|
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee Comité consultatif sur les questions liées à la pauvreté Minutes 3 / Procès-verbal 3
Tuesday, 11 December 2001, 6:30 p.m. le mardi 11 decembre 2001, 18 h 30
Richmond Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Richmond, 110,
avenue Laurier ouest Committee Coordinator / Coordonnatrice du comité : Stephanie Brown,
580-2424, ext. 28124 Stephanie.Brown@city.ottawa.on.ca |
Present: Co-Chair/Présidente:
Linda Lalonde, Co-Chair/Président: Cliff Gazee, Anik Bastien, Louise Bazinet, Candice Beale, Mustafa
Chowdhury, Christine Crawford, Chelby Daigle, Françoise Gour-Lagroix, Lynn
Hamilton, Nancy Kelley, Jeanine Larocque, Sevilla Leowinata, Terrie Meehan,
Bruce Miller, Madelaine Stewart-Dmaj, Hope Suggett, Eva Sullivan, Yolanta
Szaniawska
Regrets: Paul Savard
Others: Ms.
S. Brown, Advisory Committee Coordinator
Councillor
A. Cullen
Colleen Pellat, Sam Fulton
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
There were
no declarations of interest.
CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
ratification des procès-verbaux
The minutes
from Monday November 5 were confirmed.
ITEMS OF
BUSINESS
POINTS
À L’ORDRE DU JOUR
MEETING
PROCEDURE REVIEW
Examen des procédures en ce qui
a trait aux réunions
Co-Chair
Linda Lalonde began the meeting by
expressing some of her concerns as to the way the advisory committee was
operated. She said she viewed the committee asa group of community people
coming to give advice to the City, as opposed to a ‘City Council committee’.
She noted for example such items as the meeting agendas, which “look nice, but
don’t have a lot of relevance to the way community work is normally done.”
The other
thing that she and Co-Chair Cliff Gazee had spoken about was to have guidelines
for the meetings, such as on decorum. She noted that the procedural by-law that
was distrivuted at the first meeting for the Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
had cearly stated that she and Co-Chair Gazee have the authority to name and
throw anyone out of the meeting who becomes undecourous. Several members of the
group nboted they were supposedto have had copies of the procedural by-law
reprinted as some of the original copies distributed were faulty, and
Coordinator Stephanie Brown stated she wouldhave these copies available at the
next meeting.
Co-Chair
Lalonde continued that there was an issue to how the committee will function
also, so she suggested that a sub-committee be formed t oexamine the
procedural-type issues surrounding the operation of the Committee, and “come
back, it seems to me, to the City and be unburdened with this process that is
being used for all 22 advisory committees”. “We’re going to have to g oback and
say ‘this is a little formal and over-structured, and be allowed to remove
ourselves from that box.”
Co-Chair
Gazee said “it may have to become like at the other table we often sit at, a
few of us here, that we extend basic courtesy, so that when someone else has
the floor, you don’t start a side conversation over there, and not listen to
what is being said. I think essentially that people need to be able to
communicate and to be heard; people have to stop and listen to what is being
said.”
Member
Louise Bazinet asked for clarification from Co-Chair Lalonde: was she asking
for the committee members’ opinions in general on a sub-committee on this
subject, or were you asking for our participation on such a committee. Bazinet
further noted that when she that the committee is very structured, “in my
mind’s eye, I got here and saw the paper work, and I said to myself, some
things are a little different than what we are used to, but we can manage”. As
long as the committee has some freedom within the system, it doesn’t bother me,
Bazinet stated.
Co-Chair
explained further that it had scared her that the committee was lead to believe
in the first meeting that they were voting for equal co-chairs, only to find
out later that they were voting for Senior and Junior, which Co-Chair Lalonde
notes sounds “an awful lot like Chair and Vice-Chair, which we voted not to
have.” She further stated that she and Co-Chair Gazee do not prepare the
agendas, and said they are prepared without the Chairs even seeing them, as the
Coordinator has been instructed to do.
Member
Madelaine Stewart-Dmaj stated that it may be possible for the Committee to work
within the given structure, but that it also might be useful to further clarify
what the rules are for everyone, by going into a sub-committee and looking at
how things are done at the City.
Ms. Brown
stated that she wanted to clarify that the agendas were not deliberately
prepared without Co-Chair input. As a Committee Coordinator, it was her
responsibility to be the central contact person, to take care of the creation
and distribution of the agendas, but that agenda content was determined by the
committee, in previous meetings, information requests, presentations, etc. She
noted that everyone was open to initiate agenda items.
Member
Terrie Meehan asked Ms. Brown if Stephani Roy was her boss, and she asked also
what happens in the case of something coming up that requires attention by the
Committee and there is not enough time to put it on the agenda. Ms. Brown
responded that yes, Stephani Roy was her boss, and that new items can always be
entered under Other Business on the agendas.
Member
Christine Crawford suggested instead of striking a subcommittee, couldn’t the
committee vote on the subject as a whole. Co-Chair Lalonde stated it wasn’t
just how agendas are structured, it was also about how the overall committee
was structured.
Co-Chair
Lalonde then asked the committee how they felt about striking up a
sub-committee to deal with the issues, and asked if there were any volunteers.
Member Sevilla Leowinata suggested then that instead of striking a sub-committee
that the subject could be placed as a part of the following agenda, because it
is a very important “process issue” that would determine the culture of how
this group works. Co-Cahir Lalonde stated that because of the nature of the
Committee and of the agendas so far, they were going to be busy enough dealing
with other more important subject than to focus on this. She further noted she
thought that putting things off to committees and then having the issues come
back to the full committee could very well become a regular practice.
Member
Stewart-Dmaj asked if they could “straw-pull” on the subject, and Co-Chair
Lalonde agreed. She asked for a vote on whether to discuss the issue as a
committee, or to do it as a sub-committee.
Staff
representative Colleen Pellatt clarified for the committee that if it were
passed off to a sub-committee, this sub-committee would develop a framework or
a plan and then would bring it back to the full committee for consensus.
Member
François Gour-Lagroix asked for further clarification, if they were being asked
if they needed the structure or not. Co-Chair Lalonde responded that was one of
the issues.
Member
Bazinet asked also for clarification: what difference would it make to have the
agendas done differently. Co-Chair Lalonde reiterated that it involves more
than agendas, but how the Committee is run and operated, including Speaker’s
Lists, meeting guidelines, respect for others, etc. Member Bazinet continued
why a sub-committee would have to be struck to discuss that, since it was the
City who invited the Committee there, and it was the City who is soliciting
their opinions on poverty issues. We’ve been given that leeway.
Member
Mustafa Chowdhury asked of the Committee would be open to speak to other
committee members on their procedures, and Co-Chair Lalonde responded that yes
it could be done in an email format, even, as to not prolong the process.
Member
Meehan stated she would like to see the sub-committee formed, and that the
Coordinator be in attendance to keep the sub-committee on track.
Member
Candice Beale said she was not inquiring so much about the sub-committee but
instead about the quality of the photocopy of the procedural by-law that they
had received last time, as some of it was very faint and hard to read. It would
be wise for the Committee to go through that “big mysterious part” to make sure
they fully understand all of the material given to them and they are fully
aware.
To keep
the discussion of committee procedures around the full Committee:
YAYS: 5
NAYS: 8
Abstentions: 2
The Committee agreed to form a sub-committee to
discuss procedures.
Moved by Member Meehan
That the Poverty Issues Advisory Committee task
a sub-committee with the discussion of meeting procedures.
CARRIED
The Co-Chairs asked for volunteers. Co-Chairs Lalonde and Gazee both
volunteered, Member Stewart-Dmaj, Member Lynn Hamilton also volunteered.
BARRIER ELIMINATION WORKING GROUP
GROUPE DE TRAVAIL SUR L’ÉLIMINATION DES OBSTACLES
Co-Chair Lalonde stated that the letter was
basically to inform the Committee that they were in the process of developing
their workplan, and that they would like to work with the Committee. She
further stated that the workplan group had discussed dealing with such
requests.
Moved by Member Jeanine Larocque
That the Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
accept the letter as information and defer discussion of it to the workplan
sub-committee.
CARRIED
NOVEMBER 21 MEETING
RÉUNION, LE 21 NOVEMBRE
Ms. Brown said the meeting had occurred based
on the request from the Committee to know if there was a pre-set schedule for
reports to come before the Health, Recreation, and Social Services (HRSS)
Standing Committee. She noted that on November 21, Yolande Cremer, Strategic
Support Coordinator, Ms. Pellatt, herself, Sam Fulton, and the Co-Chairs met to
discuss the issue.
Ms. Pellatt said that when communicating the
internal communication style of who you know and what you know worked for quite
some time. In the New City of Ottawa, Ms. Pellat expressed concern at being the
single staff face at the Committee meetings. She stated that Ms. Cremer
coordinates all of the reports going from all of the branches within People
Services to the HRSS Committee. She said it was requested at this meeting for Ms.
Cremer to keep all of us advised as to which reports are going when, and ways
of integrating the Committee at the beginning stages of policy-related and
issue-related points that the Committee would like to be involved in. Since Ms.
Cremer is the Strategic Coordinator for the General Manager of People Services,
Ms. Pellatt noted that there were also other such Coordinators for other GM’s
of other departments.
Ms. Pellatt continued that the Co-Chairs also
advised Ms. Cremer of some of the issues before their committee.
Ms. Brown noted the distributed list of reports
that had gone before HRSS in the last six months. Member Bazinet asked if the
Committee would be able to look at the Mayor’s Task Force report for input. Ms.
Brown replied that yes, and that a sub-committee could attend the presentation
of the Task Force at the next Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
Meeting December 17, 2001.
Ms. Pellatt noted that one way to input comment
is to attend the HRSS meetings and make comment.
UPDATE ON POVERTY INTITIATIVES FUND
MISE À JOUR DU FONDS DES INITIATIVES DE
PAUVRETÉ
Ms. Pellatt stated that the Task Force on
Poverty had been successful in convincing City Council to designate $1 million
to use towards priorities that were recommended by the Task Force in 2000. She
referred to a grid distributed to the Committee as to show how that $1 million
was spent.
One item she drew particular attention to was a
note at the bottom of the report reading “Unspent funds not to be carried over
to next year’s budget”. She stated, “and so there was a bit of a scramble to do
that, and it is not expected to happen routinely, but it did happen this time.”
“What I would like to discuss primarily, which
the Task Force people might remember that $800,000 of the original $1 mil was
to go towards essential housing social supports, which are primarily health and
social-services related items, bus tix and so on, and for the working poor,
which doesn’t get covered by the province. Which means the City goes above and
beyond their responsibility”, said Ms. Pellatt.
I apoligize that the process may not have been biest, with the circumstances that arose. If the Committee can i.d. hear anything hear that they think it is not a “fit”, Ms. Pellatt offered that she could take that information back to the ....if the Committee id.’s anything that does not fit here I am sure there is enough time to give that information back...but we really do have to spend the money by the end of the year.
Member Chelby Daigle asked if Ms. Pellatt had the contact information of the people running the programs. Say I wanted to recommend a friend to one of these programs, who would I direct them to? Ms. Pellatt responded in the absence of a “list”, if anyone wanted to inquire as to a specific program she could respond with that particular information.
New Item–“SubCommittee Meeting”-Nov. 12
Co-Chair Linda Lalonde speaks to the Committee about the possibility of an “honorarium”, or to be given an advance towards the expenses the Committee members incurr to attend and work for these advisory committees. This is what we are recommending [workplan subcommittee]. Also to provide food at meetings. She mentioned it felt as though there was a cookie-cutter approach to these Committees, and so if these things are not appropriate for this Committee we can go back to HRSS and ask for and tell them how it would work better. She cited an example of the November 12 sub-committee meeting in which a report back was due to the rest of the Committee, and there was literally one opportunity in which the Committee could meet; one person had to leave early and another had to go to work late in order to meet in this particular time frame, and it also covered a mealtime.
The other issue discussed at the subcommittee meetingrevolved around information provision, Co-Chair Lalonde stated. It is very difficult to appropriately discuss and have deliberations on these matters when we haven’t had time to prepare.
Member Jeanine Larocque raised that an equally important issue was in regards to reserve members, and how they were expected to fill the vacant spot of a Committee member who resigns and then also be up-to-date on the issues before the Committee, without any reimbursement of expenses.
Member Candice Beale stated the Committee would in a sense be going through that each Fall after one-third of the Committee is replaced by new members who must be brought up to speed about the Committee.
Member Sevilla Leowinata asked if the whole “term of service” issue [on the Committee] could be reviewed. As others would know from other committee involvement, the first year is always about learning, the second year is spent learning by trial and error, and the third year is the only year when you actually become very “effective”.