Sixteen percent of respondents identified other methods ofappointment, including local authorities for cityand county development boards, and the LocalAppointments Commission (now PublicAppointments Service) for regional assemblies. Inthe latter case, the assembly endorses theappointment. A detailed breakdown by sub-sectoris presented in Figure 8.3.

On average, 91 per cent of all organisationsreported that the CEO’s role is described in writing.While one third of harbour commissioners reportedthat the role of the harbour master is not in writing,the 1946 Act founding the commissions did


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Does not happen

To some extent

To a large extent

Not applicable


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 8.2: Has the organisation's board shifted from more operational to more strategic oriented control?


describe in some detail the duties of the harbourmaster. Also, one quarter of development boardsreported that the role of the local authority directorof service normally appointed to manage their workis not written anywhere. A small percentage ofVECs (14 per cent) and childcare committees (13per cent) also reported that the CEO’s role is not inwriting.

In terms of CEO accountability, all of the regionalassemblies, enterprise boards, Partnerships andregional tourism authorities responded that thespecific accountability of their CEOs are in writing.While two thirds of regional fisheries boardsreported that the accountability of their CEO is notwritten, the 1980 Fisheries Act details the role ofthe chief executive. Also, while the same is true forhalf of the harbour commissions, it must be notedthat the harbour masters have contracts with thecommissions directly. Twenty per cent of regionalauthorities and childcare committees alsoresponded that the CEO’s accountability is not inwriting. While 37 per cent of development boardsalso stated that the accountability of the director ofservice or equivalent is not in written format,Section 129(8) of the 2001 Local Government Actdoes identify that the ‘chief officer’ of the CDB shallbe an employee of the council. Under Section 17 ofthe 2001 Vocational Education (Amendment) Act,the CEO of a VEC can be called before theCommittee of Public Accounts.

The local and regional bodies were askedwhether or not their CEO is accountable for:● results ● the functioning of the organisation

● administration of the budget● compliance with rules and regulations● or other issues.

In terms of results, an overwhelming majority oforganisations noted that their CEO is responsiblefor such. Twenty per cent of regional authorities, 17per cent of harbour commissions and 14 per cent ofVECs stated that this is not the case for their CEOs.Only a small number of organisations respondedthat their CEO is not accountable for thefunctioning of the organisation. The same is true inrespect of budget administration and compliancewith rules and regulations. Both regionalassemblies responded that the CEOs are alsoaccountable for other issues as well, as did onethird of the regional fisheries boards. Of the othersub-sectors, an average of 15 per cent alsoresponded that their CEOs are accountable forissues other than those listed above.

For the eleven sub-sectors, exactly half of theCEOs are reported as being appointed on fixed termcontracts and half as permanent appointees. Figure8.4 illustrates that permanent contracts areextended to the CEOs of VECs, regional fisheriesboards and regional tourism authorities. The vastmajority of development boards are managed bydirectors of service who are also employed onpermanent contracts.

On the other hand, the majority of CEOs inregional authorities, harbour commissions,enterprise boards, LEADER groups and childcarecommittees are reported to be employed on fixed-term contracts. In the case of enterprise boards,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Board/Council

Board/Council after consultation

Govt. Minister

Govt/Minister after consultation

Other


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs


LEADER


Authorities

Developm

ent BoardsC

hildcare Com

mittees

Fig. 8.3: Who appoints the CEO?


following a successful initial 3-year appointment, aCEO may then receive a permanent appointment.For harbour commissions, the CEOs tend to bepermanent in the larger harbours which have morevolume of traffic. Approximately half of therespondents for the Partnership companies notedthat their CEOs are on fixed-term contracts.

Finally, in terms of evaluating the CEOs, a largemajority of respondents noted that the board of theorganisation performs this function. However,

many organisations responded that evaluation ofthe CEO is conducted by more than one body, asrevealed by Figure 8.5.

As this figure demonstrates, a number ofrespondents from the harbour commissions, VECsand LEADER groups noted ministerial involvementin CEO evaluation. For development boards,evaluation of the director of service is conducted bythe county or city manager. Also, it is noted thatFáilte Ireland, as the parent body, had a role in the


0

20

40

60

80

100

Permanent

Fixed Term


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 8.4 On what type of contract is the CEO appointed? (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Minister Board/Council Other N/A


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 8.5: Who evaluates the CEO? (%)


evaluation of the CEOs of the regional tourismauthorities.

8.5 Appointing and monitoring the CEO:local authoritiesFor local authorities, the CEO is the city or countymanager (or the town clerk in the case of boroughcouncils). The normal method for appointing amanager is recommendation by the PublicAppointments Service (PAS) followed by approvalby the elected council. Section 145 of the 2001Local Government Act provides that the nominee ofthe PAS will automatically assume the position ifthe council does not approve nomination withinthree months. In responding to the survey, 65 percent of local authorities noted that the manager isappointed by the council, but 13 per cent stated thatthe government or minister made the appointment.A further 17 per cent recognised the PAS as theappointing body. The manager is accountable to thecouncil, with whom he or she works closely.

In terms of the role and accountability of localauthority managers, 96 per cent of respondentsstated that the role is described in writing, while 92per cent stated that the same is true for theaccountability of the CEO. Ninety-six per cent alsonoted that local authority managers are appointedon fixed-term contracts, normally seven years.When asked what the CEO is accountable for, localauthorities responded as follows:

Table 8.3: What is City/County Manager/TownClerk accountable for? (%)

Yes No Not Incompleteapplicable response

Results 100

Functioning of organisation 100

Administration of budget 96 4

Compliance with rules and regulations 96 4

Other 22 4 74

In terms of evaluating local authority managers, 57per cent of respondents reported that the electedcouncil conducted this task. However, 39 per centof respondents also referred to the Committee forPerformance Awards in this context. A smallnumber of responses indicated that the minister is

also involved in the evaluation of managers.Turning to the issue of results-based management,74 per cent of local authorities reported thatdivisions in their organisation were managed ‘to alarge extent’ on the basis of results. Sixty-five percent also reported that the development of internalreporting and evaluation systems to helpmanagement assess results on objectives ‘happenedto a large extent’.

8.6 Results-based management andresource allocation: 11 sub-sectorsSurvey respondents were also questioned about theextent to which organisation divisions are managedand resources allocated on the basis of objectivesand results.

For the eleven sub-sectors, the average results formanaging divisions on the basis of objectives andresults are as follows:

Does not happen 9%Happens to some extent 27%Happens to a large extent 38%N/A 27%

A more detailed breakdown (Figure 8.6)demonstrates that the sub-sectors wheremanagement of divisions on the basis of objectivesand results occurs ‘to a large extent’ mostcommonly are regional fisheries boards (67 percent) and regional tourism authorities (50 per cent).Sixty-two per cent of VECs reported that ithappened in their organisations ‘to some extent’.

The norm for the allocation of resources based onresults for the eleven sub-sectors is as follows:

Does not happen 20%Happens to some extent 27%Happens to a large extent 14%N/A 39%

A similar breakdown of these results by sub-sectorin Figure 8.7 demonstrates that Partnerships (60 percent) and regional tourism authorities (50 per cent)are the most likely organisations for this to happen‘to a large extent’. Again, 62 per cent of VECs and 50per cent of regional tourism authorities said that itoccurred ‘to some extent’

Some sub-national bodies have contracts withtheir parent departments. For example, regionalfisheries boards had performance contracts with theDepartment of Communications, Marine andNatural Resources, normally reviewed each year.However, the nature of the work undertaken by the



boards made performance targets difficult toidentify. LEADER groups have service-levelcontracts with the Department of Community, Ruraland Gaeltacht Affairs. That department also has aframework agreement with Pobal, as the fundingbody for Partnerships, rather than with thecompanies themselves.

8.7 Results-based management andresource allocation: local authoritiesFor local authorities, the vast majority (96 per cent)of respondents reported that divisions are managed

on the basis of resources being allocated accordingto objectives and results either ‘to some extent’ or‘to a large extent’. However, interviews indicate thatlocal authorities also allocate resources accordingto assessed need, and are legally bound to fundcertain services. Furthermore, as well as economicefficiency, local authorities must take social andenvironmental factors into consideration in suchallocations. The fact that many local authorityservices are not performed on the basis of simpleeconomic viability is borne out in Figure 8.8. Itdemonstrates that just over half of local authoritiesresponded that resources are allocated to divisions


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees


Fig. 8.6: Does the organisation manage divisions on the basis of objectives and results? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees


Fig. 8.7: Does the organisation allocate resources to divisions on the basis of results? (%)


on the basis of results, with almost a thirdindicating that this was not necessarily the case.

8.8 Developing internal reporting andevaluation systems: 11 sub-sectors

The use of internal reporting and evaluationsystems is a method of helping assist in theassessment of results in the pursuit of objectives.Survey respondents were queried about the extentto which this is done by both management and theboard of their organisation. For the eleven sub-sectors, similar results for both boards and

management teams were returned, and again thevast majority of organisations used such systemseither ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to some extent’ (Figure8.9).

Looking at the extent to which the boards usedsuch systems within the various sub-sectors, it ismost likely to happen in enterprise boards (77 percent), childcare committees (64 per cent), LEADERgroups (56 per cent), Partnerships (53 per cent) andregional tourism authorities (50 per cent). As Figure8.10 illustrates, it is least likely to happen inharbour commissions and regional fisheries boards.

Turning to management in the sub-sectors, it is


30%

44%

9%

17%

Not at all To some extent

To a large extent N/A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Not at all To some extent To a large extent

Management Board

Fig. 8.8: Allocation of resources in localauthorities based on results?

Fig. 8.9 Use of internal reporting and evaluationsystems to enable results assessments? (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Does not happen

To some extent

To a large extent

Not applicable

Fig. 8.10: Does the organisation develop internal reporting and evaluation systems to enable the board assess results? (%)


evident that the management teams most likely touse internal reporting and evaluation systems ‘to alarge extent’ are the enterprise boards (76 per cent),LEADER groups (75 per cent), childcare committees(66 per cent), Partnership companies (53 per cent)and regional tourism authorities (50 per cent).Again, as Figure 8.11 describes, it is least likely tohappen in harbour commissions and regionalfisheries boards.

8.9 Developing internal reporting andevaluation systems: local authoritiesFor local authorities, as Figure 8.12 demonstrates,management is more likely than the councils to useinternal reporting and evaluation systems. Overall,over 90 per cent of both councils and managementteams report using such systems either to ‘a largeextent’ or ‘to some extent’.

8.10 Summary

Survey responses indicate that all local andregional bodies have a board (compared to 69 percent of national bodies), appointed by a variety ofmeans from popular or stakeholder election toministerial nomination. The two largest cohorts ofrepresentatives to local and regional bodies(excluding local authorities) are stakeholderrepresentatives and members of local authoritiesnominated to serve on boards of otherorganisations. A majority of boards surveyed aremoving from being concerned with operational

issues to more strategic matters. The roles of thevast majority of CEOs (or equivalent) are in writing.Most CEOs are accountable for results, functioningof the organisation, budget administration andcompliance with rules and regulations. Half of theCEOs are employed on a permanent basis, whilehalf are on fixed-term contracts. The majority ofCEOs are evaluated by their boards. A majority ofrespondents also reported that both managementand boards use internal reporting and evaluationsystems to enable results assessment ‘to a largeextent’.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Does not happen

To some extent

To a large extent

Not applicable

Fig. 8.11: Does the organisation develop internal reporting and evaluation systems to enablemanagement to assess results? (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Not at all To some extent To a large extent

Management Council

Fig. 8.12 Use of internal reporting and evaluation systems to enable results assesments

in local authorities? (%)


While no local politicians are on the boards ofnational non-commercial bodies, a significantnumber of city and county councillors sit on theboards of local and regional bodies, and theycomprise 35 per cent of all board members at localand regional level. Stakeholder representativescomprise a further 31 per cent (Table 8.2). Also,while 29 per cent of board members of nationalbodies are independent experts, only 3 per cent ofthose on the boards of local and regional bodies are.There is also considerable variation across sub-sectors in terms of CEO appointment mechanisms,contracts and evaluation.

The boards of regional authorities consist solelyof local councillors and the CEOs are on fixed-termcontracts.

The CEOs of regional assemblies are accountablefor issues other than results, functioning of theorganisation, budget administration andcompliance with rules and regulations.

Harbour commissions have very diverse boardmemberships.

A majority of vocational education committeesreported that management of divisions on the basisof results happened ‘to some extent’ in theirorganisation.

City and county enterprise boards have the mostdiverse board memberships. The management andboards of enterprise boards are most likely of allsub-sectors to use internal reporting and evaluationsystems to enable results assessment.

Partnership company boards average at aroundtwenty members. Partnerships are the most likely toallocate resources on the basis of objectives andresults.

Almost a third of LEADER groups responded thattheir boards are moving from operational to morestrategic issues. The management of LEADER

groups are very likely to use internal reporting andevaluation systems to enable results assessment.

Regional fisheries boards had a relatively largeaverage board size of twenty-two. They are mostlikely of all sub-sectors to manage divisions on thebasis of results and objectives. The use of internalreporting and evaluation systems to enable resultsassessment by management and boards is leastlikely in regional fisheries boards.

Fifty per cent of regional tourism authoritiesreported that their boards are moving fromoperational to more strategic issues. Allocatingresources on the basis of objectives and results isalso very likely to happen in the authorities.

City and county development boards haverelatively large average board sizes of twenty-threemembers. The role of the local authority officer(normally the director of service) who works withthe board is not in writing, but they are evaluatedby the city or county manager.

The boards and management of city and countychildcare committees are very likely to use internalreporting and evaluation systems to enable resultsassessment.

For local authorities, the city and county managerwould appear to be accountable to the electedcouncil for everything in the organisation, withwhom he or she works closely. A large number ofrespondents noted that internal reporting andevaluation systems are being extensively developedto assess results on objectives, and that divisions inthe organisation are managed on the basis of results.However, only half of local authority respondentsresponded that resources are allocated on the basisof results. Survey responses also indicate that localauthority management is more likely than electedmembers to use internal reporting and evaluationsystems.



9.1 Introduction

Identifying the best method for ‘parent’organisations to steer or control those bodies undertheir remit has spawned an array of official andacademic literature, particularly in the field ofperformance measurement and management87. If apublic body has no autonomy and too manyaccountability demands placed on it, questionsnaturally arise concerning the need for itsexistence. At the other extreme, public bodies withtoo much autonomy and little accountabilityrequirements to fulfil may not achieve efficient useof public resources. In between these two poles, anarray of management techniques and accountabilityarrangements exist, and in this chapter theprincipal structures and processes governing therelationship between local and regionalorganisations and parent departments and bodiesare identified.

Non-commercial local and regional publicservice organisations have contact with their parentdepartments or bodies through a variety of means.As noted in Chapter 7, some of these contacts aremade through regular reporting mechanisms, whilesome departments might on occasion attendmeetings held between the duplicate bodies undertheir aegis. It has also been noted earlier how parentdepartments or bodies are involved to varyingdegrees with issues concerning HR, policy andfinancial management in local and regional bodies.In this section the extent and nature of formalsteering meetings between local and regional non-commercial bodies and their parent entities areexamined, as are any informal contacts that occur.Corresponding figures for the study of nationallevel bodies are not available.

9.2 Contacts with departments andparent bodies: 11 sub-sectorsFigure 9.1 demonstrates that very few organisationsat local and regional level engage in monthly formalmeetings with their parent departments. The modalresponse for the eleven sub-sectors is ‘at least oncea year’ (36 per cent). However, a substantialpercentage (27 per cent) of organisations respondedthat they have no formal contact annually, with onethird (33 per cent) reporting that they had suchmeetings ‘quarterly’.

The sub-sectors most likely to say that they neverformally meet with their parent departments are theharbour commissions (66 per cent), VECs (58 percent) and regional tourism authorities (50 per cent).However, interviews reveal that these figures reflectthe fact that other fora exist for formal communica-tion. In the case of harbour commissions, formalmeetings are unnecessary as they employ part-timepersonnel, and such meetings are arranged only ifan issue warrants it. The Irish Vocational EducationAssociation, which represents VECs, is a ‘namedpartner’ for the purposes of consultation with theDepartment of Education and Science, and meets atleast quarterly with department officials. Also,while the comparative autonomy of regionaltourism authorities meant that many rarely hadformal meetings with the Department of Arts,Sports and Tourism, Fáilte Ireland has formalquarterly engagement with the department – knownas the Bilateral Consultative Committee. Interviewssuggest that when the regional tourism authoritiesdid meet with the department, it was usually tolobby for something.

At the other end of the scale, the sub-sectors mostlikely to have quarterly formal meetings are the


9Relationship between non-commercial local and regional

bodies and parent departments and bodies

_______________

87 Pollitt, C. and Talbot C. (eds) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos andContractualisation (London: Routledge, 2004); Pollitt, C.; Talbot, C.; Caulfield, J. and A. Smullen (eds) Agencies: How Governments dothings through Semi-Autonomous Organisations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004); OECD Distributed Public Governance:Agencies, Authorities and other Government Bodies (OECD: Paris, 2002).


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

At least once a month

At least quarterly

At least once a year

Never


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

enterprise boards (88 per cent), regional authorities(50 per cent) and LEADER companies (45 per cent).In the latter case, representatives from eachLEADER group meet once a month and thedepartment attends such meetings on four to fiveoccasions per year. Similarly, the Department ofEnterprise, Trade and Employment may attendmeetings of the Association of City and CountyEnterprise Boards.

Of course, other avenues of communicationbetween local and regional bodies and their parentbodies/ministers exist. For example, in respect ofregional fisheries boards, the CEO of each boardregularly meets with the CEO of the CentralFisheries Board to form the National FisheriesManagement Executive (NFME) which co-ordinatesissues relating to the fisheries under their remit.Departmental representatives regularly attend thisforum to engage with the CEOs. The NFME canadvise the minister on matters concerning themanagement of the fisheries88. Also, the fisheriesboards have a ‘liaison group’ consisting of theCEOs, chair and one other board member from eachof the regions as well as the Central Fisheries Board.The department has occasionally addressedmeetings of this group. Partnerships have arepresentative network known as PLANET89 whichmakes submissions on behalf of the companies toPobal and other organsations.

Survey respondents were asked to what extent

the following issues were discussed at these formalmeetings:

● economic issues● professional issues● the achievement / reporting on results.

For the eleven sub-sectors, 44 per cent reportedthat such meetings focused on economic issues to ‘alarge extent’, while 45 per cent said they did so ‘tosome extent’. Within this there is considerablevariation however – the harbour commissionsresponses indicate that economic issues are focusedon to a large extent, while all responding regionaltourism authorities noted that economic issues arefocused on ‘to some extent’. Formal meetings withregional assemblies did not consider economicissues at all.

In terms of professional issues, Figure 9.3demonstrates that 59 per cent of all sub-sectorsresponded that these are focused on ‘to someextent’. Sixty-one per cent of enterprise boards and33 per cent of harbour commissions, however,reported that professional issues are focused on ‘toa large extent’. Interestingly, all responding regionalauthorities noted that professional issues are neverconsidered at their meetings with the Department ofthe Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Finally, in terms of the achievement or reportingof results, 65 per cent of all other sub-sectors noted


_______________

88 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Review of the Inland Fisheries Sector in Ireland – Stage 1 (Dublin:FGS Consulting, 2005), p. 989 For more information see www.planet.ie

Fig. 9.1: Frequency of formal meetings between parent body and organisation



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent BoardsC

hildcare Com

mittees

Not at all

To some extent

To a large extent

Fig. 9.2: To what extent are economic issues focused on during meetings? (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Not at all

To some extent

To a large extent

Regional AuthoritiesRegional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs


LEADER

Regional Fisheries Boards


Developm

ent BoardsC

hildcare Com

mittees

Fig. 9.3: To what extent are professional issues focused on in meetings? (%)

that this is focused on ‘to a large extent’ in theirmeetings. Very few local and regional bodies (3 percent) stated that they never focused on such issues.However, 100 per cent of the responding harbourcommissions and regional authorities, and 67 percent of regional fisheries boards, noted that theformal meetings only did so to some extent.

9.3 Contacts between local authoritiesand the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government Local authorities do not have a ‘parent’ departmentin the sense used to describe the relationshipbetween organisations in other sub-sectors and

central government. However, local authoritieshave a close working relationship with theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment. Local authorities do not havecorporate formal meetings as such with thedepartment. Hence, in the survey 43 per cent oflocal authorities indicated that they never meetwith the department. Instead, a variety of formaland informal routes of communication andinteraction exist. This is reflected in the responseby 35 per cent of local authorities who reported thatthey meet the department at least once a year, witha further 13 per cent stating such meetings tookplace at least quarterly, and 9 per cent at least oncea month. Interviews reveal that the department’s


management advisory committee (MAC), includingthe secretary-general (and on occasion theminister), meet twice a year with the executive ofthe City and County Managers Association (CCMA)to discuss high-level issues of concern to localauthorities. The various divisions within thedepartment, such as housing or water for example,also meet with CCMA committees to discuss issuesconcerning the various programme areas. There are

also continuous communications between thedepartment and local authorities through circulars,e-mails and telephone. Local government electedmember associations such as the Local AuthorityMembers’ Association (LAMA), the Association ofMunicipal Authorities of Ireland (AMAI) and theAssociation of County and City Councils (ACCC)also have regular contact with the department atadministrative and political levels.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oards

Regional Tourism

Authorities

Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Not at all

To some extent

To a large extent

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least monthly At least quarterly At least twice a year Less than once a year No such reporting


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

itteesFig. 9.4: To what extent is the achievement or reporting of results focused on in meetings? (%)

Fig. 9.5: How frequently does organisation report non-financial results to parent body? (%)


Fifty-four per cent of local authorities respondedthat meetings focused on economic issues to ‘a largeextent’, while 31 per cent said they did so ‘to someextent’. In terms of professional issues, two thirds oflocal authorities reported that these are focused on‘to some extent’. Finally, in terms of theachievement or reporting of results, 77 per cent oflocal authorities stated that this is focused on ‘to alarge extent’ in their meetings.

9.4 Reporting on non-financial resultsand informal contact: 11 sub-sectorsFor the eleven sub-sectors, an average of 39 per centof organisations reported non-financial results totheir parent department or body at least quarterly,20 per cent at least twice a year and 20 per cent lessthan once a year. Looking at the results for thesesub-sectors in more detail in Figure 9.5, it is clearthat very few organisations (and mainly VECs andLEADER groups) report non-financial results morefrequently than monthly. However, a significantpercentage of enterprise boards (56 per cent),regional fisheries boards (67 per cent), childcarecommittees (73 per cent) and all of the regionaltourism authorities reported on non-financialresults at least quarterly. Both regional assemblies,57 per cent of development boards and half of theregional authorities reported on non-financialresults less than once a year.

Apart from formal meetings at which economic,

professional and results-related issues arediscussed, local and regional bodies have informalcontact with their parent organisations. Suchinformal contact may consist of meetings withoutwritten proceedings, e-mails or phone calls.Interviews suggest that phone calls between thebodies and parent departments are very frequent.The norm for the eleven sub-sectors in terms ofsuch contact is as follows:

● More than once a week 28%● More than once a month 40%● At least quarterly 27%● At least once a year 4%● Never 1%

Figure 9.6 below identifies the frequency withwhich each sub-sector experiences such contact.

The sub-sectors that had the most frequentinformal contact with their parent entities are theVECs (69 per cent), regional fisheries boards (67 percent), LEADER companies (53 per cent) andregional tourism authorities (50 per cent).

9.5 Reporting on non-financial resultsand informal contact: local authoritiesIn terms of reporting to the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government onnon-financial results, 36 per cent of localauthorities responded that they did so at least twice


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than once a week

More than once a month

At least quarterly

At least once a year

Never


Regional Assem

bliesH

arbour Com

missions

VECs

Enterprise Boards

Partnerships

LEADER


oardsR


Developm

ent Boards

Childcare C

omm

ittees

Fig. 9.6: Frequency of informal meetings between parent body and senior management of organisation(%)


a year, while 32 per cent did so at least quarterly. Afurther 18 per cent stated that they did so only oncea year. Informal contacts between local authoritiesand the department also occurred, and 57 per centresponded that they had such contact at least oncea week, with a further 39 per cent stating that theydid so at least once a month.

9.6 Summary

One third of local and regional bodies (other thanlocal authorities) responded that they met withtheir parent department quarterly. Almost a quarterreported that they never formally meet with theirparent department, while 36 per cent reporteddoing so annually. Sixty-five per cent reported thatsuch meetings focussed on the achievement andreporting of results ‘to a large extent’. Many of thesub-sectors have representative bodies such as theAssociation of City and County Enterprise Boards,the National Fisheries Management Executive orPLANET (LEADER groups) which also act asconduits between local and regional organisationsand parent bodies. Informal contact by telephoneand e-mail is very common, with almost 70 per centof survey respondents noting that it occurred atleast once a month, if not more frequently.

Formal meetings between regional authoritiesand the Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government are relatively frequent andtend to focus mainly on economic issues.

Regional assemblies do not report regularly onnon-financial results and tend to meet with theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment infrequently.

Harbour commissions are the sub-sector leastlikely to meet with their parent department.

Vocational education committees tended not tomeet formally with the Department of Educationand Science, and instead the Irish VocationalEducation Association represents their interests.VECs frequently report on non-financial results and

are the most likely sub-sector to make informalcontact with their parent department.

City and county enterprise boards are most likelyto have formal quarterly meetings with their parentdepartment (Enterprise, Trade and Employment).Professional issues and the achievement andreporting of results are mainly focussed on. A largenumber of enterprise boards noted that they reporton non-financial results at least quarterly.

Partnerships have a representative networkwhich makes representations on their behalf.

LEADER groups report on non-financial resultsregularly, and the achievement and reporting ofresults are the main issues of concern at meetingswith the Department of Community, Rural andGaeltacht Affairs.

Regional fisheries boards are amongst the mostlikely sub-sectors to make informal contact withtheir parent department.

Regional tourism authorities were not likely tomeet formally with their parent department,communicating principally with Fáilte Irelandinstead. The achievement and reporting of resultsprovided the main focus at such meetings.

City and county development boards tend not toformally meet with the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government.

A large majority city and county childcarecommittees responded that they report on non-financial results at least quarterly. At meetings withtheir parent department, the achievement andreporting of results are the principal matters, aheadof professional or economic issues.

A variety of communication channels are usedbetween local authorities and the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government. Inparticular, meetings between the department’smanagement advisory committee and the City andCounty Managers’ Association provide animportant channel of communication. Meetingstended to focus on the achievement and reporting ofresults. Local authorities also regularly report onnon-financial results to the department.



10.1 Introduction

This chapter collates the main findings fromChapters 5 to 10 by sub-sector, and also presentssome general conclusions. The variations in thesefindings demonstrate that global recommendationsfor future corporate governance reforms of local andregional bodies must be cognisant of the individualcircumstances pertaining within each sub-sector.The chapter also presents some recommendationsfor the future development of corporate governancearrangements in non-commercial local and regionalbodies.

All local and regional bodies surveyed in thisreport are duplicate bodies, and while they performa wide range of activities, these activities are notnecessarily as diverse or specialised as they are fornational bodies. For national bodies, the keyprimary functions are providing advice, imple-menting policy, regulation and providing informa-tion. However, for local and regional bodies (otherthan local authorities), the principal functionidentified is co-ordination followed closely by thedirect implementation of policy (Table 4.1). Localauthorities identify policy implementation as theirmain function.

Table 10.1 presents the summary findings with

regard to the autonomy of local and regional bodiesin respect of strategic HR, individual HR, financeand policy. It demonstrates the wide range invariety between sub-sectors with no clear patternsor relationships emerging between the variousissues. It is notable, however, that local and regionalbodies are, on average, likely to have moreautonomy over HR issues for individual staff andpolicy than for strategic HR and finance issues.

The table yields some interesting findings inrelation to individual sub-sectors. For example,harbour commissions, Partnerships and LEADERgroups display high levels of HR (strategic andindividual) autonomy. However, regionalauthorities, VECs, enterprise boards and develop-ment boards display low levels of equivalent HRautonomy.

Of all sub-sectors, regional tourism authoritiesexhibited the highest level of financial autonomy,reflecting the commercial nature of their work. Thisstrong financial autonomy is matched by a similarlyhigh level of policy autonomy. Regional authorities,harbour commissions, enterprise boards, regionalfisheries boards and childcare committees have lowfinancial autonomy but some (moderate) policyautonomy in their respective fields. City and countydevelopment boards, whilst having no financial


10Towards a new approach to non-commercial regional and

local bodies

Table 10.1: Autonomy of Local and Regional BodiesSub-Sector Strategic HR HR Autonomy Financial Policy

Autonomy for individual staff Autonomy Autonomy

Regional Authorities Minimum Low Low ModerateRegional Assemblies Low Moderate Low HighHarbour Commissions Maximum Maximum Low ModerateVECs Minimum Low Moderate ModerateEnterprise Boards Minimum Low Low ModeratePartnerships High Maximum Moderate ModerateLEADER Maximum Maximum Moderate ModerateReg. Fisheries Boards Minimum Moderate Low ModerateReg. Tourism Authorities Low Moderate High HighDevelopment Boards Minimum Low None MaximumChildcare Committees Moderate High Low ModerateLocal Authorities Minimum Moderate Moderate Moderate


autonomy and low HR autonomy, reported havingmaximum levels of policy autonomy, albeit withina defined framework. Local authorities have onlymoderate policy and financial autonomy but areengaged in a multitude of tasks.

10.2 The 11 sub-sectors – general findingsAs outlined in Chapter 4, the eleven (non-directlyelected) sub-sectors range considerably in age andfunction. However, some important patternsemerge. Just as the study of national non-commercial bodies found a sharp increase in thenumber of such bodies being established since theearly 1990s, so too do the majority of sub-nationalbodies (80 per cent) date from 1990 onwards. Also,co-ordination emerges as a defining feature of sub-national government in Ireland. Almost one third(32 per cent) of local and regional bodies view co-ordination as their main role, which demonstratesrecognition of a high level of activity diffusion atsub-national level, and the need to avoid duplica-tion. A further 28 per cent view direct implementa-tion of policy as their primary role with another 18per cent identifying specialist areas of work.

In terms of secondary function, analysis of thenorm for the eleven sub-sectors again identifies co-ordination as featuring strongly (23 per cent). Otherprominent roles for sub-national bodies include theprovision of information, advising, the directimplementation of policy and promotional (non-commercial) development.

There is currently considerable institutionalreconfiguration at sub-national level, and at leastthree sub-sectors (harbour commissions, regionalfisheries boards and regional tourism authorities)have recently been abolished or are in the processof reform or having their main functions subsumedby other organisations. Many Partnershipcompanies and LEADER groups have also recentlybeen merged, with more to follow. Membership ofthe EU has also resulted in institutional change atthe sub-national level, and at least half (54 per cent)of organisations other than local authorities notedthat the EU had a ‘strong influence’ on their currentorganisation form. A further 32 per cent reportedthat the EU had had ‘some influence’ in this regard.

A significant number of sub-national bodies haveArticles and Memoranda of Association andinterviews suggest that the Code of Practice for theGovernance of State Bodies is used extensively.

The norm for the eleven sub-sectors reveals thatthe aspect of general HR policy which regional and

local organisations are most likely to haveautonomy over is establishing staff evaluationschemes. Few organisations have discretion oversalary levels. Local and regional bodies also haveconsiderable discretion over staff appointment andselection procedures (61 per cent), and dismissalcriteria (56 per cent). Approximately half of thebodies practice some form of internal HRmanagement devolution.

The vast majority of local and regional bodiesreceive their funding from central government.However, several raise some revenue themselves forcurrent expenditure, including harbour commis-sions and Partnership companies. The EU is also animportant source of funding for other sub-sectorsalthough this will change in the context of Ireland’smove from being a net recipient to a net donorwithin the Union. Few can take out loans or shiftbudget by year without ministerial or departmentalapproval, but many can shift budgets by function.Just over half of the eleven sub-sector respondentsreport having an audit committee in their boards,and almost all have been audited externally in thelast two years. Audits tend to focus more onfinancial results, legality and compliance andinternal control systems, than on organisationalresults.

Only 15 per cent of sub-national bodies (otherthan local authorities) have discretion overdeciding on target groups, while the equivalentfigure for policy instruments is 13 per cent. Localand regional bodies are also more likely to report onstrategy, objectives, planned investment, financialand non-financial targets than national non-commercial bodies, as well as reporting on workcompleted in these areas. Eighty-nine per cent oflocal and regional bodies in the eleven sub-sectorsproduce annual reports. The vast majority alsopublicly report on financial and non-financialperformance. Fifty-six per cent state that they feelthe number of performance indicators has increasedand an equal number report that indicators are used‘to a large extent’ in their relationship with theirparent department or body. Apart from harbourcommissions, all sub-sectors’ non-financial resultsare evaluated by themselves and an external body,which may or may not be their parent department.Approximately three quarters report that there areno rewards for meeting their goals (mainly resourceincreases where they do exist), while about halfsaid sanctions existed.

Survey responses indicate that all local andregional bodies have a board (compared to 69 percent of national bodies), appointed by a variety of



means from popular or stakeholder election toministerial nomination. The two largest cohorts ofrepresentatives to local and regional bodies(excluding local authorities) are stakeholder repre-sentatives and members of local authoritiesnominated to serve on boards of other organisa-tions. A majority of boards surveyed are movingfrom being concerned with operational issues tomore strategic matters. The role of the vast majorityof CEOs (or equivalent) are in writing. Most CEOsare accountable for results, the functioning of theorganisation, budget administration and compliance with rules and regulations. Half of theCEOs are employed on a permanent basis, whilehalf are on fixed-term contracts. The majority ofCEOs are evaluated by their boards. A majority ofrespondents also reported that both managementand boards use internal reporting and evaluationsystems to enable results assessment ‘to a largeextent’.

While no local politicians are on the boards ofnational non-commercial bodies, a significantnumber of city and county councillors sit on theboards of local and regional bodies, and theycomprise 35 per cent of all board members at localand regional level. Stakeholder representativescomprise a further 31 per cent (Table 8.2). Also,while 29 per cent of board members of nationalbodies are independent experts, only 3 per cent ofthose on the boards of local and regional bodies are.There is also considerable variation across sub-sectors in terms of CEO appointment mechanisms,contracts and evaluation.

One-third of local and regional bodies (other thanlocal authorities) responded that they meet withtheir parent department quarterly. Almost a quarterreported that they never formally meet with theirparent department, while 36 per cent do soannually. Sixty-five per cent report that suchmeetings focus on the achievement and reporting ofresults ‘to a large extent’. Many of the sub-sectorshave representative bodies such as the Associationof City and County Enterprise Boards, the NationalFisheries Management Executive or PLANET(LEADER groups) which also act as conduitsbetween local and regional organisations andparent bodies. Informal contact by telephone and e-mail is very common, with almost 70 per cent ofsurvey respondents noting that it occurred at leastonce a month, if not more frequently.

10.3 Findings by sub-sector

Regional authorities have minimum levels ofstrategic HR autonomy and low HR autonomy for

individual staff. Also, they do not practice internalHR management devolution. For regionalauthorities, the primary source of income istransfers from local authorities, and results indicatethat they have low financial autonomy. They haveno internal audit committees but are audited by theComptroller and Auditor-General. Regionalauthorities have moderate policy autonomy. Theydo not use performance indicators in their strategystatements. The boards of regional authoritiesconsist solely of local councillors and the CEOs areon fixed-term contracts. Formal meetings betweenregional authorities and the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government arerelatively frequent and tend to focus mainly oneconomic issues.

Regional assemblies have low levels of strategicHR autonomy and moderate levels of HR autonomyfor individual staff. However, both use some formsof internal HR management devolution. As withregional authorities, regional assemblies have lowfinancial autonomy and their primary source ofincome is transfers from local authorities. Theirfunding is distributed as agreed under the NationalDevelopment Plan 7-year framework. Neither havean internal audit committee but the Comptrollerand Auditor-General audits them. Regionalassemblies have high levels of policy autonomy.They do not use performance indicators in theirstrategy statements but those indicators that existfocus principally on their use of resources. TheCEOs of regional assemblies are accountable forissues other than results, functioning of theorganisation, budget administration andcompliance with rules and regulations. Regionalassemblies do not report regularly on non-financialresults and tend to meet with the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentinfrequently on a formal basis (but regularly byinformal means). The assemblies also meet with theDepartment of Finance.

Harbour commissions have maximum strategicHR autonomy, including the greatest autonomyover setting staff numbers and salaries as these rolesrest with the commissioners themselves. They alsohave maximum HR autonomy for individual staff,though staff numbers tend to be small. Harbourcommissions generate their own current expendi-ture through charges and fees, within limits set bythe minister. Overall they have low financialautonomy. Of all sub-sectors, harbour commissionsare the most likely to have to operate withinministerial or departmental limits on target groupsand policy instruments. They have moderate policy



autonomy. They tend not to produce reports due totheir size and do not use performance indicatorseither. Almost all of them set their own goals.Harbour commissions have very diverse boardmemberships. Harbour commissions are the sub-sector least likely to meet with their parentdepartment.

Vocational education committees have minimumstrategic HR autonomy, with no ability to set staffnumbers or salary levels, which is instead decidedupon centrally. They also have low HR autonomyfor individual staff. VECs have moderate financialautonomy and in general budgets are tightlycontrolled by the Department of Education andScience. All of them have audit committees. VECshave moderate policy autonomy, applying localdiscretion to goals and objectives set centrally.Their performance indicators tend to focusextensively on the use of resources. A majority ofVECs report that management of divisions on thebasis of results happens ‘to some extent’ in theirorganisation. VECs tend not to meet formally withthe Department of Education and Science, andinstead the Irish Vocational Education Associationrepresents their interests. VECs frequently report onnon-financial results and are the most likely sub-sector to make informal contact with their parentdepartment.

City and county enterprise boards also haveminimum strategic HR autonomy and low HRautonomy for individual staff. They do not have thefreedom to take out loans and display low financialautonomy. All of them have audit committees ontheir boards. They have little discretion overdeciding on policy instruments, and even less ontarget groups. They have moderate policy autonomyoverall. They are most likely to produce documentson planned investment for their parentdepartments. A majority of respondents noted thatsanctions existed for them for not meeting targets.City and county enterprise boards have very diverseboard memberships. The management and boardsof enterprise boards are most likely of all sub-sectors to use internal reporting and evaluationsystems to enable results assessment. City andcounty enterprise boards are most likely to haveformal quarterly meetings with their parentdepartment (Enterprise, Trade and Employment).Professional issues and the achievement andreporting of results are mainly focussed on. A largenumber of enterprise boards noted that they reporton non-financial results at least quarterly.

Partnership companies also reported having ahigh degree of autonomy over the ability to set staff

numbers and salaries. Overall, while they liaseclosely with Pobal, they have high strategic HRautonomy and maximum HR autonomy forindividual staff. A majority of Partnershipsresponded that they could take out loans withouthaving to seek the approval of the department orminister. However, the approval of Pobal isnormally necessary. Overall they have moderatefinancial autonomy. Partnerships have moderatepolicy autonomy. Most of them produce multi-annual business plans and planned investmentrequires city or county development boardendorsement. Most of them set their goals in co-operation with Pobal and the department.Indicators played an important role in theirrelationship with their parent body, and are used inreporting to the regional assemblies. Partnershipcompany boards average at around twentymembers. Partnerships are the most likely toallocate resources on the basis of objectives andresults. Partnerships have a representative networkwhich makes representations on their behalf.

LEADER groups have maximum strategic HRautonomy, including a lot of autonomy over theirstaff numbers and salaries, once financial prudenceis exercised. They also have maximum HRautonomy for individual staff. A large portion ofLEADER groups’ funding is derived from the EU,and they have moderate financial autonomy. Amajority of respondents reported having freedom totake out loans without departmental approval.LEADER groups have moderate policy autonomy,including little discretion over deciding on targetgroups and policy instruments. After enterpriseboards, they are most likely to submit documentson planned investment to their parent department.A number of LEADER groups do not produceannual reports. Most of them set their goals in co-operation with the department. Indicators playedan important role in their relationship with theirparent body. Almost a third of LEADER groupsreported that their boards are moving fromoperational to more strategic issues. Themanagement of LEADER groups are very likely touse internal reporting and evaluation systems toenable results assessment. LEADER groups reporton non-financial results regularly, and theachievement and reporting of results are the mainissues of concern at meetings with the Departmentof Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Prior to their abolition in 2006, HR-related issuesfor regional fisheries boards were centrally co-ordinated by the Central Fisheries Boards, andtherefore the boards themselves had minimum



strategic HR autonomy and moderate HR autonomyfor individual staff. Regional fisheries boards had alarge degree of discretion over setting charges forservices but otherwise had low financial autonomy.Each had an audit committee. Regional fisheriesboards had moderate policy autonomy. Most ofthem set their goals in co-operation with thedepartment. A majority of respondents noted thatsanctions existed for them for not meeting targets.Regional fisheries boards had a relatively largeaverage board size of twenty-two. They are mostlikely of all sub-sectors to manage divisions on the basis of results and objectives. The use ofinternal reporting and evaluation systems to enableresults assessment by management and boards is least likely in regional fisheries boards. They are amongst the most likely sub-sector to make informal contact with their parentdepartment.

Reflecting their company-like statutes, regionaltourism authorities displayed high levels ofautonomy over the ability to set staff numbers.However, they had limitations in respect of otherHR issues and overall had low strategic HRautonomy. All of them also practiced internal HRmanagement devolution and had moderate HRautonomy for individual staff. Of all sub-sectors,regional tourism authorities had the highestfinancial autonomy, and could take out loans andset charges as necessary. They received fundingfrom membership fees, local authorities and grantsfrom Fáilte Ireland. They were also most likely toextend financial management autonomydownwards internally and each of them had anaudit committee. Regional tourism authorities arethe sub-sector with the greatest discretion overdeciding on target groups and policy instrumentsand overall had high policy autonomy. They aremost likely of all sub-sectors to produce multi-annual business plans. Half of them responded thatthe performance indicators in their strategystatements reflected their work only to a small, ifany, extent. Rewards did exist for the authorities, asdid sanctions but to a lesser extent. Fifty per cent ofregional tourism authorities responded that theirboards were moving from operational to morestrategic issues. Allocating resources on the basis ofobjectives and results was also very likely tohappen in the authorities. Regional tourismauthorities were not likely to meet formally withtheir parent department, communicatingprincipally with Fáilte Ireland instead. Theachievement and reporting of results provided amain focus at such meetings.

City and county development boards displayminimum strategic HR autonomy and low levels ofHR autonomy for individual staff. Budgets for cityand county development boards tend to be smalland are normally transferred from local authorities.They have no financial autonomy. Within their co-ordinating role, city and county developmentboards have maximum policy autonomy, and reporthaving a large degree of discretion over deciding ontarget groups and policy instruments. A largeminority of the boards do not produce annualreports. Almost all of the boards report havingfreedom to set their goals. A large number have overfifty performance indicators in their strategystatement, although many also noted the number ofindicators had decreased. They are the only sub-sector where more of their indicators measuredqualitative rather than quantitative results. City andcounty development boards have relatively largeaverage board sizes of twenty-three members. Theperformance of the local authority officer (normallythe director of service) who works with the board isevaluated by the city or county manager. City andcounty development boards tend not to formallymeet with the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government.

A large number of city and county childcarecommittees report being able to set staff numberswithout ministerial or departmental influence.Combining their results reveals that they havemoderate levels of strategic HR autonomy and highlevels of HR autonomy for individual staff. City andcounty childcare committees derive most of theirincome from EU grants. They have low levels offinancial autonomy but moderate policy autonomy.Indicators play an important role in theirrelationship with their parent body and tended tofocus mainly on the use of resources, activities andtasks, and quantitative results. A majority ofrespondents noted that sanctions existed for themfor not meeting targets. Their boards andmanagement are very likely to use internalreporting and evaluation systems to enable resultsassessment. A large majority responded that theyreport on non-financial results at least quarterly. Atmeetings with their parent department, theachievement and reporting of results are theprincipal matters, ahead of professional oreconomic issues.

10.4 Findings for local authorities

Local authorities are exceptional in the context ofthis study, and cannot be considered as ‘sub-



national bodies’ in the manner other sub-sectorsare. Given their democratic mandate andconstitutional and legal obligation to provide civicleadership and promote the ‘community interest’,local authorities are at the heart of Irish sub-national government. Arguably one of the greatestchallenges faced by councils is the need tocontinually adapt to the range of non-directlyelected sub-national bodies operating in variouspolicy domains and to develop more permeableboundaries in order to successfully operate in aninter-organisational environment. New modes ofgovernance and increasing accountabilityrequirements can be time-consuming and a balancemust be forged between efficiency and ensuringstakeholder involvement in various processes. Theunique role of local authorities necessitates thatdifferent criteria be used in any analysis of whatconstitutes good or successful local government.Nonetheless, the issues pursued in this studyshould inform any future consideration of corporategovernance arrangements for Irish localgovernment.

The limited discretion of Irish local authoritiesacross a range of issues, from internal HR toindependent revenue-raising, has been welldocumented. Against a normative view of localauthorities as a self-financing, independent policy-making tier of government, Irish local authoritieshave tended to compare poorly. However, this studydemonstrates that local authorities are the pivotalinstitutions of sub-national government in Ireland,and are vital to the successful implementation ofmany national policies. In fact, up to 40 per cent ofthe new National Development Plan 2007-13 willbe delivered by local authorities.

The study bears out the fact that much of localauthority activity is conducted within definedstatutory frameworks, and many functions areperformed according to legislative anddepartmental guidelines. In fact, this seems to betrue of sub-national government generally andmany local and regional bodies are similarly bound.However, within the aforementioned frameworkssurvey responses indicate that local authorities dohave room for policy manoeuvre, customisationand innovation.

The fact that much of local authority activity isestablished in law accounts for the fact that almostthree quarters of respondents noted that theprimary role of their local authority is the directimplementation of policy. Also, 39 per cent statedthat regulation is their principal secondaryfunction. The multi-functional role of local

authorities is reflected in the fact that co-ordination, non-commercial promotionaldevelopment and commercial development alsofeature in responses.

Local authorities display minimum levels ofstrategic HR autonomy. As per the public servicegenerally, policy on staff numbers, salary levels andconditions for promotion are set centrally for alllocal authorities. One area where they havediscretion is in relation to staff evaluation schemes.Almost every local authority practises some level ofinternal HR management devolution. In terms ofindividual HR autonomy, local authorities havemoderate levels of autonomy. Most have discretionin relation to staff promotion, evaluation, dismissaland appointments, but little discretion in relation tosalary and tenure.

Local authorities have moderate financialautonomy. In the overall, local authorities sourcesome 56 per cent of their current expenditure fromlocal sources (commercial rates 26 per cent; goodsand services 30 per cent), with the remainder beingprovided by way of government grants/subsidies(23 per cent) and general-purpose grants from theLocal Government Fund (21 per cent). For most,money from the Local Government Fund and grantsare key sources of revenue for capital and currentexpenditure, with fees and charges alsocontributing a significant portion of income. Whilea minority of councils responded that they hadaudit committees (a point also noted by the recentIndecon report on Local Government Financing),recent legislative changes provide that suchcommittees will be established in all localauthorities, starting with city and county councils.They are also audited annually by the LocalGovernment Audit Service, which also undertakesvalue for money evaluations across the localgovernment sector. New financial managementsystems have also been rolled out, including theintroduction of accrual accounting and riskmanagement techniques.

In terms of target groups and policy instruments,most local authorities operate within departmentalguidelines, but in general have moderate policyautonomy. Local authorities are more likely thannational bodies to produce reports on plannedinvestment and are adept at producing multi-annual business plans. They are also the most likelyof all sub-national bodies to report on workcompleted and all produce annual reports. Localauthority goals are set either by the authority or inconjunction with the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government. A



majority report that the number of performanceindictors has increased over the last five years. Mostlocal authorities evaluate their non-financial resultseither themselves or in conjunction with others.Almost half of local authority respondents reportedthat some form of rewards and sanctions existed fortheir organisation.

For local authorities, the city and county managerwould appear to be accountable to the electedcouncil for everything in the organisation, withwhom he or she works closely. A large number ofrespondents note that internal reporting andevaluation systems are being extensively developedto assess results on objectives, and that divisions inthe organisation are managed on the basis of results.However, only half of local authority respondentsreport that resources are allocated on the basis ofresults. Survey responses also indicate that localauthority management is more likely than electedmembers to use internal reporting and evaluationsystems.

A variety of communication routes between localauthorities and Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government are utilised. Inparticular, meetings between the department’smanagement advisory committee and the City andCounty Managers’ Association provide animportant channel of communication. Meetingstend to focus on the achievement and reporting ofresults. Local authorities also regularly report onnon-financial results to the department.Considerable work has been undertaken in recentyears towards improving governance in localauthorities through the establishment of corporatepolicy groups and strategic policy committees.

10.5 Recommendations for the 11 sub-sectorsWhile each non-directly elected sub-sector has,insofar as possible, been treated individually in theprevious chapters, it is appropriate here to presentglobal rather than individual recommendations.Attention to variations in role, composition, levelsof autonomy and accountability practices betweensub-sectors have been drawn throughout this studywhich should provide food for thought on futurereforms. Again, it must be noted that several sub-sectors are already undergoing a process of changeand transformation. It is intended that theserecommendations will improve the corporategovernance of local and regional bodies in Irelandas well as the future development of sub-nationalgovernment in Ireland.

10.5.1 Creation of new local and regional bodiesThe bodies considered in this study have multipleroles and duties, and an audit of these functions toidentify those that may more appropriately belocated within a single national body, includinggovernment departments, would prove useful.While a large number of local and regional bodiesare concerned with co-ordination, it is recognisedin the new National Development Plan 2007-13(p.238) and National Action Plan for SocialInclusion 2007-16 (p.79) that the county and citydevelopment boards are ‘the key coordinatingmechanism for public service delivery at locallevel’. In this respect, it is envisaged that a keyfunction of the development boards will be to avoidduplication of function at sub-national level.

A framework for clarifying what functions orservices are more appropriately performed by local,regional or national levels of government would beinstructive. The reasons for adopting sub-nationalduplicate structures instead of a centralised bodywith regional offices should be borne in mind,particularly in the context of decentralisation. Tomaximise effective networking, organisations needto adapt their internal structures and work practicesaccording to the task in hand. In part, the ‘cohesionprocess’ currently in progress for the Partnershipsand LEADER groups within certain local authoritygeographical areas provides evidence that this isalready underway.

Local and regional organisations must alsoharness their resources in tandem with other sub-national (and national) bodies. In general, given thewide variety of organisations currently operating atsub-national level, and the vast array of functionsbeing performed by them, it would not seemprudent to establish any further local or regionalbodies without detailed consideration of existingstructures and how potential reforms would affectthem. The diminution of EU influence (andparticularly funding) over many bodies may also actas a catalyst for future restructuring.

10.5.2 HR autonomy and accountabilityAn audit of staff numbers at sub-national levelwould be practical and should be updated at leastannually, taking into account seasonal variations.

It would also be advantageous to developguidelines for the devolution of internal HRmanagement in organisations at sub-national level.

Although salaries are controlled centrally, somecriteria for allowing local discretion over this issuewould be useful, particularly in respect of



performance-related pay. Many local and regionalbodies report having considerable discretion overhiring of staff and more organisations could begiven greater discretion to decide on staff numberswithin a defined budget.

In this respect it would be constructive todevelop a system for sharing resources in staffrecruitment within and across sub-sectors.

There should be a contract template for thevarious categories of staff in local and regionalbodies, particularly those who recruit seasonal staff.

10.5.3 Financial autonomy and accountabilityGiven the variety of local and regional bodies inexistence, consistency around financial reportingstandards and formats should be ensured. Someguidelines for smaller bodies would prove valuablein achieving this.

Value for Money audits, where they do not exist,should be introduced on a pilot basis inconjunction with the office of the Comptroller andAuditor-General.

Given that a majority of local and regional bodiesdo not currently have the ability to move budget byyear but are expected to report on future plannedinvestment, the possibility of introducing multi-annual financial packages should be considered.Further extension of the requirement for bodies toproduce multi-annual business plans would assistthis development and the changing nature of EUfunding as a source of revenue will also requirechanges in financial management arrangements.

Consideration should be given to allowing sub-national bodies, particularly those involved incommercial development, greater freedom to takeout loans once certain criteria are met.

10.5.4 Policy autonomy and accountabilityEnsuring the coherence and consistency of nationalpolicies at sub-national level requires high levels oftrust between central, regional and localgovernment. Allowing greater local discretion overpolicy implementation can foster trust and improveoutcomes and can be enhanced through regularreporting mechanisms. Consideration shouldtherefore be given to allowing greater involvementof local and regional bodies in identifying policyinstruments and the target groups for policy.

Guidelines for the development and best use ofperformance indicators in sub-national bodiesshould be developed.

This study has identified very little use ofrewards and sanctions in the bodies surveyed. Theintroduction of rewards for performance and

financial efficiency in local and regional bodiesshould be considered in the context of future publicservice modernisation. Conversely, sanctions forpoor performance should also feature in anychanges in this regard.

10.5.5 BoardsIn terms of the non-directly elected bodiesconsidered here, there are significant variations inboard size and composition which often bear littlerelation to the tasks required of them. The lack ofindependent experts on local and regional boards(when compared with national bodies) isprominent in this regard, while other categories ofboard member, such as local councillors andstakeholders, tend to dominate. In order to addressthis, some consideration should be given toformulating guidelines concerning the achievementof an appropriate board composition. Also, theappointment of representatives of local andregional government to the boards of nationalbodies offers opportunities for the views of sub-national government to be more formally reflected.

The demand on boards to become more strategicin carrying out their work, as evidenced by thisstudy, indicates that particular skill-sets concerningstrategic planning are required. One method ofachieving this might be to create a database ofpersons with relevant skills who are qualified toserve on boards of various kinds. A board, or adefined portion of a board, could be appointed fromthis database which could be updated on an annualbasis. This database could be ordered bygeographical area in order to suit the particularrequirements of many sub-national bodies.

Consideration should be given to ensuring thatthe Code of Practice for the Governance of StateBodies is cognisant of the needs of sub-national aswell as national bodies.

Given that a large number of the bodies surveyeddo not have internal audit committees, and the costof employing external auditors, considerationshould be given by parent organisations toproviding centralised training and/or resources tohelp local and regional bodies in this regard.

10.5.6 Relationship between local and regionalbodies and ‘parent’ organisations This study has identified a range of reportingpractices and accountability relationships existingbetween the organisations under examination andtheir ‘parent’ body or department. In many cases,intermediate structures are used. It is thereforerecommended that the role and responsibilities of



‘parent’ departments in relation to the local and/orregional bodies under their aegis be clarified. In thisrespect, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU orService Level Agreement) should be consideredwhere it does not already exist and where there areweak statutory guidelines. MOUs are increasinglycommon in Irish public administration, and areencouraged as good practice by the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development. They areuseful for managing relationships and helpestablish basic principles and guidelines underwhich two or more entities agree to work.

Also, it is important to ensure that there areregular formal meetings between the bodies and‘parent’ organisations and that such meetings havea clear format and purpose. Where it does notalready occur, regular attendance of seniordepartmental representatives at the board meetingsof local and regional bodies should be provided for.

10.6 Recommendations for localauthoritiesAs indicated from the outset of this study, localauthorities cannot be considered as ‘bodies’ or‘agencies’ in the manner other sub-nationalorganisations are. However, as per the other sub-sectors, the findings presented here indicate thatsome consideration be given to a number ofcorporate governance issues in local authorities:

The new social partnership agreement, Towards

2016, calls for further developments in respect ofimproving organisational performance andPerformance Management and DevelopmentSystems (PMDS). These issues are closely related tohuman resource functions and therefore thepossibility of local authorities developing greaterstrategic HR autonomy might usefully be explored.A more developed system of rewards and sanctionsfor performance might also be appropriate in thiscontext.

Although many local authority functions arestatutory, more emphasis should be given toensuring that there is more focus on the allocationof resources on the basis of results and greaterlinkages between strategies and outputs.

In keeping with good corporate governancepractices, methods of involving elected members inlocal authority internal reporting and evaluationsystems would be desirable.

10.7 Network governance at sub-nationallevelA well-known schema for understanding social(and political) co-ordination is the distinctionbetween hierarchies, markets and networks90. Thestudy of national non-commercial bodies recordsthe principal features of each91. Table 10.2 describesthese principal features.

While the three models of governance presentedhere are ideal types, they nevertheless provide


Table 10.2: The main features of hierarchical, market and governance mechanisms

Base of interaction

Purpose

Guidance, control andevaluation

Role of government

Theoretical basis

Hierarchy

Authority and dominance

Consciously designed andcontrolled goals

Top down norms andstandards, routines,supervision, inspection,intervention

Top-down rule-making andsteering; dependent actorsare controlled by rules

Weberian bureaucracy

Market

Exchange and competition

Spontaneously createdresults

Supply and demand, pricingmechanisms, self-interest,profit and loss as evaluation,courts, the ‘invisible hand ofthe market’

Creator and guardian ofmarkets; purchaser of goods;actors are independent

Neo-institutional economics

Network

Cooperation and solidarity

Consciously designedpurposes or spontaneouslycreated results

Shared values, analysis ofcommon problems,consensus, loyalty,reciprocity, trust, informalevaluation, reputation

Network enabler, networkmanager and networkparticipant

Network theory

_______________

90 Thompson, G.; J. Frances, R. Levavic, and Mitchell J. (eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, The Coordination of Social Life,(London: Sage, 1991)91 McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial NationalAgencies (Institute of Public Administration: Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 6, 2005), p.163


useful frames of reference for the trajectory of futurereforms and developments. The evidence from thisstudy bears out the fact that the key elements of thehierarchical approach feature across the range ofsub-national bodies operating in Ireland. Theorganisations in each sub-sector operate to varyingdegrees in the ‘shadow of hierarchy’ and manyelements of their corporate governancearrangements (particularly HR and finance) areperformed in the context of little discretion fromtheir ‘parent’ departments or bodies, or other partsof central government. Market-based reforms areperhaps least evident.

However, there is also strong evidence of theprincipal features of network-based approachesemerging at sub-national level. Networks arepredicated on processes of trust and to effectivelynetwork organisations must:

● consider internal structures and practices astasks no longer performed along simplefunctional lines

● not seek to control all resources, instead workingwith other organisations and pooling resourcesappropriately

● focus on core competencies and distinctivestrengths where value can be added in order toprovide levers of change.92

The increased use of mechanisms of consultation,participation, co-operation and stakeholderinvolvement indicate that the trajectory ofdevelopment is towards this model as opposed toany other. It is also consistent with national publicsector reform objectives93 and the recommenda-tions in this report are presented in this context.

As emphasised throughout this study, the widevariation in current corporate governancearrangements across and within sub-sectors make‘one-size-fits-all’ arrangements impracticable, evenif it were to be desirable. However, greater attentionmust be given to the role of non-commercial localand regional bodies in the changing landscape ofIrish public administration. It is hoped that thisstudy will achieve its goal of advancing consistentthinking as to how the achievement of appropriatelevels of autonomy and accountability for sub-national bodies in Ireland can best be achieved.


_______________

92 Painter, C.; Isaac-Henry, K. and Rouse, J. ‘Local Authorities and Non-Elected Agencies: Strategic Responses and OrganisationalNetworks’ in Public Administration, 75 (2), pp.22893 See the Department of the Taoiseach Towards 2016: Ten-Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement 2006-2015 (Dublin:Department of the Taoiseach, 2006), pp.114-37



Australian National Audit Office Principles and betterpractices: Corporate governance in Commonwealthauthorities and companies, Discussion paper(Canberra: ANAO, 1999)

Callanan, M. “Regional Authorities and RegionalAssemblies” in Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. LocalGovernment in Ireland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003),pp.429-444)

Callanan, M. and Keogan, J. (eds) Local Government inIreland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003)

Central Statistics Office Statistical Bulletin Vol. LXXVINo. 3, (September 2001), pp. 649-650 (Dublin: CentralStatistics Office)

Chandler, J.A. Local Government Today (2nd ed.)(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996)

Chubb, B. The Government and Politics of Ireland (Essex:Longman, 1982)

Clancy, P. and Murphy, G. Outsourcing Government:Public Bodies and Accountabilty (Dublin: TASC/NewIsland, 2006)

Clark, G. “Cities, Regions, and Metropolitan DevelopmentAgencies” Local Economy Vol.20(4), 2005, pp.404-11

Coolahan, J.Irish Education: history and structure(Dublin: IPA, 1981)

Curry, J. Irish Social Services (4th ed.) (Dublin: IPA, 2005)Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources Annual Report 2005 (Dublin, 2006)Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources Review of the Inland Fisheries Sector inIreland – Stage 1 (Dublin: FGS Consulting, 2005)

Department of Communications, Marine and NaturalResources Statement of Strategy 2005-7 (Dublin, 2004)

Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment (Value for Money Unit) Local GovernmentAudit Service Follow-up report on the Development ofInternal Audit in Local Authorities (Dublin:Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, 2004)

Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment Delivering Value for Money: ServiceIndicators in Local Authorities (Dublin: Department ofthe Environment, Heritage and Local Government,2004)

Department of the Taoiseach Towards 2016: Ten-YearFramework Social Partnership Agreement 2006-2015(Dublin: Department of the Taoiseach, 2006)

Department of Finance Code of Practice for theGovernance of State Bodies (Dublin: Department ofFinance, 2001)

Devolution Commission Interim Report (Dublin:

Stationery Office, 1996)Devolution Commission Second Report (Dublin:

Stationery Office, 1997)Dexia Sub-national public finance in the European Union

(Dexia Economic Outlook, November 2006)Elgie, R. “Why do governments delegate authority to

quasi-autonomous agencies?The case of IndependentAdministrative Authorities in France” GovernanceVol.19(2), 2006, pp.207- 27

Gap Gemini Ernst & Young Human Resource StrategyReview: Future State Design Report into the Centraland Regional Fisheries Boards (Dublin: 2001)

Government of Ireland National Development Plan 2007-13: Transforming Ireland – A better quality of life for all(Dublin: Government Publications, 2007)

Halkier, H.; Danson, M. and Damborg, C. (eds) RegionalDevelopment Agencies in Europe (London: Kingsley,1998)

Hall, W. and Weir, S. The Untouchables: Power andAccountability in the Quango State (London: ScarmanTrust, 1996)

Hogwood, B; Judge, D and McVicar, M. “Agencies andAccountability” in Rhodes, R. (ed.) TransformingBritish Government: Volume I: Changing Institutions(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000)

Humphreys, Peter and Gorman, Patricia Information onpublic sector employment and manpower (Dublin:Institute of Public Administration, 1987)

Indecon Economic Consultants Review of LocalGovernment Financing, (Dublin: Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government, 2006)

Institute of Public Administration Yearbook and Diary2006 (Dublin: IPA, 2005)

John, P. Local Governance in Western Europe (London:Sage, 2001)

John, P. “The Europeanisation of Sub-nationalGovernance” in Urban Studies Vol.37 (5-6), 2000,pp.877-94

Jones, G. and Stewart, J. The Case for Local Government(London: Allen & Unwin, 1985)

Keating, M. and Loughlin, J. The Political Economy ofRegionalism (eds) (London: Frank Cass, 1997)

Keyes, J. “Community and Enterprise” in Callanan, M.and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out(Dublin: IPA, 2003), pp. 285-98

Keogan, J. “Reform in Irish Local Government” inCallanan, M. and Keogan, J. Local Government inIreland: Inside Out (Dublin: IPA, 2003), pp.82-96

King, D. and Stoker, G. (eds) Rethinking local democracy(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996)

References



Kirchmaier, T. and Grant, J. “Corporate ownershipstructure and performance in Europe” EuropeanManagement Review Vol. 2, 2005, pp. 231-45

Kooiman, J. Governing as Governance (London: Sage,2003)

Loughlin, John (ed.), Subnational Democracy in theEuropean Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001)

Loughlin, John and Peters, B. Guy, “State Traditions:Administrative Reform and Regionalisation” in M.Keating and J. Loughlin (eds), The Political Economy ofRegionalism (London: Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 41-61.)

McGauran, A-M.; Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P. TheCorporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial National Agencies (Institute of PublicAdministration: Committee for Public ManagementResearch Report No. 6, 2005)

Norton, A. International Handbook of Local and RegionalGovernment (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1994)

OECD Distributed Public Governance: Agencies,Authorities and other Government Bodies (OECD:Paris, 2002)

Office for Social Inclusion National Action Plan forSocial Inclusion 2007-2016 (Dublin: Office for SocialInclusion, 2007)

O’Riordáin, S. Poverty and Social Inclusion: LinkingLocal and National Structures (Dublin: Combat PovertyAgency, 2006)

O’Sullivan, T. “Local Areas and Structures” in Callanan,M. and Keogan, J. Local Government in Ireland: InsideOut (Dublin: IPA, 2003), pp.41-81

Painter, C. “Local authorities and non-elected agencies:the dilemmas of multi-dimensional relationships”Local Government Policy Making Vol.23 (2), 1996,pp.18-25

Painter, C.; Isaac-Henry, K. and Rouse, J. “LocalAuthorities and Non-Elected Agencies: StrategicResponses and Organisational Networks” in PublicAdministration, Vol.75 (2), 1997, pp.225-245

Painter, C.; Isaac-Henry, K. and McAnulla, S.“Modernising Local Government: Micro-Organisational Reform and Changing Local StructuralConfigurations” Local Government Studies Vol.29(4),2003, pp.31-45

Peters G.B. “Managing Horizontal Government: Thepolitics of co-ordination” Public Administration Vol.76 (2), 1998, pp.295-311.

Pierre, J. and Peters, G.B. Governance, Politics and theState (London: Macmillan, 2000)

Pollitt, C. and Talbot C. (eds) Unbundled Government: ACritical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies,Quangos and Contractualisation (London: Routledge,2004)

Pollitt, C.; Talbot, C., Caulfield, J. and A. Smullen (eds)

Agencies: How Governments do things through Semi-Autonomous Organisations (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2004)

Price Waterhouse Review of the Organisation andManagement Structure of the Fishery Service (Dublin:1996)

PricewaterhouseCoopers Review of Regional TourismStructures in Ireland (Report for Fáilte Ireland: Dublin,2005)

Roche, D. Local Government in Ireland (Dublin: IPA,1982)

Rhodes, R.A.W. Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: Thesub-central governments of Britain (London: Unwin,1988)

Rhodes, R.A.W. Understanding Governance: PolicyNetworks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability(Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997)

Rhodes, R. (ed.) Transforming British Government:Volume I: Changing Institutions (Basingstoke:Macmillan, 2000)

Rubin, E. “ The myth of non-bureaucratic accountabilityand the anti-administrative impulse” in Dowdle, M.W.Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas andExperiences (Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in Lawand Society, 2006)

Sabel, C. Ireland: Local Partnerships and SocialInnovation (OECD: Paris, 1996)

Stoker, G. “Intergovernmental Relations” PublicAdministration Vol.73, 1995, pp.101-122

Stoker, G. Transforming Local Governance: FromThatcherism to New Labour (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2004)

Teague, P. and Murphy, M.C. “Social Partnership andlocal development in Ireland: The limits todeliberation” (Geneva: International Institute forLabour Studies Discussion Paper DP/156/2004, 2004)

Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levavic, and Mitchell J.(eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, TheCoordination of Social Life, (London: Sage, 1991)

Thynne, I. “State Organisations as agencies: anidentifiable and meaningful focus of research?” PublicAdministration and Development, Vol. 24 (2004)

Verhoest, Koen, Peters, Guy B., Bouckaert, Geert, andVerschuere, Bram “The study of organisationalautonomy: a conceptual review” Public Administra-tion and Development, Vol.24(2), 2004, pp. 101-118.

Verhoerst, Koen and Geert Bouckaert “Machinery ofGovernment and Policy Capacity: The Effects ofSpecialization and Coordination” in Martin Painterand Jon Pierre (eds): Challenges to State PolicyCapacity ( London: Palgrave, 2005), pp.92-111

Walsh, J. “Local Development and Local Government inthe Republic of Ireland: From fragmentation tointegration?” in Local Economy (Feb 1998), pp.329-41


Note: The survey population for this study is derived from the database of public sector bodies compiled inAutumn 2003 (see Appendix 2). Since then, a number of changes within this population have taken place,particularly in respect of those bodies operating under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children,but also including the transfer between departments of national and sub-national bodies, and the renamingof certain organisations. For example, in the list presented here, the parent body ADM is now called Pobal.At time of writing a comprehensive updating of the database is underway with 1st May 2007 as the base date.

Agency Parent Body

Ballyfermot Partnership ADMBallymun Partnership Ltd ADMBlanchardstown Area Partnership ADMBray Partnership ADMCanal Communities Partnership ADMCavan Partnership ADMClondalkin Partnership Company ADMComhair Cathair Chorcai ADMDonegal Local Development Company ADMDrogheda Partnership Company ADMDublin Inner City Partnership ADMDundalk Employment Partnership Limited ADMFinglas/Cabra Partnership ADMGalway City Partnership ADMGalway Rural Development Company ADMInishowen Partnership Board ADMKWCD Partnership ADMLeitrim Partnership ADMLongford Community Resources Ltd ADMMeitheal Mhaigheo ADMMonaghan Partnership Board ADMNorth West Kildare/North Offaly Partnership ADMNorthside Partnership ADMPairtíocht Chonamara ADMPairtíocht Gaeltacht Thír Chonaill ADMPAUL Partnership, Limerick ADMRoscommon County Partnership ADMSligo LEADER Partnership Company ADMSouth Kerry Development Partnership ADMSouthside Partnership ADMTallaght Partnership ADMTrá Lí Partnership ADMWaterford Area Partnership ADMWestmeath Community Development Ltd ADM


Appendix

1The database of 283 local and regional non-commercial

bodies as of Autumn 2003


Agency Parent Body

Wexford Area Partnership ADMWexford County Partnership ADMEastern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNorthern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNorth-Western Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesShannon Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSouthern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSouth-Western Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWestern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWestern Development Commission Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsCarlow VEC Education and ScienceCavan VEC Education and ScienceClare VEC Education and ScienceCondae Thiobraid Arainn Thuaidh VEC Education and ScienceCork City VEC Education and ScienceCork County VEC Education and ScienceDonegal VEC Education and ScienceDublin City VEC Education and ScienceDublin County VEC Education and ScienceDun Laoghaire VEC Education and ScienceGalway City VEC Education and ScienceGalway County VEC Education and ScienceKerry Education Service VEC Education and ScienceKildare VEC Education and ScienceKilkenny VEC Education and ScienceLaois VEC Education and ScienceLeitrim VEC Education and ScienceLimerick City VEC Education and ScienceLimerick County VEC Education and ScienceLongford VEC Education and ScienceLouth VEC Education and ScienceMayo VEC Education and ScienceMeath VEC Education and ScienceMonaghan VEC Education and ScienceOffaly VEC Education and ScienceRoscommon VEC Education and ScienceSligo County VEC Education and ScienceSouth Tipperary VEC Education and ScienceWaterford City VEC Education and ScienceWaterford County VEC Education and ScienceWestmeath VEC Education and ScienceWexford County VEC Education and ScienceWicklow County VEC Education and ScienceCarlow Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCavan Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentClare Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCork City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCork North Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDonegal Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDublin City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentFingal Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and Employment



Agency Parent Body

Galway County and City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKerry Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKildare Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKilkenny Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLaois Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLeitrim Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLimerick City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLimerick County Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLongford Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLouth Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMayo Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMeath Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMonaghan Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentNorth Tipperary Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentOffaly Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentRoscommon Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSligo Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSouth Cork Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSouth Dublin Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSouth Tipperary Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWaterford City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWaterford County Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWest Cork Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWestmeath Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWexford Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWicklow Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentBorder Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentBorder, Midland and Western Regional Assembly Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCarlow County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCavan County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClare County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDonegal County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFingal County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKerry County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKildare County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKilkenny County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLaois County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLeitrim County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLongford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLouth County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMayo County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMeath County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMid-East Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local Government



Agency Parent Body

Midland Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMid-West Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMonaghan County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNorth Tipperary County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentOffaly County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRoscommon County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Dublin County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Tipperary County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth-East Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouthern and Eastern Regional Assembly Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth-West Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWest Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWestmeath County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWicklow County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCarlow County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCavan County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClare County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDonegal County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFingal County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKerry County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKildare County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKilkenny County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLaois County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLeitrim County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLongford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLouth County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMayo County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMeath County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMonaghan County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNorth Tipperary County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentOffaly County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRoscommon County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Dublin County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Tipperary County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWestmeath County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWicklow County Council Environment, Heritage and Local Government



Agency Parent Body

Drogheda Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClonmel Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKilkenny Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin Tourism Fáilte IrelandMidlands-East Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandNorth West Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandSouth East Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandSouth West Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandWestern Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandArigna Catchment Area Community Company LEADER II GroupsBallyhoura Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsBarrow-Nore-Suir Rural Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsBlackwater Resource Development LEADER II GroupsCarlow Leader Rural Development Co ltd LEADER II GroupsCavan-Monaghan Rural Development Co-op Society Ltd LEADER II GroupsComhar Iorrais (Leader) Teo LEADER II GroupsComhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann LEADER II GroupsCounty Sligo LEADER Partnership Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsDonegal Local Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsEast Cork Area Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsGalway Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsInishowen Rural Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsIRD Dulhallow Ltd LEADER II GroupsIrish Country Holidays LEADER II GroupsIrish Farmhouse Holidays LEADER II GroupsKildare European Leader II Teo LEADER II GroupsLaois Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsLongford Community Resources LEADER II GroupsLouth LEADER LEADER II GroupsMeath Community Partnership Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsMeitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo LEADER II GroupsMid-South Roscommon Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsMuintir na Tíre LEADER II GroupsOffaly LEADER Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsRural Dublin LEADER Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsRural Resource Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsSouth Kerry Development Partnership Ltd LEADER II GroupsSouth West Mayo Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsTipperary LEADER Group Ltd LEADER II GroupsTuatha Chiarraí Teoranta LEADER II GroupsWaterford Leader Partnership Ltd LEADER II GroupsWest Cork LEADER Co-operative Society Ltd LEADER II GroupsWest Limerick Resources Ltd LEADER II GroupsWestern Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsWestmeath Community Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsWexford Organisation for Rural Development LEADER II GroupsWicklow Rural Partnership Ltd LEADER II GroupsCarlow Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenCavan Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenClare Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for Children



Agency Parent Body

Cork City Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenCork County Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenDonegal Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenDublin City Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenDublin South Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenFingal Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenGalway City and County Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenKerry Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenKildare Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenKilkenny Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLaois Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLeitrim Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLimerick City Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLimerick County Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLongford Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenLouth Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenMayo Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenMeath Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenMonaghan Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenOffaly Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenRoscommon Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenSligo Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenTipperary North Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenTipperary South Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenWaterford City Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenWaterford County Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenWestmeath Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenWexford Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenWicklow Childcare Committee Office of the Minister for ChildrenArklow Harbour Commissioners TransportBaltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners TransportBantry Bay Harbour Commissioners TransportDingle Harbour Commissioners TransportKinsale Harbour Commissioners TransportRiver Moy Commissioners TransportSligo Harbour Commissioners TransportTralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Commissioners TransportWestport Harbour Commissioners TransportWexford Harbour Commissioners TransportDublin Transportation Office Transport



Agency Name Parent Body

Ballyfermot Partnership ADMBallymun Partnership Ltd ADMBlanchardstown Area Partnership ADMBray Partnership ADMCanal Communities Partnership ADMCavan Partnership ADMClondalkin Partnership Company ADMComhair Cathair Chorcai ADMDonegal Local Development Company ADMDrogheda Partnership Company ADMDublin Inner City Partnership ADMDundalk Employment Partnership Limited ADMFinglas/Cabra Partnership ADMGalway City Partnership ADMGalway Rural Development Company ADMInishowen Partnership Board ADMKWCD Partnership ADMLeitrim Partnership ADMLongford Community Resources Ltd ADMMeitheal Mhaigheo ADMMonaghan Partnership Board ADMNorth West Kildare/North Offaly Partnership ADMNorthside Partnership ADMPairtíocht Chonamara ADMPairtíocht Gaeltacht Thír Chonall ADMPAUL Partnership, Limerick ADMRoscommon County Partnership ADMSligo LEADER Partnership Company ADMSouth Kerry Development Partnership ADMSouthside Partnership ADMTallaght Partnership ADMTrá Lí Partnership ADMWaterford Area Partnership ADMWestmeath Community Development Ltd ADMWexford Area Partnership ADMWexford County Partnership ADMCOFORD (National Council for Forest Research and

Development) Agriculture and FoodCoillte Teoranta – Irish Forestry Board Agriculture and FoodAgriculture Appeals Office Agriculture and FoodBord Bia – Irish Food Board Agriculture and Food


Appendix

2The database of 601 agencies operating in Ireland in

Autumn 2003



Bord Glas – Horticultural Development Board Agriculture and FoodIrish National Stud Company Limited Agriculture and FoodNational Milk Agency Agriculture and FoodTeagasc – Agriculture and Food Development

Authority Agriculture and FoodVeterinary Council Agriculture and FoodSDS An PostNational Theatre Society Ltd – Abbey Theatre Arts CouncilArts Council/An Chomhairle Ealaíon Arts, Sport and TourismBord na gCon – Irish Greyhound Board Arts, Sport and TourismBord Scannan na hÉireann – Irish Film Board Arts, Sport and TourismCampus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd Arts, Sport and TourismChester Beatty Library Arts, Sport and TourismFáilte Ireland – National Tourism Authority Arts, Sport and TourismHorse Racing Ireland Arts, Sport and TourismIrish Manuscripts Commission Arts, Sport and TourismIrish Museum of Modern Art Arts, Sport and TourismIrish Sports Council Arts, Sport and TourismNational Archives Arts, Sport and TourismNational Concert Hall Arts, Sport and TourismNational Gallery of Ireland Arts, Sport and TourismNational Library of Ireland Arts, Sport and TourismNational Museum of Ireland Arts, Sport and TourismSFADCo (Tourism) Arts, Sport and TourismIrish Financial Services Regulatory Authority Central Bank and FSA of IrelandNational Statistics Board Central Statistics OfficeBus Átha Cliath – Dublin Bus CIEBus Éireann – Irish Bus CIEIarnrod Éireann – Irish Rail CIEAn Post Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesAquaculture Licence Appeals Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesArklow Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBaltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBantry Bay Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBord Gáis Éireann Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBord Iascaigh Mhara – Irish Sea Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBord Na Móna Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBroadcasting Commission of Ireland Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesBroadcasting Complaints Commission Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesCentral Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesCommission for Communications Regulations Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesCommission for Energy Regulation Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesCommissioners of Irish Lights Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDigital Hub Development Agency Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDingle Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDrogheda Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDublin Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDun Laoghaire Harbour Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDundalk Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesEastern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesEirGrid plc Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesElectricity Supply Board (ESB) Communications, Marine and Natural Resources




Galway Harbour Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesIrish Maritime Development Office Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesIrish National Petroleum Corporation Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesKilrush Harbour Authority Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesKinsale Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesMarine Casualty Investigation Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesMarine Institute (Foras na Mara) Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesMediaLabEurope Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesMining Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNational Oil Reserves Agency Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNew Ross Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNorthern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesNorth-Western Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesPort of Cork Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesPort of Waterford Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesRadio Telefís Éireann (RTÉ) Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesRiver Moy Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesShannon Foynes Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesShannon Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSligo Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSouthern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSouth-Western Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesSustainable Energy Ireland Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesTralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWestern Regional Fisheries Board Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWestport Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWexford Harbour Commissioners Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesWicklow Port Company Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesYoughal Harbour Authority Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesArea Development Management (ADM) Ltd Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsBord na Leabhair Gaelige Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsCommissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsDormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsNational Advisory Committee on Drugs Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsPlacenames Commission Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsÚdarás na Gaeltachta Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsWestern Development Commission Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsArmy Pensions Board DefenceBoard of Civil Defence DefenceCoiste an Asgard DefenceAdvisory Council for English Language Schools Education and ScienceCarlow VEC Education and ScienceCavan VEC Education and ScienceChomhairle um Oideachais Gaeltachta agus

Gaelscolaíochta Education and ScienceClare VEC Education and ScienceCommission on Child Abuse Education and ScienceCommission on School Accommodation Education and ScienceCondae Thiobraid Arainn Thuaidh VEC Education and ScienceCork City VEC Education and ScienceCork County VEC Education and ScienceDonegal VEC Education and Science




Dublin City VEC Education and ScienceDublin County VEC Education and ScienceDublin Institute for Advanced Studies Education and ScienceDun Laoghaire VEC Education and ScienceFurther Education and Training Awards

Council (FETAC) Education and ScienceGalway City VEC Education and ScienceGalway County VEC Education and ScienceHigher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) Education and ScienceHigher Education Authority Education and ScienceInspectorate (Education) Education and ScienceInstitúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann (ITÉ) Education and ScienceIntegrate Ireland Language and Training Ltd. (IILT) Education and ScienceInternational Education Board Ireland Education and ScienceIrish Council for Science, Engineering and Technology

(incl. Embark) Education and ScienceIrish Research Council for Science, Engineering and

Technology (inc. Embark Initiative) Education and ScienceIrish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Science Education and ScienceKerry Education Service VEC Education and ScienceKildare VEC Education and ScienceKilkenny VEC Education and ScienceLaois VEC Education and ScienceLéargas – The Exchange Bureau Education and ScienceLeitrim VEC Education and ScienceLimerick City VEC Education and ScienceLimerick County VEC Education and ScienceLongford VEC Education and ScienceLouth VEC Education and ScienceMayo VEC Education and ScienceMeath VEC Education and ScienceMonaghan VEC Education and ScienceNational Adult Learning Council Education and ScienceNational Centre for Guidance in Education Education and ScienceNational Centre for Technology in Education Education and ScienceNational Council for Curriculum and Assessment Education and ScienceNational Education Welfare Board Education and ScienceNational Educational Psychological Service Education and ScienceNational Qualifications Authority of Ireland Education and ScienceOffaly VEC Education and SciencePresident’s Award – Gaisce Education and ScienceRegistration Council (for Secondary Teachers) Education and ScienceResidential Institution Redress Board Education and ScienceRoscommon VEC Education and ScienceRoyal Irish Academy Education and ScienceRoyal Irish Academy of Music Education and ScienceSligo County VEC Education and ScienceSouth Tipperary VEC Education and ScienceState Examinations Commission Education and ScienceWaterford City VEC Education and ScienceWaterford County VEC Education and ScienceWestmeath VEC Education and Science




Wexford County VEC Education and ScienceWicklow County VEC Education and ScienceBioResearch Ireland Enterprise IrelandCrafts Council of Ireland Enterprise IrelandOptronics Ireland Enterprise IrelandPEI Technologies Enterprise IrelandCarlow Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCavan Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentClare Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCompanies Registration Office Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCompetition Authority Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCork City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentCork North Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDonegal Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDublin City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentEmployment Appeals Tribunal Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentEnterprise Ireland Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentFÁS (Foras Áiseanna Saothair) incl. FÁS

International Consulting Ltd. Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentFingal Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentForfás Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentGalway County and City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentHealth and Safety Authority Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentIDA Ireland Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKerry Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKildare Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentKilkenny Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLabour Court Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLabour Relations Commission Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLaois Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLeitrim Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLimerick City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLimerick County Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLongford Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentLouth Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMayo Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMeath Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentMonaghan Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentNational Standards Authority of Ireland Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentNitrigin Éireann Teo. Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentNorth Tipperary Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentOffaly Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentOffice of the Director of Consumer Affairs Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentOffice of the Director of Corporate Enforcement Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentOffice of the Registrar of Friendly Societies Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentPatents Office Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentRoscommon Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSFADCo Ltd (Industrial) Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSligo Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSouth Cork Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentSouth Dublin Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and Employment




South Tipperary Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWaterford City Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWaterford County Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWest Cork Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWestmeath Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWexford Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentWicklow Enterprise Board Enterprise, Trade and EmploymentEuropean Consumer Centre Enterprise, Trade and Employment/EUBord Pleanála Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentBorder Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentBorder, Midland and Western Regional Assembly Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentBuilding Regulations Advisory Body (BRAB) Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCarlow County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCarlow County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCavan County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCavan County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentChomhairle Leabharlanna – Library Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClare County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClare County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentClonmel Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentComhar – National Sustainable Development

Partnership Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentCork County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDonegal County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDonegal County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDrogheda Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin Docklands Development Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDundalk Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentENFO – The Environmental Information Service Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentEnvironmental Protection Agency Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFingal County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFingal County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFire Services Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentGalway County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentHeritage Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentHousing Finance Agency plc Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentIrish Water Safety Association Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKerry County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKerry County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKildare County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKildare County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local Government



Kilkenny Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKilkenny County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentKilkenny County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLaois County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLaois County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLeitrim County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLeitrim County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLimerick County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLocal Government Computer Services Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLocal Government Management Services Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLongford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLongford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLouth County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentLouth County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMayo County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMayo County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMeath County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMeath County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMet Éireann Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMid-East Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMidland Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMid-West Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMonaghan County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentMonaghan County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNational Building Agency Ltd Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNational Traveller Accomodation Consultative

Committee Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNorth Tipperary County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentNorth Tipperary County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentOffaly County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentOffaly County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRadiological Protection Institute of Ireland Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentReferendum Commission Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRent Tribunal Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRoscommon County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentRoscommon County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSligo County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Dublin County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Dublin County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Tipperary County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth Tipperary County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth-East Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouthern and Eastern Regional Assembly Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentSouth-West Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentTemple Bar Properties Limited Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford City Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford City Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWaterford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local Government




West Regional Authority Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWestmeath County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWestmeath County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford Borough Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWexford County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWicklow County Council Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentWicklow County Development Board Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDublin Tourism Fáilte IrelandMidlands-East Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandNorth West Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandSouth East Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandSouth West Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandWestern Regional Tourism Authority Ltd Fáilte IrelandCentral Bank of Ireland and Financial Services

Authority of Ireland FinanceCommittee on Top-Level Appointments in

the Civil Service FinanceEconomic and Social Research Institute FinanceERDF and Cohesion Fund Financial Control Unit FinanceInstitute of Public Administration FinanceNational Development Finance Agency FinanceNational Lottery FinanceNational Treasury Management Agency FinanceOffice of Public Works FinanceOffice of the Chief Medical Officer for the Civil

Service FinanceOffice of the Civil Service and Local Appointments

Commissioners FinanceOffice of the Comptroller and Auditor General FinanceOffice of the Information Commissioner FinanceOffice of the Ombudsman FinanceOffice of the Revenue Commissioners FinanceOrdnance Survey Ireland FinanceStandards in Public Office Commission FinanceState Laboratory FinanceValuation Office FinanceValuation Tribunal FinancePrize Bond Company Ltd Finance/An PostNDP/CSF Evaluation Unit Finance/EUNDP/CSF Information Office Finance/EUNDP/CSF IT Unit Finance/EUBoord o Ulster-Scotch Foras TeangaForas na Gaeilge Foras TeangaAgency for Personal Service Overseas (APSO) Foreign AffairsDCI Advisory Board (The Advisory Board for

Development Cooperation Ireland) Foreign AffairsThe Fulbright Commission Foreign AffairsIrish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation ForfásIrish National Accreditation Board ForfásNational Competitiveness Council ForfásScience Foundation Ireland (SFI) Forfás




Loughs Agency Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights CommissionBoard for Employment of the Blind Health and ChildrenBord Altranais – Nursing Board Health and ChildrenBord na Radharcmhastóirí – Opticians Board Health and ChildrenBord Uchtála – The Adoption Board Health and ChildrenComhairle na nOspidéal Health and ChildrenConsultative Council on Hepatitis C Health and ChildrenCrisis Pregnancy Agency Health and ChildrenDental Council Health and ChildrenDrug Treatment Centre Board Health and ChildrenEast Coast Area Health Board Health and ChildrenEastern Health Shared Services Health and ChildrenEastern Regional Health Authority Health and ChildrenFood Safety Authority of Ireland Health and ChildrenGeneral Medical Services (Payments) Board Health and ChildrenGeneral Register Office Health and ChildrenHealth Boards Executive Health and ChildrenHealth Insurance Authority Health and ChildrenHealth Research Board Health and ChildrenHealth Service Employers Agency Health and ChildrenHospital Bodies Administrative Bureau Health and ChildrenHospitals Trust Board Health and ChildrenInstitute of Public Health in Ireland Health and ChildrenIrish Blood Transfusion Service Health and ChildrenIrish Health Services Accreditation Board Health and ChildrenIrish Medicines Board Health and ChildrenMedical Council Health and ChildrenMental Health Commission Health and ChildrenMidland Health Board Health and ChildrenMid-Western Health Board Health and ChildrenNational Breast Screening Board/BreastCheck Health and ChildrenNational Cancer Registry Board Health and ChildrenNational Children’s Advisory Council Health and ChildrenNational Children’s Office Health and ChildrenNational Council for the Professional Development

of Nursing and Midwifery Health and ChildrenNational Council on Ageing and Older People Health and ChildrenNational Disease Surveillance Centre Health and ChildrenNational Social Work Qualifications Board Health and ChildrenNational Strategy for Nursing and Midwifery

in the Community Health and ChildrenNational Treatment Purchase Fund Health and ChildrenNorth Eastern Health Board Health and ChildrenNorth Western Health Board Health and ChildrenNorthern Area Health Board Health and ChildrenOffice for Health Management Health and ChildrenOffice of Tobacco Control Health and ChildrenPharmaceutical Society of Ireland Health and ChildrenPoisons Council Health and ChildrenPostgraduate Medical and Dental Board Health and ChildrenPre-Hospital Emergency Care Council Health and ChildrenSocial Services Inspectorate Health and Children




South Eastern Health Board Health and ChildrenSouth Western Area Health Board Health and ChildrenSouthern Health Board Health and ChildrenSpecial Residential Services Board Health and ChildrenVHI – Voluntary Health Insurance Board Health and ChildrenWestern Regional Health Board Health and ChildrenWomen’s Health Council Health and ChildrenOffice for Health Gain Health BoardsRosslare Europort Iarnrod EireannCensorship of Films Appeal Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformCensorship of Publications Appeal Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformCensorship of Publications Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformChief State Solicitor’s Office Justice, Equality and Law ReformCommission on Liquor Licensing Justice, Equality and Law ReformCourts Service Justice, Equality and Law ReformCriminal Injuries Compensation Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformEquality Authority Justice, Equality and Law ReformFilm Censor’s Office Justice, Equality and Law ReformForensic Science Laboratory Justice, Equality and Law ReformGarda Síochána Complaints Appeal Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformGarda Síochána Complaints Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformHuman Rights Commission Justice, Equality and Law ReformInspector of Prisons and Places of Detention Justice, Equality and Law ReformIrish Prison Service Justice, Equality and Law ReformJudicial Appointments Advisory Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformJudicial Studies Institute Justice, Equality and Law ReformLand Registry Justice, Equality and Law ReformLegal Aid Board (incl. Refugee Legal Service) Justice, Equality and Law ReformNational Childcare Co-ordinating Committee Justice, Equality and Law ReformNational Consultative Committee on Racism

and Interculturalism Justice, Equality and Law ReformNational Crime Council Justice, Equality and Law ReformNational Disability Authority Justice, Equality and Law ReformNDP Gender Equality Unit Justice, Equality and Law ReformOffice of the Data Protection Commissioner Justice, Equality and Law ReformOffice of the Director of Equality Investigations Justice, Equality and Law ReformOffice of the Director of Public Prosecutions Justice, Equality and Law ReformOffice of the Refugee Applications Commissioner Justice, Equality and Law ReformParole Board Justice, Equality and Law ReformProbation and Welfare Service Justice, Equality and Law ReformReception and Integration Agency Justice, Equality and Law ReformRefugee Appeals Tribunal Justice, Equality and Law ReformRegistration of Title Rules Committee Justice, Equality and Law ReformRegistry of Deeds Justice, Equality and Law ReformState Pathology Service Justice, Equality and Law ReformVictim Support Justice, Equality and Law ReformArigna Catchment Area Community Company LEADER II GroupsBallyhoura Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsBarrow-Nore-Suir Rural Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsBlackwater Region LEADER Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsCarlow LEADER Rural Development Co ltd LEADER II Groups




Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development Co-op Society Ltd LEADER II Groups

Comhar Iorrais (Leader) Teo LEADER II GroupsComhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann LEADER II GroupsCounty Sligo LEADER Partnership Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsDonegal Local Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsEast Cork Area Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsGalway Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsInishowen Rural Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsIRD Duhallow Ltd LEADER II GroupsIrish Country Holidays LEADER II GroupsIrish Farmhouse Holidays Ltd LEADER II GroupsKildare European Leader II Teo LEADER II GroupsLaois Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsLongford Community Resources LEADER II GroupsLouth LEADER LEADER II GroupsMeath Community Partnership Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsMeitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo LEADER II GroupsMid-South Roscommon Rural Development

Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsMuintir na Tíre LEADER II GroupsOffaly LEADER Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsRural Dublin LEADER Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsRural Resource Development Ltd LEADER II GroupsSouth West Mayo Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsTipperary LEADER Group Ltd LEADER II GroupsTuatha Chiarraí Teoranta LEADER II GroupsWaterford Leader Partnership Ltd LEADER II GroupsWest Cork LEADER Co-operative Society Ltd LEADER II GroupsWest Limerick Resources Ltd LEADER II GroupsWestern Rural Development Company Ltd LEADER II GroupsWexford Organisation for Rural Development LEADER II GroupsWicklow Rural Partnership Ltd LEADER II GroupsSalmon Research Institute Marine InstituteCarlow Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeCavan Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeClare Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeCork City Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeCork County Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeDonegal Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeDublin City Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeDublin South Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeDun Laoghaire-Rathdown Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeFingal Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeGalway City and County Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeKerry Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeKildare Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeKilkenny Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeLaois Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeLeitrim Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeLimerick City Childcare Committee National Childcare Management Committee




Limerick County Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeLongford Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeLouth Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeMayo Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeMeath Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeMonaghan Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeOffaly Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeRoscommon Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeSligo Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeTipperary North Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeTipperary South Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeWaterford City Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeWaterford County Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeWestmeath Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeWexford Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeWicklow Childcare Committee National Childcare Management CommitteeNational Pensions Reserve Fund Commission National Treasury Management AgencyForas Teanga (North/South Language Body) North/South Ministerial CouncilFoyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights

Commission (FCILC) North/South Ministerial CouncilInterTradeIreland North/South Ministerial CouncilSafefood: Food Safety Promotion Board North/South Ministerial CouncilSpecial European Union Programmes Body North/South Ministerial CouncilTourism Ireland Ltd North/South Ministerial CouncilWaterways Ireland North/South Ministerial CouncilLaw Reform Commission Office of the Attorney GeneralOffice of the Parliamentary Council to the

Government Office of the Attorney GeneralGovernment Supplies Agency OPWOffice of the Appeal Commissioners RevenueLyric FM RTÉRaidio na Gaeltachta RTÉTG4 RTÉNational Microelectronics Applications Centre Ltd SFADCONational Technology Park Plassey Ltd. SFADCOBord Pinsean – Pensions Board Social and Family AffairsCombat Poverty Agency Social and Family AffairsComhairle Social and Family AffairsFamily Support Agency Social and Family AffairsPensions Ombudsman Social and Family AffairsReach Social and Family AffairsSocial Welfare Appeals Office Social and Family AffairsSocial Welfare Tribunal Social and Family AffairsCentral Statistics Office TaoiseachInformation Society Commission TaoiseachNational Centre for Partnership and Performance TaoiseachNational Economic and Social Council TaoiseachNational Economic and Social Development Office TaoiseachNational Economic and Social Forum TaoiseachNorth/South Ministerial Council – Joint Secretariat TaoiseachAer Lingus Group plc TransportAer Rianta cpt Transport




CIÉ – Coras Iompair Éireann TransportCommission for Aviation Regulation TransportDublin Transportation Office TransportIrish Aviation Authority TransportMedical Bureau of Road Safety TransportNational Roads Authority TransportNational Safety Council TransportRailway Procurement Agency TransportArramara Teo Údarás na Gaeltachta



Strategic HR autonomy

This measures combinations of the ability of localand regional bodies to decide on strategic generalpolicy in relation to staff numbers, staffappointments/selection procedures, staff salarylevels, conditions for promotion, staff tenure, staffevaluation schemes and general criteria fordismissal (see question 13 of the questionnaire, inAppendix 5). The score is based on a matrixdeveloped by the Instituut voor de Overheid fortheir 2002 study of Belgian public bodies. It rangesfrom those public bodies which are able to decideon all of the above issues without ministerial/departmental influence and who therefore havemaximum strategic HR autonomy; to those who areunable to decide on any of these issuesindependently and which therefore have nostrategic HR autonomy.

The scores for each answer are as follows:● Yes – 1● No – 2● Maximum total possible (there are seven

variables) = 14 (no strategic HR autonomy)● Minimum total possible = 7 (maximum

strategic HR autonomy)

Ranked scores:● 14 – no strategic HR autonomy● 12/13 – minimum strategic HR autonomy● 11 – low strategic HR autonomy● 9/10 – moderate strategic HR autonomy● 8 – high strategic HR autonomy● 7 – maximum strategic HR autonomy

For each of the sub-sectors, the unit ofmeasurement is the modal response to eachquestion for the sub-sector, i.e. the most commonresponse by the organisations in a particulargrouping such as enterprise boards. Where two ormore equal modal responses were recorded, anaverage result is used.

General HR autonomy for individual staff

This measures combinations of the ability ofagencies to decide on HR conditions for individualmembers of staff, in relation to salary, promotion,tenure, evaluation, dismissals and appointments(see question 14 of the questionnaire). The scoresallocated for each answer were as follows:

● Yes for all staff – 1● Yes for most staff – 2● Yes for some staff – 3● No – 4● Maximum total possible (there are six

variables) = 24 (no HR autonomy for individualstaff)

● Minimum total possible = 6 (maximum HRautonomy for individual staff)

As the agencies could provide a range of answers,the ranked scores were therefore as follows:

● 6 – maximum HR autonomy for individual staff● 7-12 – high HR autonomy for individual staff● 13-17 – moderate HR autonomy for individual

staff● 18-23 – low HR autonomy for individual staff● 24 – no HR autonomy for individual staff

Again, for each of the sub-sectors, the unit ofmeasurement is the modal response to eachquestion for the sub-sector, i.e. the most commonresponse by the organisations in a particulargrouping. Where two or more equal modalresponses were recorded, an average result is used.

Financial autonomyThis measures combinations of the ability ofagencies to be able to take out loans, set charges,shift budget allocations by function and shiftbudget allocations by year (see question 15 of thequestionnaire). The scores allocated for eachanswer were as follows:


Appendix

3Explanation of matrices


● Yes, can decide without ministerial/departmental approval – 1

● Can decide with ministerial/departmentalapproval – 2

● Cannot decide – 3● Maximum total possible (there are four variables)

= 4 (maximum financial autonomy)● Minimum total possible = 12 (no financial

autonomy)

As the agencies could provide a range of answers,the ranked scores were therefore as follows:● 4 – maximum financial autonomy ● 5-6 – high financial autonomy ● 7-8 – moderate financial autonomy ● 9-11 – low financial autonomy ● 12 – no financial autonomy

Again, for each of the sub-sectors, the unit ofmeasurement is the modal response to eachquestion for the sub-sector, i.e. the most commonresponse by the organisations in a particulargrouping. Where two or more equal modalresponses were recorded, an average result is used.

Policy autonomyThis matrix measures the autonomy of the agencyin relation to its choice of target group and policyinstruments (see question 16 and 17 of thequestionnaire). The scores for each answer were asfollows:

● Agency decides, little or no departmental/ministerial involvement – 1

● Agency decides following consultation withdepartment/minister – 2

● Agency decides within conditions set bydepartment /minister – 3

● Department/minister decides following consulta-tion with agency – 4

● Department/minister decides, agency notinvolved – 5

In some cases, these conditions were set bylegislation. In this case, the score given is 3, themedian score for autonomy, as in this case neitherthe agency nor the department had autonomy overeach other.

● Maximum total possible (there are two variables)= 2 (maximum autonomy)

● Minimum total possible = 10 (no autonomy)

The ranked scores are therefore:● 2 – maximum policy autonomy ● 3-4 – high policy autonomy● 5-6 – moderate policy autonomy● 7-8 – low policy autonomy● 9 – minimum policy autonomy● 10 – no policy autonomy

For each of the sub-sectors, the unit ofmeasurement is the modal response to eachquestion for the sub-sector, i.e. the most commonresponse by the organisations in a particulargrouping. Where two or more equal modalresponses were recorded, an average result is used.



Letter to respondents:

Dear X

Re: Corporate governance of Irish public sectorbodies

I am writing to you about the second phase of aresearch programme on the governance andaccountability of Irish public sector bodies94 whichis being undertaken by Committee for PublicManagement Research (CPMR – for more informa-tion, see http://www.cpmr.gov.ie/). The first phaseof this study, which focused on national levelbodies, was published last Autumn95. Thisprogramme of research provides a valuable resourceby mapping the development of Irish public sectorbodies and identifying best practice on theirgovernance.

The Institute of Public Administration (IPA) iscarrying out this study on behalf of the CPMR (forinformation on the Institute, see www.ipa.ie). TheIPA has developed the study in partnership withthe Instituut voor de Overheid (Public ManagementInstitute), of the Catholic University of Leuven. It ispart of a major international study of stateorganisations, including those in Flanders(Belgium), Norway, Germany, Italy and theNetherlands. This original, cross-national researchprovides a valuable resource not only for mappingthe development of Irish public sector bodies andidentifying best practice on our governancearrangements but also for benchmarking Irish

experience with that in other public administra-tions. In order to achieve this, the study’s definitionof public sector bodies is specifically wider thanthat which we would often use in Ireland in orderto ensure international comparability.

A key task of this second phase of the Irish studyis to assess systems of autonomy and accountabilitywithin non-commercial public sector bodiesoperating at regional and local level. To do so, aquestionnaire survey has been designed, which weare inviting you to complete for your organisation,by Monday 20 March 2006. Your answers will bestrictly confidential, and will be reported in a waythat will not reveal the identity of yourorganisation. The aggregate findings of the surveywill form a major part of a CPMR report on thegovernance of Irish public sector bodies, to bepublished later in 2006. In the meantime, all thosewho complete the questionnaire will receive a copyof the summary findings from the survey, as well asa copy of the final CPMR report.

The questionnaire is web based, and to becompleted on-line. This enhances data collectionand analysis, and also greatly assists confidentialityof the information, as only personnel in theResearch Division of the IPA will be issued withpasswords to access the data. The questionnaire isbeing hosted on the server of the Institut voorOverheid of the Catholic University of Leuven, andis accessible at the following web address:

http://www.publicmanagement-cobra.org/survey/irish2006/


Appendix

4Sample cover letter and Questionnaire

_______________

94 A public sector body is defined as one that has the following characteristics:Performs some public functionIs structurally differentiated from other organisationsHas some capacity for autonomous decision-makingHas some expectation of continuity over timeHas some personnel andHas some financial resourcesAltogether, 601 such organizations have been identified in Ireland. 95 The corporate governance of agencies in Ireland: Non-commercial national agencies


If for any reason you are not able to access thisweb-page, please contact Jeanette Mair [email protected] or 01-240 3760 and we will forward aPDF version of the questionnaire to you, which youcan complete and return to us in either electronic orpaper format. For any other queries, suggestions orassistance in completing the questionnaire, pleasecontact me at [email protected] or 01-2403758;or Dr Peter Humphreys at [email protected] or at01-240 3755.

As I am sure you appreciate, best practice needsto be underpinned by the most accurate andcomprehensive information available. With yoursupport, we are confident that the results of thisstudy will help the future development of Irishpublic sector bodies.

Yours sincerely

Dr Muiris MacCarthaighSurvey Manager

Dr Peter HumphreysExecutive Director, Research



Section one Respondent information Organisation name (text answer)_________________________________________________________________________

What is your function in the organisation? (please select one option)

— CEO or equivalent ______— Company secretary or equivalent ______— Financial director ______— HR director ______— Senior manager/Director of Service ______— other (please specify) __________________________

The Organisation 1. What Government Department/body is your

organisation directly under the aegis of? (text answer) ____________________________________

2. What is the policy field in which your organisationoperates? (please select up to two options) — education ______— enterprise ______— environment ______— equality ______— infrastructure ______— natural resources ______— local development ______— social service ______— training ______— other, please specify ___________________________

3. What are the primary and secondary functions of theorganisation? (please select one option for 'primary'and one for 'secondary')

Primary Secondary — to advise _________ _________— direct implementation

of policy _________ _________— provision of information _________ _________— commercial development _________ _________— promotional (non-

commercial) development _________ _________— co-ordination _________ _________— regulation _________ _________— other, please specify ___________________________

4. In what year was your organisation established in itspresent form? (text answer) _______________________

5. Did the organisation exist in a previous form?(please select one answer) — Yes — No If no, please proceed to question 7

6. If yes, what organisation/s preceded it andapproximately when were they set up? (text answer)

___________________________________________________

7. What was the influence of the EU in theorganisation’s [current] form? (please select oneoption) — strong influence ______— some influence ______— no influence ______If no influence, please proceed to qn. 9

8. If there was EU influence, what was this due to?(please select one option) — EU legislation ______— EU funding ______— both ______— other, please specify ___________________________

9. Under what type of legislation was the organisationset up? (please select one option) — Irish Act ______— Irish statutory instrument ______— EU legislation ______— other, please specify ___________________________— Not applicable ______

10. What is the legal status of the organisation? (pleaseselect one option) — private company ______— public company ______— statutory corporation ______— corporate body ______— other, please specify ___________________________— don’t know ______— not applicable ______

11. What were the employee numbers (full-timeequivalents) at the end of 2005? (text answer) ________________________________________________

12. What was the organisation’s budget for 2005? (textanswer) ________________________________________________


Questionnaire on the governance and accountability of Irish public sector bodies

Contact details for further information. For any queries you may have in completing this questionnaire,please contact the survey manager Dr Muiris MacCarthaigh, at [email protected], or 01-240 3758 or DrPeter Humphreys, at [email protected], or 01-240 3755. Thank you.


Section two – Autonomy 13. Human Resources – is the organisation able to set

general policy for the organisation on the following,without Ministerial/Departmental influence? (pleaseselect one option for each item) — Staff numbers yes no N/A — Staff appointment/

selection procedures yes no N/A— Staff salary levels yes no N/A — Conditions for promotion yes no N/A— Staff tenure yes no N/A— Staff evaluation schemes yes no N/A— General criteria for

dismissal yes no N/A

14. Human Resources – is the organisation able todecide on the following for individual members ofstaff, without Ministerial/Departmental influence? — Salary (please select one option)

■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

— Promotion (please select one option) ■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

— Tenure (please select one option) ■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

— Staff evaluation (please select one option) ■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

— Dismissals (please select one option) ■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

— Appointment ■■ yes for all staff ■■ yes for most staff ■■ yes for some staff ■■ no ■■ N/A

15. Finance – Can the organisation do the following: — Take out loans (please select one answer)

■■ Yes, fully without conditions set byMinister/Department and without priorapproval from Minister/Department

■■ Yes, within conditions set byMinister/Department or with prior approvalfrom Minister/Department

■■ No ■■ N/A

— Set charges for services (please select one answer) ■■ Yes, fully without conditions set by

Minister/Department and without priorapproval from Minister/Department


■■ No ■■ N/A

— Shift budget allocations between differentfunctions (please select one answer) ■■ Yes, fully without conditions set by



■■ No ■■ N/A

— Shift budget allocations between years (pleaseselect one answer) ■■ Yes, fully without conditions set by



■■ No ■■ N/A

16. Policy – how does the organisation decide on thetarget group for its actions/functions? (please selectone option) — Organisation takes most of the decisions itself,

Minister/Department are not or only slightlyinvolved in the decision making process and setsfew restrictions

— Organisation takes most of the decisions itself,following consultation with theMinister/Department

— Organisation takes most of the decisions itselfunder conditions or restrictions set by theMinister/Department

— The Minister/Department takes most of thedecisions, following consultation with theorganisation

— The Minister/Department takes most of thedecisions, independently of the organisation



— Most of the decisions are set by legislation insteadof being taken by the Minister/ Department or bythe organisation itself

— Other, please specify __________________________— Not applicable

17. How does the organisation decide on the policyinstruments whereby it delivers its functions?(please select one option) — Organisation takes most of the decisions itself,

Minister/Department are not or only slightlyinvolved in the decision making process and setsfew restrictions

— Organisation takes most of the decisions itself,following consultation with theMinister/Department

— Organisation takes most of the decisions itselfunder conditions or restrictions set by theMinister/Department

— The Minister/Department takes most of thedecisions, following consultation with theorganisation

— The Minister/Department takes most of thedecisions, independently of the organisation

— Most of the decisions are set by legislation insteadof being taken by the Minister/Department or bythe organisation itself

— Other, please specify __________________________— Not applicable

Section three – Accountability andresponsibility 18. Does the organisation have a board (or council)

which is responsible for overseeing the direction anddelivery of the organisation’s performance? (pleaseselect one option) — yes ______— no ______— N/A. ______

If the answer is no or N/A – please skip toquestion 21

19. If yes to question 20, who appoints theboard/council members? (please select all relevantoptions) — Minister alone — Minister after formal/informal consultation with

organisation — Minister after nomination by and/or consultation

with stake holders — Members appointed by election — Members appointed by stake holders— Other, please specify __________________________

20. How many board (or council) members are therefrom the following groups, and how many of thesehave voting rights?

Type of Number Numberrepresentative of these of these

representa- representa-tives tives

with voting rights

— Central Government reps ______ ______

— Other Governmental reps ______ ______

— Representatives oftrade unions ______ ______

— Reps of employer organisations ______ ______

— Employees of the organisation ______ ______

— Representatives of stakeholders ______ ______

— Independent experts ______ ______ — Elected members ______ ______ — Other, please specify __________________________

21. Has the board/council/organisation established anaudit committee? (please select one option) —yes ______—no ______— N/A. ______If the answer is no or N/A – please skip to question24

22. If yes, how many members does the audit committeehave? (text answer) ________________________________________________

23. And how many members have expertise in thefollowing? — audit & accounting — general management — other

24. Does the organisation publish an annual report?(please select one option) — yes ______— no ______

25. Is there a code of business conduct defining thestandards of behaviour to which board/councilmembers are to subscribe? (please select one option) — yes ______— no ______

26. Is there a code of business conduct defining thestandards of behaviour to which employees of theorganisation are to subscribe? (please select oneoption) — yes ______— no ______

27. Does the organisation use the following? (pleaseselect one option)



— an external audit service ______— an internal audit service ______— both ______— none of these ______

28. If the organisation uses an external audit service, inwhat year was the last external audit carried out? (text answer) ____________________________________

29. Which of the following are considered in either theexternal or internal audit process? (please select alloptions which apply) — Financial results ______— Organisational results ______— Legality and compliance ______— Internal control systems ______— Other, please specify __________________________

30. Has your organisation been the subject of an adhoc/non-routine audit within the last five years?(please select all options which apply) — No ______— Yes, and we carried this audit out

internally ______— Yes, and we contracted another body

to carry out this audit ______— Yes, and this audit was carried out by

another Government body (e.g. Local Government Management Services Board) ______

— Yes, and this audit was carried out by a body linked to the Oireachtas (e.g. Public Accounts Committee) ______

— Yes, and this audit was carried out by anorganisation commissioned by an overseeing authority ______

31. What are the primary and secondary sources of theorganisation's income? (please select one option for'primary' and one option for 'secondary')

Primary Secondary— Direct budget allocation

from Government _________ _________— Transfers from other

Government budgets _________ _________— EU funding _________ _________— Fees/charges _________ _________— Gifts/sponsorship/

membership _________ _________— Other (please specify) _________ _________

32. Who appoints the CEO or equivalent? (please selectone option) — The board/council ______— The board/council after nomination by or

consultation with the organisation ______— The Government or Minister ______— The Government or Minister after

nomination by or consultation with the organisation ______

— Other, please specify __________________________

33. Is the specific role of the CEO or equivalent recordedin writing? (please select one option) — Yes ______— No ______

34. Is the specific accountability of the CEO orequivalent recorded in writing? (please select oneoption) — Yes ______— No ______

35. What is the CEO or equivalent accountable for?(please select relevant answers for each option) — Results Yes No N/A — Functioning of organisation Yes No N/A — Administration of budget Yes No N/A— Compliance with rules and

regulations Yes No N/A— Other Yes No N/A— None of these Yes No N/A

36. On what type of contract is the CEO or equivalentappointed? (please select one option) — Permanent ______— Fixed term ______

37. By whom is the CEO or equivalent evaluated?(please select all relevant options) — Minister ______— The Board/Council ______— Dáil ______— Other, please specify __________________________— N/A ______

Section four – Accountability and direction

38. Does the organisation produce a document whichgoes to Government and which specifies thefollowing? (please select one option for each item) — strategy Yes No N/A— objectives Yes No N/A— planned investment Yes No N/A— financial targets Yes No N/A— non-financial targets Yes No N/A

39. Does the organisation report in a document whichgoes to Government on how it has delivered on thefollowing? (please select one option for each item) — strategy Yes No N/A— objectives Yes No N/A— planned investment Yes No N/A— financial targets Yes No N/A— non-financial targets Yes No N/A

40. Are the goals of the organisation set in qualitative orquantitative terms? (please select one option)



— Qualitative ______— Quantitative ______— Both ______

41. Is the organisation involved in the setting of goals? (please select one option) — Yes, we set goals ourselves ______— The organisation sets the goals in

co-operation with the parent body/Department ______

— The parent body/Department determines the goals in co-operation with the organisation ______

— No, the parent body/Department set the goals on their own ______

42. To make goals measurable, indicators are used. To what extent are the following factors measured with the indicators used? (please select one answer for each type)

To a large To some Not extent extent at all

— Effects on society ______ ______ ______— Quality of services ______ ______ ______— Use of resources ______ ______ ______— Activities & task

performance ______ ______ ______— Quantitative results ______ ______ ______— Qualitative results ______ ______ ______

43. How many indicators are there in the organisation's strategy statements? (please select one option) — None ______— 10 ______— 11-20 ______— 21-49 ______— 50 ______

44. How has the number of indicators changed in the last five years? (please select one option) — More indicators ______— Less indicators ______— No change ______

45. To what extent do the indicators reflect the full range of the organisation's activities? (please select one option) — To a large extent ______— To some extent ______— To a small/no extent ______

46. To what extent are indicators used in therelationship between the organisation and the parent body/Department? (please select one option) — To a large extent ______

— To some extent ______— To a small/no extent ______

47. How frequently does your organisation report non-financial results to the parentbody/Department? (please select one option) — At least monthly ______— At least quarterly ______— At least twice a year ______— Less than once a year ______— No such reporting ______

48. Who evaluates the non-financial results of the organisation? (please select all relevant) — Organisation itself ______— Parent department ______— Third parties, under the direction of

your organisation ______— Third parties, under the direction of

the parent body/Department ______— Others ______— Nobody ______

49. To what extent are there rewards for the organisation when it has good results or reaches targets? (please select one option) — To a large extent ______— To some extent ______— Not at all ______If not at all – please skip to question 51

50. If the organisation is rewarded for good results orachieving goals, then what form do these rewardstake? (pleas tick all relevant options) — Wage increase/bonuses for all staff ______— Wage increase/bonuses for senior

management only ______— Greater autonomy ______— Increase in resources allocated to the

organisation ______— other, please specify ___________________________

51. To what extent are there sanctions for theorganisation when it has poor results or fails toreach targets? (please select one option) — To a large extent ______— To some extent ______— Not at all ______If not at all – please skip to question 53

52. If the organisation is sanctioned for poor results ornot achieving goals, then what form do thesesanctions take? (please tick all relevant options) — Wage decrease/bonuses for all staff ______— Wage decrease/bonuses for senior

management only ______— Less autonomy ______



— Decrease in resources allocated to the organisation ______

— other, please specify ___________________________

53. How often are formal steering meetings heldbetween the parent body/Department and yourorganisation during the course of a year? (pleaseselect one answer) — At least once a month ______— At least quarterly ______— At least once a year ______— Never ______If never – please skip to question 55

54. To what extent are the following focused on duringthese meetings? (please select one answer for eachissue)

To a large To some Not extent extent at all

— Economic issues ______ ______ ______— Professional issues ______ ______ ______— Achievement/reporting

of results ______ ______ ______

55. How often is there informal contact (e.g. meetingswithout written proceedings, or emails or phonecalls) between the parent body/Department andsenior management of your organisation during thecourse of a year? (please select one option) — More than once a week ______— More than once a month ______— At least quarterly ______— At least once a year ______— Never ______

56. To what extent do the following happen in yourorganisation? For each item, please number asfollows: 1 – they do not happen; 2 – to some extent;3 – to a large extent; 4 – not applicable — Development of innovative products

and/or services ______— Charging for services to customers ______— Multi-annual business plans ______— Managing divisions in the organisation

on the basis of objectives and results ______— Internal allocation of resources to

divisions on the basis of results ______— Development of internal reporting

and evaluation systems to enable the governing board to assess results with regard to objectives ______

— Development of internal reporting and evaluation systems to enable management to assess results with regard to objectives ______

— Extension of internal management autonomy to lower management levels in terms of financial management ______

— Extension of internal management autonomy to lower management levels in terms of HR management ______

— Development of results oriented HRM (such as performance related pay, setting of objectives and targets) ______

— Development of systems to calculate product prices ______

— A shift in the role of the organisation’s board from more operational to more strategic oriented control ______

— Public reporting on the organisation’s financial performance in e.g. annual reports ______

— Public reporting on the organisation’s non-financial performance in e.g. annual reports ______

— Quality standards for production/service delivery ______

— Customer surveys ______— Quality management systems

(e.g. ISO) ______— Internal units that monitor quality ______

If you would like to add any further information ofwhatever kind, please do so here:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Definitions

Public service body – a public sector organisation thathas the following characteristics:

— Performs some public function — Is structurally differentiated from other

organisations — Has some capacity for autonomous decision-

making — Has some expectation of continuity over time— Has some personnel and — Has some financial resources.

Qn. 2 – Policy field— infrastructure – includes housing, infrastructure

services, infrastructure — natural resources – includes agriculture, fisheries,

environment, natural resources — health – includes health and medical — local development – urban and rural — social service – includes charity, childcare,

children, social development, social security

Qn 3 – Function of organisation — Implementing policy – e.g. direct service delivery,

or transfer of funds — Regulation – regulation of economic or social

issues in wider society; or regulation of the publicsector

— Advice and policy development – providingobjective advice about policies

— Information – collection and/or provision ofinformation, for public use

— Research— Commercial development— Promotional – focused on developing a sector, but

not for commercial ends, e.g. the promotion of theIrish language, or of safety, or of literacy

— Representation – providing segments of civilsociety with representational and participatoryopportunities

— Registration – registration of professional groups,e.g. nurses

— Co-ordination – co-ordinating the activities of anumber of different groups or organisations

Qn 13 – Ability to set general policy on HR – meaningthat the organisation has free choice to set generalprinciples and rules with regard to the use of resourcesin the HR area

Qn 13/14 - Staff tenure – i.e. length of contract, such astemporary or permanent

Qn 16 – Target group – groups at whom theorganisation’s policy instruments are directed

Qn 17 – Policy instrument – instruments with whichpolicy is implemented, e.g. subsidies, training, provisionof information

Qn 20 – Board members — other Governmental representatives – e.g. those

from local government — representatives of employee organisations – e.g.

those from trade unions — representatives of employees of the organisations

– e.g. a staff representative — representatives of stakeholders, e.g. interest

groups

Qn 21 – Audit committee – a committee withresponsibility for independent review of systems ofinternal control and the external audit process

Qn 27 – Internal audit service – review of the financialmanagement and results of the organisation, by theorganisation

Qn 27/28 – External audit service – review of thefinancial management and results of the organisation, byan external body

Qn 32 – CEO – the manager of the organisation, theperson who is responsible for the day-to-daymanagement of the organisation and thus also forimplementation of its functions

Qn 38 Strategy – means by which resources will be used tomeet organisation’s objectives Objectives – the goals of the organisation’s work Planned investment – investment to expand theorganisation, or to expand its existing work Financial targets – a specified goal in terms of finance,e.g. to spend 100,000 euro on a specific policy area Non-financial targets – a specified goal in a non-financial area, e.g. number of persons to be trained,number of webpage hits



the corporate governance of regional and local public ... · pdf filethe corporate governance...

Documents