Brian taught me how to do hyperlinks but quake brain means I can’t retain information for longer than 24 hours, hence all the web addresses. I’ll be smarter next week!
It’s been a full on week but a huge amount of information has been gleaned from many agencies who are more than willing to communicate with people in a clearer way. Each piece of information adds to the overall picture and builds stronger relationships between agencies and communities. We’re now working hard to put all of this information together in digestible ways.
Community Board Chairs – Principles of Engagement Charter Presentation
It was good to have the opportunity to present this Charter to the Chairs. There were many challenges issued – 1 – What is the Community Board’s role in earthquake recovery? 2 – What does their engagement plan look like? 3 – How do they know if they are engaging? I believe this presentation will add to discussions I know the Chairs are already having and hopefully it will influence the way they move forward. It has to be acknowledged that the Community Boards are demonstrating ways of engaging and are certainly wanting to be effective in that role. Several things were raised though – resourcing, leadership and the ever changing playing field that is earthquake recovery. These are big questions facing the Boards but there are also amazing opportunities for them to stake their claim in recovery and be involved in harnessing the good things that have come from the earthquake (community connectedness) and to look for opportunities to do things smarter, better and more visionary. Let’s hope they get the support they need to make this happen./************ get tags and categories ****************/ ?>
Simon Mortlock Meeting – Mortlock McCormack Law
Simon has provided us with the legal ins and outs of challenging rates values and issues or repair vs rebuild. We are now working to put this information together into something digestible and less ‘lawyer speak’. With this information, we will also try to outline some of the thinking involved with litigation decisions – time, money, energies, etc. We’ll continue to work with Simon and his firm to get a clearer picture of what this may look like if people were to group together. At this stage, we are still encouraging people to work through other systems before they consider legal action.
We also tried to gain a further understanding of the property development world and how communities can influence the environment they may buy into. There is much to learn and what is needed is an openness to think in different ways. It’s encouraging to hear that many are already having these discussions and CanCERN is taking whatever opportunity presents to further the discussion.
AMI – AMI/Arrow International Meeting
This four hour session proved extremely informative and helpful. We spent time with key staff from AMI claims, customer support and Arrow International Project Managers to better understand the inner workings of the claim and negotiations process. These people were extremely generous with their time and information and the outcome of the meeting was definitely a win-win situation. Arrow provided us with a detailed DRA (Detailed Repair/Rebuild Assessment) which allowed us to see what customers would be given after the full Arrow assessment and explained the process from that point on. We were able to see more clearly what information people will have to be able to make decisions about Option 1, Option 2 and all of the options that are offered in terms of repairs and rebuilds.
We also spent time discussing the internal and external disputes process and the customer support services available. Although there is advocacy support within AMI, it tends not to kick in until customers are in a dispute situation or have reached a roadblock of some sort. This highlighted the need for vulnerable people to have access to good advocacy support and financial advice throughout the negotiations process and is an area which CanCERN needs to investigate further.
There has been much discussion about AMI’s lack of case managers and the new pod system. After having a look at how these pods work, we walked away with a sense that AMI customer service is definitely going to improve. There are 10 pods with each handling claims from geographical areas. Each pod has six people working within them and customers either have or will shortly be receiving contact information about their pod. Although a customer will not receive an individual case manager, common sense seems to be prevailing and the workers are trying to follow cases with consistency. The six people all sit about a metre away from each other so there’s no problem with information sharing and all pods work from AMI HQ. This allows for better communication within AMI so people should be happier with communication under this new system.
Another thing that installed confidence was a reminder that once you begin face to face negotiations, you will have consistency of personnel as a pod leader will be assigned your case. This may seem obvious but I think many of us are basing our perceptions of what the negotiation process will be like on the ‘call centre’ experience. It will NOT be like that.
We were able to make suggestions about process, communication and trust building and these have been taken on board by both AMI and Arrow.
So the next step is for us to get 4 hours of brain boggling, recorded information into some format that is easy to share with the community. AMI and Arrow were both very open and transparent about their processes and answered every question we threw at them so there is a lot to share! They also answered all of the questions we presented them with at a prior meeting and this will be available to you very soon.
On a final note, because this process was so beneficial we are hoping to repeat it with other insurers to provide communities with insurer specific information, but also to see where the commonalities lie. IAG have already confirmed their interest.
Watch this space!