Misconduct Commission Case Study

PUBLIC of local government
Findings from the 2010 Public Attitudes Survey

PERCEPTIONS

Public Perceptions Series October 2011

CMC vision: That the CMC make a unique contribution to protecting Queenslanders from major crime, and promote a trustworthy public sector CMC mission: To combat crime and improve public sector integrity

© Crime and Misconduct Commission 2011 Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission. Inquiries should be made to the publisher, the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Crime and Misconduct Commission Level 2, North Tower Green Square 515 St Pauls Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 GPO Box 3123 Brisbane Qld 4001 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Note: This publication is accessible through the CMC website, www.cmc.qld.gov.au.

Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements
Most contacts (82%, n = 133) were self-initiated, whereas 18 per cent (n = 29) were employee-initiated. 2 As shown in Figure 9, people who initiated contact with a local government employee commonly reported that they made contact: • to make a complaint • to make an enquiry or seek information. Compared with the 2008 survey, people in 2010 were more likely to report dissatisfaction after making a complaint, seeking assistance from local government employees or making a submission. Respondents were less likely in 2010 to report dissatisfaction after raising a concern or discussing a community or personal issue. Figure 9. Reasons for self-initiated contact with local government (2008 and