Report to:
Submitted by: Steve Kanellakos, A/City Manager
Contact Person: Pierre Pagé, Director/City Clerk
Secretariat
Services
(613)
580-2424 x22408, Pierre.Page@Ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
That, at its meeting on 19
November 2003, the 2000-2003 Council receive and table the "Council
Governance Review - 2003 - 2006 Council" report, specifically
recommendations 2 a) to 2 x) inclusive and the associated appendices.
2.
That, at its meeting on 3
December 2003, the 2003-2006 Council consider and approve the following
recommendations:
PART A – STANDING COMMITTEES OF CITY
COUNCIL - STRUCTURE
a) The continuation of the current Planning and Development Committee to act
as an Interim Planning and Development Committee (re-elected members only) to
consider any public hearings and planning issues that may occur between 3
December 2003 and the appointment of the new Committee structure and membership
in January 2004.
b)
The following structure for Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Corporate Services and Economic Development Standing Committee
§
Emergency and Protective Services Standing Committee
§
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee
§
Planning and Environment Standing Committee
§
Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Standing Committee
PART B – ADVISORY COMMITTEES
AND BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL –
STRUCTURE
c) The
following structure for Advisory Committees and Boards for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Accessibility Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
§
Environmental Advisory Committee
§
Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services Advisory Committee
§
Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
§
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
§
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
§
Seniors Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory Committee
§
Youth Advisory Committee
§
License Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board
PART
C – CITY OF OTTAWA DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIVE GROUPS
d) The following change in structure from Advisory Committee to Departmental Consultative Group for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
§
Richmond Conservation Area Departmental Consultative
Group
PART D – GOVERNANCE PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION
e)
The revised Terms of Reference for all Standing Committees be submitted
in draft form to the first meeting of the Committees in January for review and
approval.
f)
The enactment of a revised Council and Standing
Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law.
(Document 9).
g)
The enactment of an Advisory Committee Procedure By-law, inclusive of a
Code of Conduct and guidelines, as outlined in the report and the associated
by-law. (Document 10).
h)
The rotation list of Councillors to serve as Deputy Mayor in the
absence of the Mayor be comprised of all members of Council as outlined in the
report and the associated by-law.
(Document 11).
i)
The proposed amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as
outlined in the report and the associated by-law. (Document 12).
j)
The Standing Committee and Council meeting schedule as outlined in the
report. (Document 14).
k)
The location of City Council meetings for the 2003-2006 term to be
Andrew Haydon Hall at City Hall.
l)
The guidelines and efficiency improvements for staff attendance at
Standing Committee meetings as outlined in the report.
m)
The Standing and Advisory Committee minutes and agenda standards as
outlined in the report.
n)
An overall reduction in Advisory Committee membership to between 9-11
members for each Committee, to be achieved gradually over time for all
Committees, and revisions to the Appointment Policy for Advisory Committees,
Boards and Authorities as outlined in the report, as well as guidelines for
addressing membership for merged Advisory Committees.
o)
The revised process for recruitment for Advisory Committee members as
outlined in the report to improve and streamline the process.
p)
The guidelines for training for Advisory Committee members to improve
member effectiveness and provision of advice to Council, to be provided by
staff in a cost effective manner, as outlined in the report.
q)
The elimination of $150,000 annually in Advisory Committee workplan
funding, and confirm the requirement for Advisory Committees to submit annual
reports and workplans outlining priorities for each year.
r)
The review of the Advisory Committee structure and Terms of Reference
at the end of every term of Council.
s)
The mandate for staff to review and recommend continuous improvements
to the Governance Structure and associated elements at the end of every term of
Council.
PART E – OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
t) That Legal Services Branch be directed to seek special enabling legislation from the Province to permit the appointment of citizen members to serve as the License Committee, as outlined in the report.
u)
An amendment to the By-law for the Ottawa Public Library Board to
revise the membership on the Board to 14 members (four Councillors) as outlined in the report. (Document 15).
v)
The election and appointment of six members of Council (two members per
panel) to serve as the Selection Panel for citizen members for each of the
following (to meet in January 2004 to review citizen applications for
appointment for the 2004-2006 term):
§
Committee of Adjustment Selection Panel
§
Ottawa Public Library Board Selection Panel
§
Ottawa Police Services Board Selection Panel
w)
The election and appointment of 10 members of Council to serve as the
Nominating Committee, in addition to the Mayor as Chair, to make
recommendations to Council on appointments of members of Council to Standing
and Advisory Committees, Boards and Selection Panels at a meeting scheduled for
Friday, January 9, 2004.
x)
The creation of a Citizen’s Task Force to review the 1/3 tax free
portion of elected representative compensation and review elected
representative compensation in general, office and salary budgets and make
recommendations to Council in 2004.
REPORT
INDEX
|
SECTION |
PAGE
NO. |
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
07 |
|
BACKGROUND |
08 |
|
PART A – STANDING COMMITTEES OF CITY COUNCIL – STRUCTURE Introduction Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Emergency and Protective Services Committee Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee Planning and Environment Committee Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Committee Transfer of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
responsibilities Transfer of the Audit Committee responsibilities Transfer of the Environmental Services Committee responsibilities Transfer of the Member Services Committee mandate Interim Planning and Development Committee |
11 13 15 15 16 17 18 20 20 21 21 |
|
PART B – ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL – STRUCTURE Introduction Advisory Committee
to Council Accessibility
Advisory Committee Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Advisory Committee – Dissolution Arts, Heritage and
Culture Advisory Committee City-School Boards
Liaison Committee – Dissolution Environmental Advisory
Committee Equity and Diversity
Advisory Committee French Language
Services Advisory Committee Greenspace and
Forests Advisory Committee Health and Social
Services Advisory Committee Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee Pineview Municipal
Golf Course Board Poverty Issues
Advisory Committee Ottawa Municipal
Campground Authority Seniors Advisory
Committee Taxi Advisory
Committee – Dissolution Transportation
Advisory Committee Youth Advisory
Committee |
22 24 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 |
|
PART C – CITY OF OTTAWA
DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIVE GROUPS Departmental
Consultative Group Cycling Departmental
Consultative Group Richmond
Conservation Area Departmental Consultative Group |
37 38 38 |
|
PART D – GOVERNANCE
PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION Standing Committees
Terms of Reference Procedure By-law –
Amendments Advisory Committee
Procedure By-law Deputy Mayor
Rotation By-law Delegation of
Authority By-law – Amendments Meeting Schedule Location of City
Council Meetings Staff Attendance at
Standing Committee meetings – Improved
Efficiencies Minute and Agenda
Standards Advisory Committee
Membership Advisory Committee
Member Recruitment Advisory Committee
Member Training Advisory Committee
Workplan Funding, Requirement for Annual Reports
and Workplans Review of Advisory
Committee Terms of Reference Each Term of
Council Review of Governance
Structure and Associated Elements Each Term of
Council |
39 39 42 44 44 45 47 48 48 51 52 53 54 54 55 |
|
PART E – OTHER RELATED
MATTERS License Committee Ottawa Public
Library Board Membership Nominating Committee
and Committee / External Board Appointments Councillors’
Compensation |
55 57 58 59 |
|
CONSULTATION |
60 |
|
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS |
61 |
|
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION |
61 |
|
DISPOSITION |
62 |
|
APPENDICES Governance Options
presented during the Transition Process The new City’s
Governance Structure Governance: Theories
and Trends Ottawa’s Public
Participation Policy Benchmarking and
Municipal Reviews |
63 65 66 68 70 |
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
The Governance Review report includes a
comprehensive review of the recent history of governance in the City of Ottawa,
benchmarking and best practises research of other Canadian municipalities and
trends in governance.
The report contains a series of inter-connected
recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure.
A
set of principles was developed to guide the review of Ottawa’s governance,
focusing on important relationships and structures for achieving and improving
effective and accountable governance.
The primary objectives of the review included the following:
Recommendations
for the new governance structure have been based on the guiding principles for
the governance review combined with two clear criteria:
Financial Implications:
The proposed reduction in the number of Standing and
Advisory Committees, and the change in minute standards will result in annual
savings of $212,000. Elimination of the Advisory Committee workplan funding
will result in additional savings of $150,000; resulting in total annual
savings of $362,000. These
savings are based on the structures and standards recommended in this report,
and would be reduced in proportion to any committee additions or standards
amendments.
Public Consultation/Input:
Broad public consultation and input was not sought
in the course of the governance review, as the recommendations refer to
processes and structure fully within the purview of elected officials, and
represent the development of a governance structure that will determine the way
in which City Council will carry out business over this term. However, a number of internal consultation
activities were conducted, as outlined below:
§ A prioritization survey on
all City services and their focus for Committee mandates was prepared and
distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory Committees to
determine areas of priority for Committee mandate.
§ A self-evaluation survey on
each member’s role on a Committee, as well as the role of the Committee as a
whole was distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory
Committees to determine opportunities for efficiency improvements.
§ Members of Council were
contacted to provide input on the governance structure.
§ Each Departmental Management
Team (General Managers and Directors) provided input to the governance
structure and identified opportunities for improvement.
§ A meeting was held with lead
department representatives to Advisory Committees to provide input on the
Advisory Committee structure and departmental relationships with Advisory
Committees.
§ A meeting was held with the
Council and Committee Services Division, which provides support to the entire
governance structure to receive their input and suggestions as service deliverer.
§ A meeting was held with all
Chairs and Vice Chairs of Advisory Committees to gather input and suggestions
on recommendations for improvement directly related to the Advisory Committee
process.
In addition to this internal consultation,
municipalities across Canada were also contacted to gather information about
governance structures and trends.
BACKGROUND
When the new City of Ottawa was created in 2001, one
of its first challenges was to define its own governance structure. The new City’s first Council wanted a
governance structure that would maximize public participation and streamline
decision-making. They wanted to make
sure the Committee structure and the guidelines and procedures for the
legislative process were designed to provide citizens and stakeholders the
opportunity to be involved with policy and service decisions prior to Council
approval. As well, the structure and
governance rules would enhance transparency and accountability throughout the
decision-making process. To that end, in early 2001, City Council set up 9
Standing Committees and 16 Advisory Committees (2 more Advisory Committees and
2 Task Forces were added later)[1].
These committees, together with those Boards and Authorities that were retained
from the former municipalities, formed the basis of the governance structure of
the new City of Ottawa from 2001-2003.
The Committee structure and legislative process
adopted by the City of Ottawa, and the policies and procedures governing their
operation, can best be described as the “Strong Council” model (as opposed to
the “Strong Mayor/Executive” model) of governance.[2] While both models are employed in
municipalities across Canada, the Strong Council model is the most common. The
shared features of a Strong Council governance structure include establishing
committees which assist Council in carrying out its decision making policies,
creating opportunities for engaging the community/public participation and
establishing an equitable division of workload among Councillors and Committees.
Because both the City government and the City’s
governance structure were new, no performance indicators had been determined to
see how well Ottawa’s structure matched Council’s goals. While the City had the
governance models of the 12 former municipalities, and the recommended
governance models from the Special Advisor on Local Government Reform and the
Ottawa Transition Board[3]
to use as references, there was no way to anticipate whether or not or how the
new structure would work.
Over the first term of Council, it became clear
that, while much of the current structure was working well, there were clear
challenges that needed to be addressed. The sheer number of committees meant
that at least one Standing Committee, Advisory Committee, Board or Authority
was meeting every day of the week, and often there were two meetings in a day.
This meant a significant increase in the time Councillors had to spend in
legislative meetings at City Hall, at the expense of community meetings and
time for dealing directly with constituent concerns. As well, it was clear that
workloads across Committees were not balanced and that the rules governing
meetings needed to be adjusted to address areas that were not working. While some Advisory Committees were working
well within the established framework, others needed to be redefined to
optimize their efforts.
Council directed Secretariat Services to review the
governance structure and propose solutions to address the existing
challenges. Before proposing solutions,
Secretariat Services undertook a comprehensive review of the recent history of
governance in the City of Ottawa,[4]
trends in governance[5],
and a benchmarking/best practises research of other Canadian municipalities[6].
As well, extensive internal consultation took place.
Specifically:
§ All members of Council and
all members of Advisory Committees were sent a prioritization survey to
determine areas of priority for Committee mandates and a self-evaluation survey
on the roles of the Committee and members on the Committee.
§ A meeting was held with all
Chairs and Vice Chairs of Advisory Committees to gather input and suggestions
on recommendations for improvement directly related to Advisory Committee
process.
§ A meeting was held with lead
department representatives to Advisory Committees to provide input on the
Advisory Committee structure and departmental relationships with Advisory
Committees.
§ Members of Council and each
Departmental Management Team (General Managers and Directors) provided input to
the governance structure and identified opportunities for improvement.
§ A meeting was held with the
Council and Committee Services Division to receive their input and suggestions,
because they support governance services.
As solutions were developed, efforts were made to
ensure that necessary changes and improvement changes would align with
identified priorities, ensure that programs and services met the designated
expectations and objectives, allow for effective public/community consultation
and participation, contribute to an efficient and effective decision-making
process, and ensure that the governance structure and related processes remain
accountable to the community.
Accountability will also be considerably enhanced by Ottawa’s Public
Participation Policy, adopted by City Council in October, 2003. This policy
will include the creation of a Roundtable for Citizen Engagement, and commits
the City to consult residents in a meaningful way on issues that affect them.[7]
In addition, recommendations for the new governance
structure have been based on two clear criteria:
The results involve recommended changes to the
Standing Committee structure, the Advisory Committee structure, the Procedure
By-law, the Delegated Authority By-law, and a number of other areas. The series
of proposals involves several different inter-related components, each of which
constitutes a different part of the City’s on-going efforts to be a responsive,
effective and accountable government.
The City’s new structure would see the creation 5
Standing Committees with more balanced workloads, 13 Advisory Committees, 5
miscellaneous Boards, and 2 Departmental Working Groups. When taken together,
the governance changes proposed either enhance the current decision-making
process, or meet current goals and expectations. They will save the City
$362,000 annually.
“The following structure
for Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the
report, effective immediately:
§
Corporate Services and Economic Development Standing Committee
§
Emergency and Protective Services Standing Committee
§
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee
§
Planning and Environment Standing Committee
§
Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Standing Committee”
As
noted in the Background section of the report, there are presently nine
Standing Committees, as follows (Reference Document 7 for an organization chart
of the existing governance structure, and Document 8 for the proposed
governance structure):
§
Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee
§
Audit Committee
§
Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee
§
Emergency and Protective
Services Committee
§
Environmental Services
Committee
§
Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee
§
Member Services
Committee
§
Planning and Development
Committee
§
Transportation and
Transit Committee
The
recommendations described in detail below propose a revised Standing Committee
structure based on five committees, versus the previous nine.
Recommendations
for the new structure have been based on the guiding principles for the
governance review (Continuously improving the organization’s work practises and
procedures; Ensuring that programs and services meet the designated
expectations and objectives; Ensuring that there is effective public consultation;
Ensuring that the governance structure is accountable to the community;
Contributing to an efficient and effective decision-making process; and
Ensuring that the governance structure is aligned with identified priorities).
In addition, benchmarking and best practises research in other municipalities
and organizations, as well as consultation, was used to determine
recommendations for the proposed structure.
For
Standing Committees where changes are proposed, it should be noted that all
recommendations were measured using the following methodology.
If
a Committee did not meet all three criteria, change has not been recommended at
this time.
In
general, consultation during the governance review showed that the Standing
Committee structure is working well, and could be improved with opportunities
for streamlining and increased efficiency.
These opportunities specifically related to the following concerns:
imbalance in workloads between Committees; time spent in meetings; and a need
to refocus priorities and attention for decision-making purposes at a more refined
level. Many members of Council also
noted an over-abundance of meetings that required a significant amount of their
time, thereby limiting their ability to address issues in their wards, or other
broader issues of priority.
Fewer
committees and fewer meetings should resolve many of these concerns, and will
place the priority for decision-making on policy, priority and focus, and
achieve a more balanced workload. In
addition, the rebalancing of workload, and streamlining of focus will place the
emphasis for decision-making within the guiding principles for good governance.
The
review of the City of Ottawa governance structure also included an examination
of the quantitative outputs and actions taken by the Standing Committees
created in 2001, as an attempt to measure their productivity, decision-making
and effectiveness. Set out below is a
summary of these findings, followed by a review of each Standing Committee.
COMMITTEE
|
#
OF MEETINGS |
#
OF ITEMS DISCUSSED |
#
OF JOINT MEETINGS |
#
OF PUBLIC DELEGATIONS |
#
OF MEETING HOURS |
#
OF ITEMS THAT ROSE TO COUNCIL |
|
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee |
33 |
116 |
3 |
140 |
68 |
54 |
|
Audit
Committee |
15 |
58 |
1 |
4 |
19 |
34 |
|
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee |
57 |
609 |
4 |
429 |
189 |
500 |
|
Emergency
and Protective Services Committee |
37 |
168 |
2 |
234 |
119 |
67 |
|
Environmental Services Committee |
39 |
156 |
1 |
166 |
82.5 |
69 |
|
Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee |
48 |
340 |
3 |
768 |
205 |
254 |
|
Member
Services Committee |
7 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
6.5 |
0 |
|
Planning
and Development Committee |
58 |
899 |
5 |
1727 |
365 |
728 |
|
Transportation and Transit Committee |
53 |
256 |
2 |
450 |
230 |
207 |
[Note: Statistics gathered reflect meetings from
January 2001 to the end of August 2003, and also reflect the impact of the
consideration of the Official Plan in 2003 on number of meetings, items
considered, public delegations and hours of meetings. Reports that rose to
Council as a result of joint meetings of Committees are not reflected.]
The Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee is responsible for providing
direction on the administration of the City of Ottawa with a view to
strengthening management and administrative practices, providing policy
guidance on all matters of a financial or administrative nature, as well as
corporate strategic planning and policies that have a long-term impact on the
corporation, and developing recommendations on issues relating to
economic/business development.
Presently,
items considered by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
represent 27% of items that rise to Council for decision.
It
is recommended that in streamlining the governance structure, there occur a
transfer of responsibilities from the Environmental Services Committee to other
Standing Committees. The Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
would assume the following responsibility currently within the purview of the
Environmental Services Committee:
The
City of Ottawa presently has a Member Services Committee, comprised of three
members of Council who review, consider and approve issues relating to the
elected representatives and specifically their office and salary budgets and
operation. These issues are fully
within the purview of the Member Services Committee, and have not risen to City
Council in the last term.
The Member Services Committee does not at this time
have a formalized Terms of Reference for its operation, however Section 80 of
the existing Procedure By-law references the Committee and its role as follows:
1.
The Member Services
Committee shall be composed of three members of Council.
2.
The Member Services
Committee has jurisdiction regarding:
a)
the administration of
the offices of the Councillors;
b)
expenditures by
Councillors;
c)
entitlement of
Councillors to City facilities and resources for the performance of their
duties; and
d)
personnel matters
related to:
I.
the offices of the
Councillors, or
II.
the performance by the
Councillors of their duties.
The Member Services Committee
has considered reports on some of the following issues over the 2001-2003 term
of Council:
§
Report of the Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries
– Transitional Arrangements for Workload Support – Growth Wards
In
the interests of accountability, public participation and effective and
efficient governance, it is recommended that these issues become part of the
mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee. It is recommended that should the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee choose, these issues could be
addressed by a sub-committee (i.e. the Member Services sub-committee).
The Audit Committee is responsible for providing, on behalf of City Council, oversight on matters relating to financial reporting and assurance that an effective control and governance framework is in place.
The
creation of a separate standing committee to serve the work of this single
department is not well supported from a good governance perspective, when there
is general agreement its mandate and workload could be easily transferred to
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.
General
consultation reflected that the current mandate and structure for the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee is an effective part of the
existing governance structure at the City.
The membership of the revised Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee is recommended below:
Emergency and Protective
Services Committee
The
Emergency and Protective Services Committee is responsible for issues relating
to Fire Services, Emergency Medical Services, By-law Services and Emergency
Measures.
Presently, items considered
by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee represent 4% of items that
rise to Council for decision.
It is recommended that the
Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting schedule be reduced from
two meetings per month to one meeting per month to reflect the workload of the
Committee and the likelihood of a decrease in the number of potential
departmental items that will rise to the Committee for consideration during the
2003-2006 term of Council. In
consultation with existing Committee members, there was a general consensus
that the work of the Committee could be effectively achieved with one meeting
per month.
General consultation
reflected that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee is operating
well within the governance structure. However the agendas for many meetings
have been light, and could be accommodated within the proposed reduced
schedule.
The membership of the Emergency and Protective Services
Committee is recommended below:
Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee
The Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee is responsible for
issues relating to Housing, Public Health, Long Term Care, Community Services
(including children’s services, recreation and culture), Employment and
Financial Assistance, Innovation, Development and Partnerships (including
community funding and cultural affairs) and the Ottawa Public Library.
Presently, items considered
by the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee represent 13% of items
that rise to Council for decision.
General consultation reflected that the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee was working effectively in the
existing governance structure. Some
comments were received on the importance of recreation and parks issues in the
City, and a proposal was submitted that called for the creation of a separate
Standing Committee to address these issues.
The creation of a standing committee to deal with very few issues is not
deemed an effective use of time, resources or accountability, and the proposal
was not recommended. Should the
Committee choose, they could create a sub-committee to address recreation
issues (i.e. the Recreation sub-committee).
The membership of the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee is recommended below:
Planning and Environment
Committee
The Planning and Development Committee is currently responsible for the
investigation of physical, social, economic and environmental conditions in the
development and implementation of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, making
recommendations on issues relating to Building Services; Planning and
Infrastructure Approvals; and, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy.
Presently, items considered
by the Planning and Development Committee represent 39% of items that rise to
Council for decision.
The proposed name change from Planning and Development
Committee to the Planning and Environment Committee reflects the new emphasis
in the committee mandate on environmental policy and environmental
sustainability, as well as the principles of the Official Plan relating to
environmental issues, and smart growth rather than strictly on development
related initiatives.
There
was general consensus that, in the streamlining of the governance structure,
there be a transfer of responsibilities from the Environmental Services
Committee to other Standing Committees.
It is recommended that the Planning and Environment Committee assume the
following areas within the current mandate of the Environmental Services
Committee:
§ Responsibility
for environmental policy issues;
§ Review and revise, if
necessary, staff comments and recommendations on environmental initiatives as
proposed by the Federal and Provincial Governments; and
§ Ensure co-ordination and
consultation with other committees and departments where responsibilities
overlap on issues of environmental protection and on issues relevant to the
mandate of more than one committee.
General consultation reflected that the workload of
the Planning and Development Committee was significantly greater than other
Standing Committees, however that may have been related to the Official Plan process
undertaken during the last term of Council.
Some suggestions relating to the transfer of local zoning and planning
items to community councils or local boards were received during consultation,
but there was no general consensus on this option. Furthermore, the transfer of
zoning and local planning issues out into the community for decision-making
could result in uneven or conflicting application of the Official Plan and
20/20 growth management plans among different geographic areas.
The membership of the revised
Planning and Environment Committee is recommended below:
Public Works, Transit and
Infrastructure Services Committee
Currently, the existing Transportation and Transit Committee is
responsible for the provision of overall guidance and direction to the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department for issues relating to
transportation, parking and transit services.
Presently,
items considered by the Transportation and Transit Committee represent 10% of
items that rise to Council for decision.
It
is recommended that the Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services
Committee assume the following responsibilities currently within the mandate of
the Environmental Services Committee:
§ The Utilities Branch of the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department;
§ The Infrastructure Services
Branch of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works on items related to
piped services;
§ The Surface Operations
Branch of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department on items
related to the administration and maintenance of open spaces and the Urban
Forest (not including parks and sports fields);
§ Be responsible for providing
overall guidance and direction in areas of water supply, solid waste management
and disposal, and water pollution control.
The
re-alignment of these responsibilities from the Environmental Services Committee
to the new Standing Committee serves to more closely align the work of the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department within one Standing
Committee. Previously, the department was reporting to up to four Standing
Committees, depending on the issues under consideration. This proposed re-alignment of reporting
relationship should prove to be a more effective and efficient process for the
Committee, City staff and the public.
With the proposed transfer of responsibilities from
the Environmental Services Committee to the Transportation and Transit
Committee, a name change is proposed to more accurately reflect the new mandate
and responsibilities of the Committee.
As the Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Committee would
now have responsibility for issues relating to piped services, infrastructure,
maintenance of open spaces and trees, waste management etc, in addition to the
former transportation and transit responsibilities, the name change reflects a
departmental alignment as well as recognition of issues considered by the new
Committee.
General consultation on the Transportation and Transit
Committee reflected that it was working well within the existing governance
structure. The addition of increased responsibilities transferred from the
Environmental Services Committee will serve to align the Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works Department more closely with one Standing Committee
and address comments received regarding departmental and committee alignment
for improved efficiency, as well as seeking the best use of staff time. It was generally felt that the
Transportation and Transit Committee could accommodate the additional
responsibilities within its overall workload.
The
membership of the revised Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services
Committee is recommended below:
The
Rural Issues Project Team to the Ottawa Transition Board made recommendations
to the new City concerning the reflection of rural interests in Ottawa in late
2000. These recommendations are noted
below:
The
recommendations provided to the new City by the Rural Issues Project Team of
the Ottawa Transition Board hold much merit, and reflect extensive consultation
with rural residents at the time of amalgamation.
When Council established the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Standing Committee in 2001, research indicated that it would be the
first of its kind in Canada. That holds
true to this day (i.e. see the Benchmarking of other Canadian municipalities
above in the Background section).[8] The primary reason no other Canadian
municipality has a Rural Affairs committee appears to be that the different
experiences of rural, urban and suburban residents is not only based on
geographic location, but also on many other factors including race, gender,
language, disability, and socio-economic status. This view was raised and reflected in the consultation related to
this Committee.
Consultation on the function of the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Standing Committee revealed a general consensus that the existing
role, mandate and purpose of the Committee lacked direction and focus. The City’s governance structure does not
align itself with a reporting relationship directly focused on rural issues,
nor does the Committee have budgetary responsibility for specific operational
areas. As well, many of the issues
addressed by other Standing Committees have an impact on rural residents,
resulting in duplication and/or inconsistent lines of accountability and
decision-making and the requirement for joint meetings. As well, participation by rural residents
has not been demonstrably improved by the function of the Standing Committee.
These factors, when taken as a whole, led to an overall sense that the Standing
Committee was not able to meet its intended goals.
Presently,
items considered by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee represent 3% of
items that rise to Council for decision.
Application of the principles for good governance
would suggest that the issues affecting rural residents would be most
appropriately addressed as these items are considered at the Standing Committee
with the mandate to deal with those items. It is therefore recommended that all
Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term of Council include a minimum of one
member from a predominately rural ward, to ensure that representation and
consideration of rural issues are appropriately reflected in the business of
every Standing Committee.
As
another alternative, Councillors with a rural component in the ward could
reference the suggestions made by the Rural Issues Project Team to the Ottawa
Transition Board to establish “Rural Issue Advisory Committees” in their wards
if they have not already done so. These
groups could then report directly to the elected representative and serve as a
source of input and advice of the views of rural residents on various City
issues under consideration. The
creation of such ward advisory committees would ensure a strong voice from
residents directly to their ward representative, and provide an alternate
avenue for public participation and accountability in the decision-making
process.
The Audit Committee is responsible for providing, on behalf of City Council, oversight on matters relating to financial reporting and assurance that an effective control and governance framework is in place.
As
noted in the statistics gathered above, the Audit Committee met 15 times from
January 2001 to August 2003, and considered 58 items, a significantly fewer
number of meetings and items than other Standing Committees. In addition, only 4 public delegations were
received during that time. Presently,
items considered by the Audit Committee represent 2% of items that rise to
Council for decision.
On
October 22, 2003, City Council approved a joint report from the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee and the Audit Committee entitled
“Implementation of Mr. Denis Desautel’s report on the City’s Audit Function”.
One
of the foundations of the report was that the City’s independent auditor must
have the necessary institutional protection and security to maintain real
independence from both management and partisan politics. This recommendation was approved by Council
and is premised on an arms-length relationship between the Auditor General and
Council and its Committees. The
creation of a separate standing committee to serve the work of this single
department is not well supported from a good governance perspective.
Consultation
during the governance review reflected a strong general consensus that the
Audit Committee should not be a separate standing committee, and that for
effectiveness, public participation and accountability reasons, responsibility
for the Audit mandate would be best served by the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee.
Transfer of the
Environmental Services Committee responsibilities to other Standing Committees
As
noted in the statistics gathered above, the Environmental Services Committee
met 39 times from January 2001 to August 2003, considered 156 items, and
received 166 public delegations. This
is significantly fewer than the Corporate Services and Economic Development,
Health, Recreation and Social Services, Planning and Development and
Transportation and Transit Committees.
Although
the Emergency and Protective Services Committee (EPS) met fewer times than
Environmental Services Committee (ESC) (37), they considered 168 items and
received 234 public delegations. In
addition, the number of meeting hours for EPS during the term was 119 compared
with 82.5 hours for ESC.
Presently,
items considered by the Environmental Services Committee represent 4% of items
that rise to Council for decision.
General
consensus was to transfer responsibilities from Environmental Services
Committee to the other Standing Committees in order to more appropriately align
departmental responsibilities, achieve cost savings, and improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the governance structure.
As noted earlier, the
existence and mandate of the Member Services Committee is presently outlined in
Section 80 of the Procedure By-law 247-2002, the only committee so
characterized:
1)
The Member Services
Committee shall be composed of three members of Council.
2)
The Member Services
Committee has jurisdiction regarding:
a)
the administration of
the offices of the Councillors;
b)
expenditures by
Councillors;
c)
entitlement of
Councillors to City facilities and resources for the performance of their
duties; and
d)
personnel matters
related to:
I.
the offices of the
Councillors, or
II.
the performance by the
Councillors of their duties.
3)
The Member Services Committee
shall meet at the call of its Chair in
accordance with the notice provision in Section 79.
4)
A decision of the
Member Services Committee may be forwarded directly to Council but only upon
written request of two members of Council.
Furthermore, no formal Terms of Reference for the
operation and responsibilities of the Member Services Committee exist. As noted above, over the 2001-2003 term of
Council the Member Services Committee has dealt with various administrative
issues.
During
the last term, the Member Services Committee did not report to Council. However, it is suggested that the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee could best serve consideration of
these issues from a governance, accountability, and open and transparent local
government perspective. As noted above,
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee can choose to create
a sub-committee of the main committee to address these issues or deal with them
as part of regular business.
“The continuation of the current Planning and
Development Committee to act as an Interim Planning and Development Committee
(re-elected members only) to consider any public hearings and planning issues
that may occur between 3 December 2003 and the appointment of the new Committee
structure and membership in January 2004.”
During discussions with the General Manager of
Development Services, concern was expressed over the non-operation period that
arises during the municipal election, the lame duck period, and the time
required for the establishment of the new City Council and its committees. As a result, an alternative is being
recommended to allow an interim Planning and Development Committee to consider
public hearings and planning issues that may arise.
Of the present composition of the Planning and
Development Committee, three Councillors will not be seeking re-election,
leaving a possible seven members to continue as an Interim Planning and
Development Committee.
Through the tabling of the Council Governance Review
report, one of the first areas of business would be to establish an interim
Planning and Development Committee to consider any public hearings and planning
issues that may arise between December and the appointment of the new Committee
structure and membership. The
membership of the interim committee would be the current committee members that
have successfully been re-elected to City Council through the 10 November
municipal election.
It is recommended that the current Committee Chair
and Vice-Chair will continue to be Councillor Gord Hunter, Chair, and
Councillor Janet Stavinga, Vice-Chair.
The interim Committee would automatically terminate upon City Council’s
appointment of a new committee in January 2004. The interim Committee would operate within the Terms of Reference
of the existing Planning and Development Committee and consist of up to seven
re-elected members.
PART B –
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND
BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL -
STRUCTURE
(Recommendation
No. 2 c)
“The
following structure for Advisory Committees and Boards for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Accessibility Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
§
Environmental Advisory Committee
§
Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services Advisory Committee
§
Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
§
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
§
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
§
Seniors Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory Committee
§
Youth Advisory Committee
§
License Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board”
As
noted in the Background section of the report, there are presently 19
Advisory Committees (and other miscellaneous Boards), as follows (Reference
Document 7 for an organization chart of the existing governance structure, and
Document 8 for the proposed governance structure):
§
Accessibility Advisory
Committee
§
Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Advisory Committee
§
Arts Advisory Committee
§
Cycling Advisory
Committee
§
Environmental Advisory
Committee
§
Equity and Diversity
Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services
Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social
Services Advisory Committee
§
Heritage Advisory
Committee
§
Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee
§
Ottawa Forests Advisory
Committee
§
Ottawa Youth Cabinet
§
Poverty Issues Advisory
Committee
§
Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee
§
Richmond Conservation
Area Management Team
§
Seniors Advisory
Committee
§
Taxi Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory
Committee
§
License Committee
§
City-School Boards
Liaison Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa
Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal
Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf
Course Board
The recommendations described in detail below propose
a revised Advisory Committee structure based on thirteen Advisory Committees,
versus the previous nineteen, as well as change in status of two Advisory
Committees to Departmental Consultative Groups. Reference is also made to two of the four existing City of Ottawa
Boards, as minor amendments to reporting relationships for these bodies are
referenced in the report. Numerous recommendations for streamlining and
improving the processes governing the role and involvement of Advisory
Committees in the governance process have also been recommended.
As
indicated in Part A – Standing Committee Structure, recommendations for the new
structure have been based on the guiding principles for the governance
review. In addition, benchmarking and
best practises research in other municipalities and organizations and
consultation were used to determine recommendations for the proposed
structure.
For
Advisory Committees where changes are proposed, it should be noted that all recommendations
were measured using the following methodology.
§
Application of the
guiding principles for the Governance Review
§
Was there general
consensus for a change in structure, process or mandate?
§
In making a change,
would cost savings be achieved?
If
a Committee did not meet all three criteria, change has not been recommended at
this time.
In
March of 2001, City Council approved a report entitled “Proposed Advisory and Quasi-judicial
Committee and Task Force structure”, which outlined the creation and criteria
for the establishment of Advisory Committees in the present governance
structure. Those criteria are outlined
below:
This
type of Committee is established at Council’s discretion and provides a means
of regular, on-going community input with respect to particular issues and
policies. Advisory Committees to
Council must address Citywide,
cross-departmental issues. Advisory
Committees report to a specific Standing Committee and have a relationship with
a specific City Department. Advisory
Committees enlist persons with special knowledge or interest in a particular
topic to give representation to such interests. They report on a regular basis to the Standing Committee with an
annual report on activities and an annual workplan of proposed activities, as
well as address any issues referred to them from Standing Committee or
Council. Creation of an advisory
committee must be based on the following principles:
Need - There is clearly a
“value-added” component to the Committee in terms of its impact on the
municipality’s business.
Annual Review - Council must review, at
least annually, the mandate and ongoing need of the Committee to determine
whether it is still relevant and has not been replaced by some other mechanism.
Terms of Reference - The Terms of Reference
must be clearly defined and written in advance of any appointments to
Committee.
Role of Councillors - The role for the Council
appointee(s) is as a non-voting liaison between the Advisory Committee and Standing
Committees/Council. The Councillor is
expected to bring forward the Advisory Committee’s views to the Standing
Committee/Council and not be the spokesperson for the Advisory Committee. That
role belongs to the Chair of the Committee.
Rotation of members - The Council appointment
of members is rotated at least once every term of Council.
Advisory Powers - The Committee is to be an
advisory body unless given more powers by legislation or by-law.
Reporting Mechanism - The reporting mechanism is
clear (i.e. an annual report and workplan from the Chair of the Committee to
the applicable Standing Committee each year.)
Standing Committee
relationship
- Each Advisory Committee is to be designated to report to the appropriate
Standing Committee to ensure administrative and committee review prior to any
matter being considered by Council.
Relationship to staff - The Committee’s
relationship to staff is to be clear, wherein the Committee has no authority to
direct staff.
Breadth of mandate - Over time, committees
that have a narrow focus tend to become more administrative in nature and focus
less on their policy advisory role.
Complementary functions and mandates should be grouped together under
one umbrella in order to ensure the most effective committee.
Annual Report - an annual report
outlining definable results should be submitted to the appropriate Standing
Committee for review. In addition an
annual workplan outlining proposed projects and programs for the upcoming year,
with associated budget implications should be submitted for Committee approval.
Staff comment - That the City Manager
and/or General Managers be provided an opportunity to include comments on
Advisory Committee recommendations.
The
criteria for the creation of Advisory Committees were based on extensive
research as well as benchmarking, and provided a framework for the
establishment of Advisory Committees.
As such, it is recommended that the use of these criteria continue.
In general, governance review consultation showed that
the Advisory Committee structure is working reasonably well for some
committees, and could be improved for others.
A number of Advisory Committees were identified which focused on single
departmental issues, did not meet the approved criteria for creation of
Advisory committees (i.e. cross-departmental, addressing citywide issues) and
their work might well be optimized within a different structure.
Fewer
meetings, increased focus strictly on provision of advice to City Council and
Standing Committees, and community outreach within their mandated areas were
generally seen as key contributors to the success and long-term value of an
Advisory Committee.
The
existing structure would be improved with opportunities for streamlining and
efficiency, specifically related to imbalance in workloads, time spent in
meetings, a refocus of priorities and attention for advice giving and
decision-making by Council at a more refined level. A specific concern that has been raised is that the sheer volume
of Advisory Committees significantly increases the meeting workload for
everyone, and the outcomes are not always clear. The City of Toronto has
concerns with their Advisory Committee process as well, and in a recent report
on their governance structure, noted “One specific concern is that the creation
of many ad hoc and advisory committees significantly increases the workload for
members of Council and for staff, thus diluting the capacity of the governance
system overall.” In addition, some
Advisory Committees exist with duplicate or overlapping mandates, which can
result in conflicting advice or positions taken by the respective
Committees.
A
number of committees and/or boards that are a hold-over from pre-amalgamation
structures in former municipalities continue to exist. Due to timelines and the need to review the
legal status and purpose of these entities on a case-by-case basis, these
bodies are not addressed in this report.
However, the point has been raised that future reviews of the City’s
governance structure should resolve their role, mandate and position within a
streamlined, efficient and accountable process. These bodies include:
Not
all of the Boards referenced above are discussed in this report, however
consideration of minor amendments to the reporting relationship for the
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board and the Ottawa Municipal Campground
Authority are proposed. As no changes are presently proposed for the City of
Ottawa Superannuation Fund or the Cumberland Museum Board, they are not
referenced.
The
review of the City of Ottawa governance structure included an examination of
the quantitative outputs and actions taken by the Advisory Committees created
since 2001, as an attempt to offer some objective measure of their productivity
and advice to Council.
|
COMMITTEE
|
# OF MEETINGS |
# OF ITEMS DISCUSSED |
# OF PUBLIC DELEGATIONS |
# OF MEETING HOURS |
# OF ITEMS THAT ROSE TO
STANDING COMMITTEE IN A REPORT |
# OF ITEMS IN A MEMO OR
OTHER FORM PROVIDING ADVICE TO COUNCIL AND DEPARTMENTS |
|
Accessibility
Advisory Committee |
23 |
234 |
19 |
55 |
4 |
8 |
|
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee |
25 |
153 |
18 |
66.5 |
0 |
14 |
|
Arts
Advisory Committee |
13 |
76 |
0 |
29 |
1 |
0 |
|
City-School
Boards Liaison Committee |
3 |
29 |
4 |
4.75 |
3 |
0 |
|
Cycling
Advisory Committee |
24 |
166 |
14 |
62 |
6 |
0 |
|
Environmental
Advisory Committee |
23 |
213 |
47 |
81 |
1 |
26 |
|
Equity
and Diversity Advisory Committee |
19 |
128 |
48 |
38 |
1 |
2 |
|
French
Language Services Advisory Committee |
16 |
111 |
18 |
31 |
1 |
10 |
|
Health
and Social Services Advisory Committee |
21 |
139 |
9 |
74.5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Heritage
Advisory Committee |
22 |
292 |
19 |
156 |
5 |
24 |
|
Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee |
34 |
213 |
85 |
73.5 |
52 |
13 plus 197 memos/comments on Committee of
Adjustment/Site Plan Applications |
|
Ottawa
Forests Advisory Committee |
20 |
210 |
31 |
65 |
5 |
24 |
|
Ottawa
Youth Cabinet |
20 |
171 |
36 |
48.5 |
5 |
1 |
|
Parks
and Recreation Advisory Committee |
21 |
163 |
31 |
53.25 |
1 |
5 |
|
Poverty
Issues Advisory Committee |
20 |
238 |
23 |
74 |
9 |
2 |
|
Richmond
Conservation Area Management Team |
22 |
241 |
32 |
53.5 |
4 |
0 |
|
Seniors
Advisory Committee |
20 |
155 |
16 |
50.5 |
4 |
4 |
|
Taxi
Advisory Committee |
13 |
88 |
13 |
26 |
2 |
1 |
|
Transportation
Advisory Committee |
19 |
253 |
9 |
132 |
4 |
18 |
[Note: Statistics gathered reflect meetings from the
creation of the respective Advisory Committee – generally at a point between
June and October of 2001- to end of August 2003. The number of meetings noted reflects only formal, regular
meetings of the Advisory Committee and does not reflect the work of
subcommittees or the entire committee at special events or projects. It should
be noted that the statistics reflecting number of items that rose to Standing
Committee does not include submission of Advisory Committee annual
reports and workplans over the term].
It
should be carefully noted that although quantifiable terms may be used to
discern in some part, the overall effectiveness of some Advisory Committees
within the existing governance structure, attention should be paid to the
countless hours of volunteer effort and expertise provided to the City free of
charge, as well as the hard work, perseverance and talent that Advisory
Committee members bring to the governance process. The significant value provided to the City by these dedicated
residents, both individually and collectively, is difficult to measure.
Accessibility
Advisory Committee
(legislated requirement under the
Ontarians with Disabilities Act)
The statutory mandate of the Accessibility Advisory Committee is to develop an awareness and understanding of issues and concerns of the citizens of the City of Ottawa with disabilities, with a goal to improving the quality of life for those with disabilities.
No
change to the mandate of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in the governance
structure is recommended at this time.
It
should be noted that the lead department for the Accessibility Advisory
Committee is presently the Human Resources Department. However, as the lead for the development of
both the Accessibility Plan for the City, and the development and
implementation of the Multiple Formats Policy has been the Corporate Services Department,
it is recommended that the lead department relationship change from Human
Resources to Corporate Services to more accurately reflect what is occurring in
practise.
With
the proposed dissolution of the Taxi Advisory Committee (see details noted
below), it is recommended that a designated position on the Accessibility
Advisory Committee be made available for a citizen member from the existing
Taxi Advisory Committee, to ensure that the work of that Committee and the
background of those issues are reflected in the future work of the Accessibility
Advisory Committee.
The
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee has a mandate that includes
the following:
o To provide advice and input
to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Ottawa City Council on
issues affecting the farming community, agricultural organisations and the
rural community. The Committee will
assist City Council in its efforts to protect and preserve the rural area, and
to promote healthy rural communities that contain living, working and
recreational opportunities and respect the natural environment and resources.
As
was noted in the discussion on the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Standing
Committee, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee is unique in
local governance structures across Canada.
The Committee has met 25 times over the term of Council, and dealt with
153 items. However it received a total
of only 18 public delegations, despite having regularly hosted meetings in rural
wards. The Advisory Committee did not
send any reports for consideration to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Standing Committee in 2001, 2002, or 2003, although it did forward 14 memos to
members of Council over the term, largely on the hog farm issue, making
recommendations.
It should also be noted that, as with the Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Standing Committee, the primary reason for the creation of
this Advisory Committee was to address issues of concern to rural
residents. This focus is a geographic
one and includes issues under consideration by many other Advisory Committees
and community organizations. This
results in duplication, lack of focus and unclear accountability.
Consultation
on the function of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
reflected a general consensus that the existing role, mandate and purpose of
the Committee have been lacking in
direction and focus. The City structure
does not align itself with a reporting relationship directly focused on rural
issues.
Application
of the principles for good governance would suggest that the issues affecting
rural residents would be most appropriately addressed within the consideration
of these items as a whole. As well, the
function of the Committee has at times resulted in duplication of consideration
of issues, and a requirement for joint meetings.
It
is also recommended that all Advisory Committees for the 2003-2006 term of
Council include a minimum of one dedicated seat for a rural representative, to
ensure that representation and consideration of rural issues are appropriately
reflected in the business of every Advisory Committee.
The
Arts Advisory Committee presently has a mandate as follows:
The
Heritage Advisory Committee presently has a mandate as follows:
It is recommended that, as the mandates of these two
Advisory Committees are complimentary that the two committees be merged to
become the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee. It is suggested that the merging of these
two mandates would better serve residents, and City Council, in the provision
of advice on these issues.
Proposed recommendations to address the merged
membership of the committees are addressed below.
The
following reflects the mandate of the City-School Board Liaison Committee:
o
Recognizing
that, while the City of Ottawa and the four area school boards (Conseil
des écoles
catholiques de
langue française du Centre-est; Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board;
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board; and Conseil des écoles
publiques de l’est
de l’Ontario) are independent and autonomous
entities, and that cooperation between and among these entities is mutually
beneficial, the mandate of the City-School Boards Liaison Committee is to provide
a forum for interaction with respect to areas of mutual concern between the
City of Ottawa and the four School Boards within the municipality of
Ottawa. This will include, but will not
be limited to, mutual use of facilities, reciprocal agreements, health,
recreation, safety, social services, and planning. This Committee will also identify further areas of
cross-jurisdictional cooperation and potential reciprocal arrangements where
appropriate.
The
City-School Boards Liaison Committee met 3 times during the 2001-2003 term of
Council, considered 29 items and received 4 public delegations. The Committee met for a total of 4.75 hours
in the entire term. Despite the aims and objectives of the Committee, the
amount of work accomplished and the staff time dedicated by both the School
Boards and City required to support the Committee could be more ably served by
a staff liaison committee. This staff liaison committee could include
management from all four school boards, and the appropriate City departments where
cross-jurisdictional issues are impacted, and send items to Council and
Standing Committees where decisions or approvals were required. The Secretariat Services Branch will pursue
this option of a staff liaison committee.
The
present mandate of the Environmental Advisory Committee is as follows:
The
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) is one of the City’s busiest Advisory
Committees. Since its creation it has hosted numerous workshops and symposium
on environmental issues, in addition to providing advice and input to
departments and Council. In
consultation with the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee, it is recommended that
the Environmental Advisory Committee’s mandate and responsibilities be
refocused, with transfer and re-alignment of some of its responsibilities. It is recommended that the EAC continue
to monitor air quality, water quality, and other quality of life indicators
that are related to greenspace, while the Greenspace and Forests Advisory
Committee would continue to work on forest issues, including biodiversity,
health, canopy measure, etc. of forested greenspace.
Further
review of the Environmental Advisory Committee Terms of Reference and the
Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee Terms of Reference will include a focus on
additional responsibilities for the Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee
on greenspace acquisition and management and conservation development, and a
streamlining of present Environmental Advisory Committee responsibilities. Both Advisory Committees agree with these
changes.
The mandate of the Equity and Diversity Advisory
Committee is to work towards the elimination of discrimination within the City
of Ottawa.
No
change to the mandate of the Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
The mandate of the French Language Services Advisory Committee is to
provide advice to Ottawa City Council and its departments, on issues that
impact official languages in the City.
No
change to the mandate of the French Language Services Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
General
consultation resulted in suggestions that the French Language Services Advisory
Committee does not have the workload necessary to require monthly
meetings. It is recommended that the
French Language Services Advisory committee reduce its meeting schedule to a
maximum of six times per year.
Presently,
the mandate of the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee is as follows:
As
noted above, it is recommended that the mandate of the Ottawa Forests Advisory
Committee be expanded to include greenspace acquisition and management and
conservation – as the name change implies.
The following responsibilities would be added to the Committee mandate:
o Protection, management, acquisition and conservation of greenspace and other environmentally sensitive areas in Ottawa.
o To work to reduce the burden on the City’s Environmental Resources Areas Acquisition Fund by promoting partnerships with developers (in the form of land bequests and conservation development) and with other stakeholders (in the form of land trusts and conservation easements).
The mandate of the Health and Social Services
Advisory Committee is to advise on policy, programs and service delivery in the
area of provision and support of social, health and related services.
No
change to the mandate of the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee in
the governance structure is recommended at this time.
Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(legislated requirement under the
Planning Act)
The mandate of the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) is to advise City Council
on matters relating to Ontario Heritage (pursuant to the Ontario Heritage
Act), including identifying properties and areas in the City of Ottawa that
may deserve protection; providing City Council with advice on applications to
alter designated heritage properties and new construction in heritage
districts; advising property owners on appropriate conservation and maintenance
practices; and, promoting heritage conservation within the community.
No
change to the mandate of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee in the governance structure is recommended at this time.
The
mandate of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is to advise on all
aspects of the provision of leisure and recreation services in the City of
Ottawa, including development of recreation policy, and promoting and
maintaining communication with the public on parks and recreation needs.
No
change to the mandate of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
A
distinct board of directors to manage and administer the Pineview Golf Course
is related to a pre-amalgamation situation in the former City of
Gloucester. The Golf Course Board is
responsible for managing the golf course, which is a City-operated business, on
lands leased from the National Capital Commission. The members of the Board presently include six members of
Council and four citizen appointees.
As
noted above, recommendations for anything other than the status quo for
this Board are not addressed in this report, however the point is raised that
future reviews of the governance structure should resolve the role, mandate and
position within a streamlined, efficient and accountable governance process.
It is recommended that the Golf Course reporting
relationship be amended from the Health, Recreation and Social Services
Standing Committee to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
to more accurately reflect and re-align the Authority with the reporting
relationship of the Venture Properties Division in the Real Property and Asset
Management Branch of the Corporate Services Department.
At
present, the Chair of the Golf Course Board arranges secretariat support, and
agendas, so that minutes and procedure are being administered outside of the
Secretariat Services Branch. This
situation, which is change from the practice of the former City of Gloucester,
does not align with the City Clerk’s mandate to ensure the appropriate
procedures are followed, that meetings are open and accessible to the public,
and that the decisions made by the Board are undertaken within the governance
process. It is recommended that the
Golf Course Board re-establish the procedures used by the former municipality
of Gloucester, so that the Secretariat Services Branch provides secretariat
support to the Golf Course Board.
The mandate of the Poverty
Issues Advisory Committee is to provide advice to Ottawa City Council, through
the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee, and its Departments, on
issues that impact and address poverty issues in the City.
No
change to the mandate of the Poverty Issues Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
The
carry-over of a separate board to manage and administer the work of the Ottawa
Municipal Campground Authority is related to a pre-amalgamation agreement
between the former Cities of Ottawa and Nepean. The Authority is presently responsible for managing the work of
the Campsite, which is a City-operated business, on lands under long-term lease
from the National Capital Commission.
The members of the Authority presently include one member of Council,
and four citizen members.
As
noted above, recommendations for anything other than the status quo for
this Authority are not addressed in this report. However the point is raised that future reviews of the City’s
governance structure should resolve the role, mandate and position within a
streamlined, efficient and accountable governance process.
It
is recommended that the Campsite reporting relationship be amended from the
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee to the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee to more accurately reflect and
re-align the Authority with the reporting relationship of the Venture
Properties Division in the Real Property and Asset Management Branch of the
Corporate Services Department.
Secretariat
support to the Campground Authority will continue to be provided by Secretariat
Services Branch until such time as a future review is conducted.
The mandate of the Seniors Advisory Committee is to act as a liaison to enrich and enhance the lives of seniors in the City, identify barriers, form partnerships with the community, and act as a public forum for issues affecting seniors.
No
change to the mandate of the Seniors Advisory Committee in the governance
structure is recommended at this time.
The Taxi Advisory Committee was established by City
Council in late 2001, an election was held to appoint members of the Taxi
industry to the Committee in early 2002.
The mandate of the Taxi Advisory Committee is as follows:
o To act as a conduit between
and among City Council and affected citizens and groups and the Taxi
Industry. The Taxi Advisory Committee
will work with all stakeholders to encourage the self-management of the
industry, so as to improve its overall quality. In doing so, it will represent both the interests of the taxi
industry and those with whom it serves in order to best promote and maintain a
safe, accessible and friendly environment for all riders, including seniors and
those with disabilities. The Taxi
Advisory Committee will work to encourage better communication between the
industry and its customers, better training for drivers, the promotion and use
of environmentally friendly cabs that are either fuel-efficient, solar/ water
powered or electric, as well as the recognition of those drivers with superior
driving records and customer service.
Since amalgamation, the By-law Services Branch has
held monthly meetings with the Taxi industry and its representatives to address
many of the issues found in the Taxi Advisory Committee mandate in addition to
resolving other issues and concerns raised by the industry. This working group continues to meet
monthly, and has proven to be an effective means of addressing these specific
responsibilities. The creation of the
Taxi Advisory Committee is unique in that it involves advice to Council on
issues for which Council sets policy and regulates in the taxi industry
including licensing. Although the City
operates other service delivery related to this type of regulatory requirement
(e.g. lottery licensing), no other Advisory Committee serves to provide such advice.
It
is recommended that the Taxi Advisory Committee be disbanded, and that the
industry working group coordinated by the By-law Services Branch continue to
meet. This industry working group
serves a function similar to a departmental consultative group, as the issues
raised and addressed are not cross-departmental. Further cost savings will be achieved, as the upcoming taxi
election will not be necessary.
In
the interests of citizen participation on issues arising from the taxi
industry, it is recommended that seats for citizen members of the Taxi Advisory
Committee be made available on both the Accessibility and Transportation
Advisory Committees.
The mandate of
the Transportation Advisory Committee is:
o To provide advice
and guidance to Ottawa City Council, on policies and programs, which reflect
the City’s commitment to a variety of travel modes, including walking, cycling,
transit and motor vehicles, and that achieve the appropriate balance in a way
that contributes to our City’s overall quality of life. The Committee will specifically advise on
transportation issues such as pedestrian movement, transit, light-rail,
traffic-safety (including education, and area and neighbourhood traffic
management including traffic-calming), and other transportation-related
policies and programs.
It
is recommended that, with the proposed change in status from Advisory Committee
to Departmental Consultative Group for the Cycling Advisory Committee (reference Part C City of Ottawa
Consultative Groups), the Transportation Advisory Committee continue to provide
advice to City Council and its Standing Committees on issues relating to
cycling in the City.
Furthermore,
with the proposed dissolution of the Taxi Advisory Committee (see details noted
above), it is recommended that a designated position on the Transportation
Advisory Committee be made available for a citizen member from the Taxi
Advisory Committee, to ensure that work of that committee and the background of
those issues are reflected in the future work of the Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Presently,
an Advisory Committee called the Ottawa Youth Cabinet is structured to reflect
City Council, as youth representatives from each ward address youth
issues. The mandate is as follows:
o The mandate of the Ottawa
Youth Cabinet shall be to represent all youth in the City of Ottawa, acting as
a bridge between the youth of the City of Ottawa and Ottawa City Council. The Ottawa Youth Cabinet shall actively work
to enrich and enhance the health of every community of the City of Ottawa,
making partnerships in the community and working with community partners, while
engaging youth in all dimensions of the City, to make Ottawa a better place for
youth.
Although
revisions to the mandate of the Ottawa Youth Cabinet are not recommended,
changes to the structure and membership are being recommended. With 21 members on the Cabinet, it has been
extremely difficult achieving quorum, and in fact, many meetings have been
cancelled as a result. Furthermore, the
Cabinet structure was originally envisioned to encourage members to work
closely with their Ward Councillor counterparts and with ward youth, and
reflect these views to the Cabinet when issues were considered. This structure has not operated as
originally envisioned, and may have been too ambitious, given the other
responsibilities Youth Cabinet members have (school, volunteering, jobs).
It
is suggested that changing the membership and the name of the Ottawa Youth
Cabinet to the Youth Advisory Committee, and reducing membership to between 9
and 11 members from the existing 21 will remedy past quorum problems, and may
provide more effective representation, accountability and meeting management.
CITY OF OTTAWA DEPARTMENTAL
CONSULTATIVE GROUPS
Change in
Status from Advisory Committees
to Departmental
Consultative Groups -
(Recommendation
No.2 d)
“The following change in structure from Advisory Committee to Departmental Consultative Group for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
§
Richmond Conservation Area Departmental
Consultative Group”
In
March of 2001, City Council approved a report entitled “Proposed Advisory and
Quasi-judicial Committee and Task Force structure”, outlining the creation and
criteria for the establishment of Advisory Committees and Departmental
Consultative Groups. The criteria for
Advisory Committees has been noted previously.
However the criteria for Departmental Consultative Groups is indicated
below:
This type of Committee advises its responsible department on matters
that are within its responsibility.
Regular review of the nature of the relationship with the Committee is
undertaken by Departmental staff to ensure valuable advice is being
provided. Membership, methods of
operation, staff support and continued existence is the responsibility of the
Department.
It
should be noted that secretariat support is not provided to Departmental Consultative
Groups.
Cycling
Advisory Committee changed to Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
The Richmond Conservation Area Management Team was
carried over from pre-amalgamation structure within the former Township of
Goulbourn, and is responsible for the management of a conservation area in Ward
6.
PART D – GOVERNANCE PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION
Approval of
Standing Committee
Terms of
Reference for the 2003-2006 Term of Council
(Recommendation
No. 2 e)
“The revised Terms of
Reference for all Standing Committees be submitted in draft form to the first
meeting of the Committees in January for review and approval.”
It
is recommended that upon approval of the structure for the Standing Committees
of Council for the next term, and the appointment of the Nominating Committee,
that staff review and develop Terms of Reference for these Standing Committees
and return to the first meeting of each Committee with draft Terms of Reference
for approval that reflect the changes in structure and mandate.
“The enactment of the
revised Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the
report and the associated by-law. (Document 9)”
In accordance with the former Municipal Act,
“every council…shall adopt a Procedure By-law for governing the calling, place
and proceedings of meetings”. In
response to that statutory requirement, the Ottawa Transition Board approved
the first Procedure By-law for City Council, being By-law No. 53 of 2000. At its meeting of January 17, 2001, City
Council repealed By-law No. 53 of 2000 and enacted its own Procedure By-law,
being By-law No. 2001-20 (currently By-law No. 2002-247).
With the implementation of the Municipal Act,
2001, effective January 1, 2003, there was an outstanding requirement to
review the relevant provisions of the City’s existing Rules of Procedure and
update them with respect to the new Municipal Act. In the spring of 2003, City Council directed
staff to bring forward those amendments, and any others after consulting with
Members of Council, in conjunction with the governance review. All proposed changes for the new Procedure
By-law are underlined in Document 9, the major changes from the present
Procedure By-law are discussed below.
The inclusion of the revised Procedure By-law for
the next term of Council satisfies the requirement in the existing Rules of
Procedure that notice of the anticipated changes be given at a previous meeting
of Council.
(1)
Deputy Mayor (Section 5)
At present, if it is a Councillor’s time period for
serving as Deputy Mayor and that Councillor is not available, a motion at
Council is required to alter the Deputy Mayor rotation list. Staff recommend that, upon concurrence in
writing from both Councillors submitted to the City Clerk, Councillors be
permitted to switch the period for which they will serve as Deputy Mayor. Should for some unforeseen reason such a
transfer not be straightforward, the Clerk will have the option of placing the
matter before Council for consideration.
(2)
Time and Date of Council Meetings (Section 8)
It is proposed that the Mayor be given the same
authority to alter the time and date of regular meetings of Council as rests
with Committee Chairs to alter the time and date of Committee meetings.
(3)
Voting
(Section 27)
Some uncertainty was expressed during this term of
Council as to when a Councillor had to be present in order to be able to cast a
vote on a particular matter. In the
normal course, Councillors are counted towards quorum being present so long as
they are in the room where the meeting is taking place. However, the Procedure By-law requires that
they be seated at the time their name is called in order to be permitted to
cast a vote. It is recommended that the
Procedure By-law be amended to clarify that:
in order to be able to cast a vote, the Councillor need only be seated
at the time their name is called (i.e. a Councillor can enter the room and take
their seat after the voting has commenced, but before their name
has been called). This amendment would
only require that the Councillor be seated at a place reserved for Councillors,
not necessarily in the seat normally assigned to them. This approach will continue to permit the
Mayor or a Committee Chair, when they have left the Chair to participate in the
debate or otherwise, to nonetheless vote upon a matter before Council or
Committee.
(4)
Committee of the Whole (Section 47)
While Section 64 of the present Procedure By-law
permits representations by the public only to be to Standing Committees, it is
not clear whether this would include the Committee of the Whole of
Council. To clarify this matter, where
it is intended to utilize the Committee of the Whole, staff recommend that
public submissions be permitted if such have been authorized at a prior regular
meeting of Council. By use of such
prior authorization, members of the public will have the certainty as to
whether they will be able to appear before the Committee of the Whole.
(5)
That the Question Be Now Put (Section 56)
Some dissatisfaction has been expressed about the
current ability to use the motion, “That the Question Be Now Put”. In general terms, it can only be utilized if
there are no amendments under consideration.
On the other hand, the adoption of such a motion ends all
debate. For example, if there is a
major item before Council, such as the annual budget or the official plan,
there might be a desire to close off debate on a particular issue without
ending debate on the entire item.
To enhance the flexibility of this motion, two
revisions are recommended. First, it is
suggested that the motion to put the question be permitted when an amendment is
under consideration (i.e. the motion would then apply to the item being
amended, as well as the amendment itself).
Secondly, it is recommended that the mover and seconder of the motion be
able to qualify the motion so that it would only apply to a particular portion
of the matter being considered by Council.
Therefore, in a report with ten distinct recommendations, a Councillor
could move, “That the question be now put on Recommendation 5”. Should the motion carry and Recommendation 5
be voted upon, debate could then continue on the other nine recommendations.
(6)
Reconsideration (Section 61)
During this term of Council, thirteen decisions have
been subject to a motion for reconsideration.
Through consultation with Members of Council, some concerns were
expressed with respect to the ability to have decisions already approved by a
majority of Council reconsidered. Staff
have reviewed the practice of other large municipalities in this area. Several municipalities require reconsideration
to be moved by a Councillor who voted with the majority in the original
decision. However, each of these
municipalities also permit reconsideration to be initiated at a meeting
subsequent to the original decision.
In order to give certainty to Council’s decisions,
staff recommend that it continue to be required that the reconsideration
process be commenced by a Notice of Motion of Reconsideration which must be
given at the meeting where the original decision was made. However, to address the concerns expressed
over the use of reconsideration, staff further recommend that for
reconsideration to be considered at the next Council meeting, it should be
required that it be moved by a Councillor who voted in the majority. Staff do not recommend that the initial
Notice of Reconsideration be required to be introduced by a Councillor in the
majority as it is very unlikely that a Councillor who has voted one way would
wish to support the contrary side at the very same meeting. However, there may be occasions where, with
the passage of two weeks, a Councillor may wish to revisit a decision that s/he
has made and be prepared to move reconsideration at the subsequent meeting of
Council. In summary, therefore, the
proposed procedure would be:
a)
Notice
of Reconsideration – The motion to accept the Notice of Reconsideration could
be moved and seconded by any Member of Council. The notice must be given at the same meeting as the original
decision was made and at least one-third of those present and voting must vote
to accept such notice.
b)
Motion
for Reconsideration – This motion is then debated at the following meeting of
Council. To be considered, it will have
to be moved by a Councillor who voted with the majority in the original
decision (any Councillor may second the motion). Twelve Councillors must then vote in favour of the motion for it
to carry – regardless of the number of Councillors present.
c)
If
the motion for reconsideration carries, then the original item is back before
Council for debate and the standard voting requirements apply.
d)
If
the item being reconsidered is an amendment to a report (as opposed to the
entire report itself) and if, as a result of reconsideration, a different
decision is made, then Council can immediately proceed to a vote, without
debate, as to whether Council wishes to deal with the full report.
(7)
By-laws (Section 63)
Consultation with members of Council gave rise to a
concern about the adoption of by-laws being a possibility to re-debate matters
already dealt with in a previous report passed by Council. The adoption of by-laws should not be a
means to avoid the procedural requirements for reconsideration. Therefore, staff recommend that the
Procedure By-law be amended to expressly require that the by-laws be adopted in
bulk, as has been the long-standing practice.
An exception to this approach would be where the subject matter of a
by-law has not previously been considered by Council (e.g. a part lot
control by-law or the lifting of a holding zone, each of which are permitted by
the Delegation By-law to be placed on a Council agenda without having to be the
subject matter of a report).
(8)
Speaking at Statutory Hearings (Section 75)
The existing Procedure By-law provided an exception
to the five minute time limit for speaking in the case of statutory
hearings. However, the opportunity to
make unlimited submissions must be weighed against the need to be able to hear
from all those who wish to be heard. In
the case of hearings on the Official
Plan, approximately 350 persons made oral submissions to the Committee. A ten minute time limit was imposed. In the absence of such a time limit, it
would have been almost impossible to hear from every one of those who wished to
speak to such an important item.
Therefore, staff are recommending that the five
minute time limit be imposed for statutory hearings. The Committee would, however, have the authority by majority vote
to extend the time limit in any cases where the Committee sees fit to do so.
(9)
In-Term Nominations (Section 87)
At present, if a Member of Council resigns from a
Standing Committee, there is no express authority to choose a replacement. While it is open to call a meeting of the
Nominating Committee, the main purpose of that body has been to consider
appointment of members of Council to Committees and external bodies at the
commencement of the term of Council.
Staff recommend that Standing Committees be given the option of
recommending a replacement to Council if a vacancy develops during the term of
Council.
(Recommendation 2 g)
“The enactment of an Advisory Committee Procedure
By-law, inclusive of a Code of Conduct and guidelines, as outlined in the
report and the associated by-law
(Document 10).”
With the introduction of the City’s various Advisory
Committees in 2001-2002, the existing Procedure By-law required that they, as
well as any other ad hoc committees or task forces, use the same Rules of
Procedure that apply to both City Council and its Standing Committees. However, during a training session with Advisory
Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs on February 15, 2003, staff were advised of a
number of practical concerns arising from the Advisory Committees’ attempts to
comply with the Rules of Procedure. In
short, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs were of the collective opinion that, while
the Procedure By-law may be appropriate for an official, elected body such as
Council and its Standing Committees, these rules proved unsuitable and,
certainly, not “user-friendly” to members of the public, who comprise the
Advisory Committees’ membership. The
suggestion arising from that session was that staff should consider drafting a
shorter Procedure By-law that would be more practical and responsive to the
needs of Advisory Committees. More
recently, staff met again with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Committees
on October 28, 2003 to discuss a variety of related, administrative issues that
arose throughout the past term of Council.
Among the concerns raised were the following: the need for a code of conduct (with conflict of interest and
harassment guidelines) that would be applicable to the members of all Advisory
Committees; and some innovative ways to overcome problems associated with
obtaining quorum such as teleconferencing.
In light of the above-noted discussions, staff have
prepared, for Council’s consideration, a draft Procedure By-law solely for
Advisory Committees, as well as a Code of Conduct as an Appendix to that
By-law. In addition, the By-law
cross-references the requirement for Advisory Committee members to adhere to
various guidelines, including conflict of interest and harassment guidelines;
that will be addressed in early 2004.
Reference Document 10 for a complete copy of the proposed Advisory
Committee Procedure By-law, however, the major proposal to aid Advisory
Committees in overcoming quorum problems with e-meetings merits some
discussion. The statutory requirements
for a Council to enact a procedure by-law and adhere to the open-closed
meetings provisions are found in sections 238-239 of the Municipal Act,
2001. However, that enabling
legislation does not expressly provide Council, or its Standing Committees,
with the ability to hold meetings by means of electronic technology like
teleconference calls. Having said that,
it is important to note that the word “committee” in sections 238 and 239 means
“any advisory or other committee, subcommittee or similar entity of which at
least 50 percent of the members are also members of one or more councils or
local boards. “ The addition of the percentage
requirement in this definition is a change from the old Municipal Act, which
defined “committee” as including “any advisory or other committee, subcommittee
or similar entity composed of members of one or more councils or local
boards.” It is arguable that this new
definition may result in fewer “committees” being subject to these statutory
requirements. This appears to be true
with respect to various municipal advisory committees that are often comprised
solely of community volunteers.
Therefore, it is suggested that this change in the definition of the
word “committee” is sufficient to enable the City’s Advisory Committees to hold
“e-meetings”.
As such, Subsection 9(8) of the new By-law proposes
that Advisory Committee meetings may, in the future, be undertaken through
electronic means. In effect, once staff
(Legal Services, IT Services, Facilities Management and Secretariat Services)
provide specific guidelines on this issue for Council’s approval, members of
Advisory Committee meetings may be able to meet via teleconference and, therefore,
it is anticipated that quorum will be more achievable under all of the
circumstances. For convenience,
Subsection 9(8) reads as follows:
9(8) Subject to specific
guidelines approved by City Council regarding this clause, members of Advisory
Committees may be permitted to participate in a meeting through electronic
means and shall be deemed to be present at the meeting for the purposes of
establishing quorum.
In addition, Subsection 8(2) of the new By-law
proposes that, “an Advisory Committee may receive and table
submissions/information from the public, if a quorum is not present, and these
submissions/information may be considered at a subsequent Committee
meeting”. It is anticipated that this
particular clause will permit members of the public to convey to the Advisory
Committees their particular concerns without having to return to an Advisory
Committee meeting in the future.
“The rotation list of Councillors to serve as Deputy
Mayor in the absence of the Mayor be comprised of all members of Council as
outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 11).”
Section 5 of the Procedure By-law outlines the
process required for the establishment of a Deputy Mayor rotation list and the
associated by-law. The current
procedure to establish the Deputy Mayor rotation list will remain
unchanged. However, as noted above
under the Procedure by-law amendments, the process to amend the list has been
revised to consist of written notice to the City Clerk from the Councillors
directly concerned. This revised
process will be used for such things as a switch in the terms between
Councillors, as outlined in the rotation list, and will eliminate the previous
requirement for a motion and vote at City Council for this administrative
practice. The City Clerk will also
have the ability to forward any issue related to the rotation list to Council
for its consideration.
As noted in Recommendation No. 2 h, Council is
requested to approve the 2003-2006 Deputy Mayor rotation list and the
associated by-law located at Document 11 to this report.
“The proposed amendments to the Delegation of
Authority By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 12).”
A comprehensive review of the City’s Delegation of
Authority By-law last occurred in December 2002. Since that time, staff in the Legal Services Branch have
identified several minor housekeeping amendments to the by-law, including the
following:
For the purposes of this report, no detailed
consultation was undertaken with the departments as the matters identified are
housekeeping in nature. The delegation
by-law is periodically reviewed by Legal Services and amendments recommended as
programs and operational procedures evolve.
At such times, a broader consultation is undertaken.
With respect to reporting mechanisms, the Delegation
of Authority By-law currently identifies periodic reporting requirements for
delegated authority in the areas of purchase of service agreements, real estate
transactions, transfers of budget funds, claims, planning approvals and housing
loans. It is anticipated that any further reporting requirements will be addressed
at the time of the next comprehensive review.
Finally, some members of Council have inquired about the delegated
authority to deal with signs matters.
At this time, there remain 11 individual by-laws of the former
municipalities regulating signs. Only
the former City of Gloucester’s by-law contained provisions regarding the
establishment of a Signs Review Committee to deal with variances related to
signs. Matters related to delegated
authority for sign approvals will be addressed during the harmonization process
for sign regulation, which is anticipated to come forward to Committee and
Council later in 2004.
As noted in Recommendation No. 2 i, Council is
requested to enact the amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as
detailed in Document 12 to this report.
“The Standing Committee and Council meeting schedule
as outlined in the report (Document 14).”
City Council
In accordance with Section 8 of the Procedure
By-law, regular meetings of City Council will be held at 1:30 p.m. on
the second and fourth Wednesday in each month in each year unless
otherwise changed by Council.
During the months of March, July, August and
December, one meeting will be held each month as set out in the by-law.
Section 74 of the Procedure By-law speaks to the
Standing Committee meetings in that the regular meetings of a Committee shall
be on the day of the week determined by Council but at such time and such place
as shall be determined by the Committee.
With a reduction in the number of standing
committees, it is recommended the meetings be held on Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday. Each committee may determine
the start time, however, it is recommended that the first meeting in 2004 of each
committee start at 1:30 p.m. The
Committee may then confirm its regular start time for future meetings.
|
Committee
Name |
Membership |
Day
and Frequency of Meetings |
|
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee
|
9 |
Meets
on the first and third Tuesday of the month |
|
Public
Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Committee |
9 |
Meets
on the first and third Wednesday of the month |
|
Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee |
9 |
Meets
on the first and third Thursday of the month |
|
Planning
and Environment Committee |
9 |
Meets
on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month |
|
Emergency
and Protective Services Committee |
9 |
Meets
once per month on the second Thursday of the month |
Two changes from the current committee meeting
schedule and the rationale are as follows:
(i)
Under
the last term of Council, the Planning and Development Committee met on the
second and fourth Thursday. However, in
accordance with the seven-day agenda distribution, members of Council received
the agenda late in the day on the previous Thursday, or Friday morning. Receipt of the agenda on Fridays, being the
last day of the week, often caused problems for members and the public with
respect to notification and proper preparation for the meeting the following
week.
Due to the extensive public
interest in matters considered by this committee, it is recommended the
Planning and Environment Committee meet on the second and fourth Tuesday. Receipt of the agenda material will continue
to follow the seven-day rule, however, it will be received during the previous
mid-week rather than on a Friday.
(ii) Under
the last term of Council the Emergency and Protective Services Committee met
twice a month. However, a review of the
meeting statistics for all standing committees for the 2001-2003 Council term,
in particular the number of meetings held and number of items discussed, it was
apparent that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee could move to a
monthly meeting schedule for this term of Council.
Consistent with Council, one regular meeting of each
committee shall be held during the months of July, August and December.
The calendar attached at Document 14 provides an
overview of the monthly meeting schedule.
Advisory Committees and Boards meet generally on a
once per month basis (excepting the
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee which meets twice per month
and the French Language Services Advisory Committee which is proposed to meet
no more than six times per year). In
accordance with the Advisory Committee Procedure By-law, the City Clerk or his
designate sets the meeting schedules.
Once Council has approved the Advisory Committee structure through
consideration of this report, staff will prepare a monthly schedule for all
Advisory Committees and Boards taking into consideration meeting room
availability, Coordinator and staff time with respect to responsibility for
more than one committee and attendance of Council liaison members.
Each Advisory Committee and Board will be requested
to approve its meeting day and time at its first meeting in 2004.
Location of
City Council Meetings (Recommendation
No. 2 k)
“The location of City Council meetings for the
2003-2006 term to be Andrew Haydon Hall at City Hall.”
Section 10 of the Procedure By-law states that “all meetings of the Council shall be held in the Council Chambers at the Ottawa City Hall or at such other place as is specified in the draft agenda.”
During the 2001-2003 Council term, six Council meetings were held off-site in the rural communities of Cumberland, North Gower, Greely, West Carleton and Stittsville, and an additional meeting in Nepean. It was the desire of Council to bring Council out to the community, in particular during the first term following municipal amalgamation. Generally, the agenda business for the meetings did not necessarily reflect issues of interest to the communities in which the meeting was held. In addition, as Council meetings do not receive delegations, there was no opportunity for public input on the issues being considered. Taking into consideration the unpredictability associated with meeting and agenda planning, it is difficult to ensure that the items to be considered will be reflective of rural issues or of interest to the given community.
Furthermore, the combined cost for the six off-site Council meetings was approximately $25,000 - $28,000. This included such costs as City and Rogers technical requirements (Rogers for Nepean only), and the provision of simultaneous interpretation. This figure does not take into consideration the staff resource costs associated with evening meetings as well as mileage to these sites. Due to technical issues, off-site Council meetings are not televised by Rogers Cable television, thereby actually reducing access to the general public.
As a result of the costs and logistics involved, it
is recommended that regular off-site Council meetings not be continued and that
Council meetings be held at City Hall. As City Council meetings are televised
on Rogers 22/23, all residents of the City with cable access can view City
Council meetings.
Staff
attendance at Standing Committee Meetings – Improved Efficiencies
(Recommendation
No. 2 l)
“The guidelines and efficiency improvements for
staff attendance at Standing Committee meetings as outlined in the report.”
On 25 September 2003, the
Planning and Development Committee passed a motion directing staff to review
the subject of staff time and suggest a better way to minimize staff cost and
maximize efficiency during standing committee hours.
In response to this motion, the following
improvements are recommended:
It should be noted that while the above
recommendations will improve efficiency and maximize staff resources and time
in attendance at standing committees, there will be a one-time cost to
implement the required technical changes.
“The Standing and Advisory Committee minutes and
agenda standards as outlined in the report.”
Subsection
228 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 states the following:
A municipality shall appoint a clerk whose duty it is,
(a) to record, without note or comment, all resolutions,
decisions and other proceedings of the council;
(b) if required by any member present at a vote, to
record the name and vote of every member voting on any matter or question;
(c) to keep the originals or copies of all by-laws and of
all minutes of the proceedings of the council.
City Council
No
change is being recommended to the format or content of the City Council
agendas and minutes.
No change is being recommended to the format or
content of the Standing Committee agendas.
With respect to the Standing Committee minutes, subsection 72 (13) of
the Procedure By-law states, “Minutes of Committee meetings shall contain a
concise narrative of the consideration of the item together with the motions
considered and votes taken by the Committee.”
Section 78 (2c) states “It shall be the duty of the Coordinator to
record motions, resolutions, votes, public delegations and a concise narrative
of the committee discussion through the preparation of meeting minutes in
accordance with Subsection 72 (13).”
The proposed amendments to the Procedure By-law outlined in this report
reflect this wording. It should be
noted that as a general rule a majority of Canadian municipalities provide
action minutes and only record very little, or no discussion.
Despite the Procedure By-law making reference to the
requirement for a “concise narrative” of Standing Committee discussion, what
has actually been occurring in practice includes the provision of extremely
detailed Standing Committee minutes reflecting extensive committee discussion
and very often amounting to hundreds of pages per Standing Committee each
year.
Standing Committee meeting minutes are valuable in
that they currently offer detailed insight into the discussion that took place,
record all motions and voting records, note inquiries, directions and actions
requested, and provide a historical reference for archival purposes. However, in a review of the 2001-2003
Council term, it has become evident that a great deal of staff time and effort
is required for both the recording and preparation of meeting minutes. This task has contributed to a significant
increase in staff overtime for the Council and Committee Services Division.
In an attempt to achieve operational efficiency
while adhering to the City’s Procedure By-law section noting a “concise narrative”,
it is recommended that the committee meeting minutes be reduced from the
present practices to a standard that includes the meeting particulars (date,
time, place, presents/regrets), declarations of interest, all motions
considered and the recorded vote, if applicable, directions to staff, requests
for action/ inquiries, a concise summary of public delegation comments,
and a concise summary of committee discussion.
Meeting minutes for purposes of public hearings
under the Planning Act or other statute will be prepared in accordance
with the legislation and may contain a greater amount of text.
This administrative efficiency is presently outlined
as a requirement in the Procedure By-law in that a “concise narrative” is
required. This change in practice is
reflected in the financial implications section of the report where there is a
proposed reduction of three FTE’s for the Council and Committee Services
Division. This reduction in staffing is
in many ways tied to a change in minute standards. Continuation of the existing practice for minute preparation
would make the proposed staff reductions difficult to achieve.
Advisory Committees and Boards – Agendas and Minutes
With
the amalgamation to the new City in 2001, a new Advisory Committee structure
and associated administrative practices were developed. However, in consultation with the Advisory
Committee members (Chairs and committee membership), it has been noted that
both the Advisory Committee agenda and minutes format could be revised.
Presently, the agendas and minutes for Advisory
Committees follow the same format as that for Standing Committees of Council,
contributing to an increase in overtime hours for Council and Committee
Services staff.
It is recommended that Advisory Committee agendas be
reduced to contain meeting particulars, declarations of interest, and the
notation of agenda business through brief listings of items. The agenda listings will continue to be
provided in both English and French, with additional detailed information being
provided in a supplementary staff report or documents provided in the agenda
package, as required.
With respect to Advisory Committee and Board
minutes, it is recommended the minutes be revised and reduced to include only
meeting particulars, declarations of interest, items of business, concise
summary of public delegations, and “action items” only (i.e. the committee
discussion will be eliminated and reduced to motions considered, records of
votes, recommendations considered and approved or amended, and directions or
inquiries to staff).
Once again, the proposed change in the minute
standards are reflected in the reduced staff complement for the Council and
Committee Services Division. This
reduction in staffing is in many ways tied to a change in minute
standards. Continuation of the existing
practice for minute preparation would make the proposed staff reductions
difficult to achieve.
Advisory
Committee membership (Recommendation
No. 2 n)
“An overall reduction in Advisory Committee
membership to between 9-11 members for each Committee, to be achieved gradually
over time for all Committees, and revisions to the Appointment Policy for
Advisory Committees, Boards and Authorities as outlined in the report, as well
as guidelines for addressing membership for merged Advisory Committees.”
In
2001, City Council approved the establishment of Advisory Committees, and
subsequently approved the Terms of Reference for each Advisory Committee, which
included the membership structure for each Committee. Generally, the membership for Committees was established at
between 11-15 members, although for three committees (Equity and Diversity
Advisory Committee and the Arts Advisory Committee, as well as the Ottawa Youth
Cabinet), the membership was increased to provide for up to 17 or 21 members
respectively. One of the reasons for
this size of membership was a reflection of a fewer number of Committees upon
amalgamation, and the suggestion that large memberships could provide effective
avenues for participation in the governance process.
Consultation
and a review of the Advisory Committees have shown concerns relating to this
size of membership. Problems in
achieving quorum and in conducting effective meetings have resulted.
It
is recommended that a change in membership to all Committees be achieved
through a gradual reduction in members as a result of resignations and term
expiries. It is proposed from a quorum
and effective meeting management perspective that the membership on all
Advisory Committees should ultimately be between 9-11 members.
In
addition, at present many of the Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee
outline the requirement for two members of Council to serve as non-voting
Council liaisons to the Advisory Committee.
In 2003 Councillor Legendre moved a motion, carried by City Council,
that in recognition of the demands on time and high workload of members of
Council, non-voting Council liaison positions on all Advisory Committees should
be reduced to a minimum of one member of Council.
For
Advisory Committees that may be merged, as is the case with the Arts Advisory
Committee and the Heritage Advisory Committee, it is recommended that
recruitment for 2004 be conducted only from among the existing members who wish
to continue to serve on the merged committees.
If insufficient applications were to be received from these affected
members, membership would be extended to the general public, thus providing
those members who are knowledgeable with Committee work, and who have already
made a significant contribution to the governance process, the opportunity to
continue to serve.
Advisory
Committee Member Recruitment
(Recommendation No. 2 o)
“The revised process for recruitment for Advisory
Committee members as outlined in the report to improve and streamline the
process.”
With
the creation of Advisory Committees in 2001, an extensive recruitment process
was undertaken in an effort to reach the broadest number of residents in the
most inclusive manner possible. Over
the last three years, annual spring recruitment for Advisory Committee members
has been conducted using a similar process, with minor improvements each
year.
That
process has included advertising in the daily and weekly community newspapers,
posting on the City website, and production of a flyer distributed to all City
facilities, community associations and community organizations, as well as to
all area high schools and colleges.
Consultation
with members of the Advisory Committees has raised suggestions for further
improvements to the process. Following
these suggestions, it is recommended that the annual recruitment process be
conducted at a different time during the year.
Generally, spring recruitment has resulted in appointment of new members
in June, and a slowing of momentum and enthusiasm as Committees reduce meeting
schedules over the summer. As well,
Committee members have suggested that many new members are not adequately
informed on the work or mandate of the Committee for which they have applied to
be a part of. Other improvements to the
process reflect the appointment of selection panels for Advisory Committee
members.
It
is recommended that the following changes to the Advisory Committee recruitment
process be implemented:
The above-noted changes to
the recruitment process will be incorporated into the “City of Ottawa Advisory
Committee Appointments Policy – Citizen Members of Boards, Committees and
Authorities”.
Advisory
Committee Member Training
(Recommendation No. 2 p)
“The guidelines for training for Advisory Committee
members to improve member effectiveness and provision of advice to Council, to
be provided by staff in a cost effective manner, as outlined in the report.”
As
a means of ensuring that Advisory Committee members can serve at their most
efficient, training sessions were provided during 2003 to build capacity among
members and to aid in the work done by Committees. This training included:
It
is recommended that in 2004 this type of training continue to be provided to
new and existing members, as well as specific training suited to Chairs and
Vice Chairs to assist them in best performing their roles. As was generally done in 2003, staff will
provide this training in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Consultation
with Advisory Committee members indicated that the training provided to date
was extremely valuable and that additional sessions should be considered,
including How to Deal with the Media and Public Speaking. Staff are prepared to review these
suggestions and develop training for members, as well as to contact all members
of Advisory Committees to determine whether there are existing members who have
expertise in these areas who may have an interest in sharing their skills with
other members.
In
2002, City staff coordinated two meetings with all Chairs and Vice Chairs of
Advisory Committees, to bring together common issues of concern and to provide
for collaborative effort by all Advisory Committees. It is recommended that meetings of this type be coordinated at
least twice a year so that all Chairs and Vice Chairs are able to
collaboratively respond to identified items, as well as to develop consensus on
priorities of focus and operation.
Although in some cases, these meetings have involved representatives of
the Senior Management Team, it is not deemed necessary for this to happen as a
matter of course.
Advisory
Committee Workplan Funding,
Requirement for
Annual Reports and Workplans
(Recommendation
No. 2 q)
“The elimination of
$150,000 annually in Advisory Committee workplan funding, and confirm the
requirement for Advisory Committees to submit annual reports and workplans
outlining priorities for each year.”
As
noted in other sections of the report, Advisory Committees were created by City
Council with the primary purposes of providing advice and liaising with the
community on issues within their mandates.
These types of activities do not generally tend to require the
expenditure of funds.
In
2002 City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 to Advisory Committees
for distribution in their annual workplans to assist in the achieving of
approved objectives. In 2002,
Committees spent 16.2% or $24,422 of this funding, although 100% of the funds
were allocated through the workplanning process. In 2003, 100% of the funds were allocated for approved workplan
priorities, although only $17,000 or 11% of that amount had been spent at the
time of report writing.
At
present, the City’s financial situation does not lend itself to allocation of
funds except for those items deemed a priority by residents, and as directed by
Council. As such, it is recommended
that the Advisory Committee workplan funding of $150,000 be eliminated.
The
requirement for Advisory Committee annual reports and workplans outlining
issues of priority and focus for the coming year should continue to be
required, as they provide a means to measure the activities taken by the
Committees, the advice provided to Council, and the liaison role with the
community they are mandated to reach out to.
Should specific workplan items be approved by Council that would require
exceptional expenditures by the Committee, they should be directed to liaise
with their lead department to determine whether they can work collaboratively
with the department in achieving these objectives, should these items already
be included in a departmental workplan.
Review of
Advisory Committee Terms of Reference every Term of Council
(Recommendation
No. 2 r)
“The review of the Advisory Committee structure and
Terms of Reference at the end of every term of Council.”
As the nature and focus of
the Advisory Committees evolve over time, and their effectiveness is reviewed
at the end of every term of Council, it is recommended that the Committees
themselves review their Terms of Reference once each term, and recommend to
Council any changes that should be reflected in mandate or responsibility.
Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs have
concurred with this recommendation.
“The mandate for staff to review and recommend
continuous improvements to the Governance Structure and associated elements at
the end of every term of Council.”
In order to ensure that continuous improvements are made to the governance structure, and that the evaluation of the proposed changes are reviewed to determine effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and opportunity for public input, it is recommended that the governance structure be reviewed every three years at the end of each term of Council, to determine whether further improvements and cost savings can be found.
PART E – OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
Request for
Enabling Legislation to appoint citizen members to serve as the License
Committee (Recommendation No. 2 t)
“That Legal Services Branch be directed to seek special enabling legislation from the Province to permit the appointment of citizen members to serve as the License Committee, as outlined in the report.”
The
function of licensing is to provide a set of standards for persons wishing to
engage in certain trades, callings, businesses or occupations which the City
has determined appropriate to regulate.
The issuance of a license is subject to suspension or revocation, for
just cause, in accordance with the Municipal Act, any special legislation that has been
obtained by municipalities to govern that activity and the City’s licensing
by-law.
On
11 April 2001, City Council approved the following:
That
Council approve that the License Committee be composed of any five (5) members
of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee with the majority of members
constituting a quorum for any hearings brought before the Committee.
At
its meeting on 11 April 2001, Council also approved the amendment to a number
of former municipal by-laws with respect to licensing and License
Committees. The amending by-laws
outlined the License Committee structure, meeting details and purpose under the
new City. Special legislation obtained
in December 2001 expanded the role of the License Committee in that it is able
to make final and binding decisions.
In accordance with the Emergency and Protective Services Committee current terms of reference, the License Committee is responsible for the following:
The
License Committee shall:
·
Review, in accordance with the Statutory Powers
Procedures Act, cases relating to license suspensions, revocations, refusals
and renewals brought forward by the Chief License Inspector;
·
Make final and binding decisions respecting
license suspensions and revocations as well as the imposition of conditions as
a requirement for obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a license, and,
·
On behalf of City Council, act as the Animal
Control Tribunal to:
·
Conduct hearings to review, in accordance with
the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, appeals to dog muzzling and/or leashing
orders issued by the Chief License Inspector, or his/her designate, as a result
of dog bite or attack incidents; and,
·
Make final and binding decisions respecting such
appeals, including exempting the owners of dogs from the muzzling or leashing
requirement, or both, or confirming the muzzling or leashing requirement or
both.
The
past three years has provided an opportunity for both the Secretariat Services
staff and the By-law Services staff to work with a License Committee comprised
of members of Council. During this time
period, issues have arisen around the difficulty of calling and obtaining
quorum for meetings. There has also
arisen a question surrounding the role of Council in setting the relevant
policy, and members of Council also acting as the License Committee in cases
put before them.
The
City of Toronto has instituted a revised forum that serves the function of a
License Committee, but it consists of citizen members appointed by
Council. It is recommended that this
option be implemented in Ottawa.
Council is requested to direct Legal Services to seek special legislation
to provide for the appointment of citizen members to serve as this
Committee.
Under
the proposed special legislation, the License Committee shall:
-
consist of 5 to 7
members;
-
be composed of citizens
qualified to be elected as members of Council;
-
be appointed for a term
not exceeding the term of Council;
-
authorized to suspend or
revoke licenses, to impose conditions as a requirement to continue to hold or
renew a license.
The
estimated time frame required for such special legislation is dependent on the
legislature. In the interim, to
address the issue regarding quorum, it is recommended that the entire Emergency
and Protective Services Committee serve as the License Committee. If it is necessary to hold a meeting in the
interim period, the License Committee meeting may be held prior to the
Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting, followed by the Standing
Committee meeting.
Ottawa Public
Library Board Membership,
Revised By-law
for 2003-2006 Term of Council (Recommendation No. 2 u)
“An amendment to the
By-law for the Ottawa Public Library Board to revise the membership on the
Board to 14 members (four Councillors) as outlined in the report (Document
15).”
It
concluded that the larger the Board, the more difficult it is to schedule
meetings. A larger number of trustees
means that each has less opportunity to speak at meetings, and/or the length of
the meeting increases. For these reasons, the Board committee concluded that 15
members was the maximum size it wished to consider.
Under
the Public Libraries Act, members of Council may comprise up to 50%
minus 1 of the board members (i.e. 7 on a 15-member board) as a maximum. The
Board committee has recommended that there should be more than one Councillor
on the Board, because the experience of former boards has shown this adds too
much strain to a Councillor’s workload.
The Ottawa Public Library Board has recommended the following membership
for the Board for the 2004-2006 term of Council:
1. That
the number of City Councillors on the Ottawa Public Library Board be reduced
from six to four.
2. That the total
number of trustees be revised from fifteen to fourteen.
It is recommended that Council consider the
membership structure of the Ottawa Public Library Board for the Term of Council
and approve the above-noted changes to be incorporated in a revised by-law
attached at Document 15.
Nominating
Committee and Committee / External Board Appointments – (Recommendation
No. 2 w)
“The election and appointment of 10 members of
Council to serve as the Nominating Committee, in addition to the Mayor as
Chair, to make recommendations to Council on appointments of members of Council
to Standing and Advisory Committees, Boards and Selection Panels at a meeting
scheduled for Friday, January 9, 2004. “
Pursuant to Sections 84 - 86 of the Procedure By-law, Council must elect
a Nominating Committee in accordance with the process set out in this
section. The purpose of the Nominating
Committee is to make recommendations to Council on appointments of members of
Council to Standing and Advisory Committees, Boards and Selection Panels. Staff is recommending that ten (10) members
of Council, in addition to the Mayor as Chair of the committee, be elected to
serve as the Nominating Committee.
Subsequent to Council’s consideration and appointment of the Nominating
Committee, staff will circulate to all members of Council, a survey of the
Standing and Advisory Committees and the external Boards and Commissions on
which City Councillors serve.
Councillors will be asked to indicate the Committees, Boards and/or
Commissions that they wish to sit on.
The Nominating Committee will take the preferences of all members,
together with their interests and experience and the need for City-wide balance
and perspective, into account.
It is proposed that the Nominating Committee would then convene a
meeting on Friday, 09 January 2004 to consider the Councillors’ survey results
and formulate their recommendations for Council approval.
(Recommendation
No. 2 v)
“The election and appointment of six members of
Council (two members per panel) to serve as the Selection Panel for citizen
members for each of the following (to meet in January 2004 to review citizen
applications for appointment for the 2004-2006 term):
Committee of Adjustment
Selection Panel
Ottawa Public Library Board
Selection Panel
Ottawa Police Services Board
Selection Panel”
Staff is recommending that Council approve the election and appointment
of two members of Council to serve on the Selection Panels for citizen
appointments to the Ottawa Public Library Board, the Ottawa Police Services
Board and the Committee of Adjustment.
The selection panels for these three bodies would then meet in January
2004 to review the citizen applications, conduct interviews and recommend to
Council the appointment of the citizen members to the three boards. Recruitment for these three legislated
boards is being conducted in late 2003, in order to ensure that new boards are
in operation early in the term of Council.
“The creation of a Citizen’s Task Force to review
the 1/3 tax free portion of elected representative compensation and review
elected representative compensation in general, office and salary budgets and
make recommendations to Council in 2004.”
On December 11, 2001, the Municipal Act, 2001
was passed by the Ontario Legislature.
While the bulk of the new sections came into effect on January 1, 2003,
there were certain provisions that required the existing councils to address
the deemed one-third expense allowance for members of council. In effect, the legislation provided that, as
of January 1, 2003, the deemed one-third expense allowance would no longer
apply, unless a council had opted to maintain it. In order to continue the deemed one-third expense allowance
portion of the remuneration for members of Council, a municipal council was
required to pass a resolution, before January 1, 2003.
In response to this provision, Council considered a
report at its meeting of November 27, 2002, entitled, “Municipal Act, 2001
– Councillors’ Remuneration”. Report on
file with the City Clerk and referenced as Document 16. At that meeting, Council approved a motion
whereby the remuneration for all Councillors would remain at the 2001-2002
level and that one-third of this remuneration continued to be deemed as
expenses incident to the discharge of their duties pursuant to the former Municipal
Act. In addition, staff were also
directed to prepare “a detailed report on the remuneration for all Members of
Council for consideration by the next Council, including a review of the deemed
one-third expense allowance component as required by the new Municipal Act,
2001.” This latter recommendation
was pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, which requires each Council to
review, during its subsequent three-year term, the by-law that continues the
deemed one-third expense allowance.
In addition to the statutory requirement that the
matter of the Councillors’ current remuneration be reviewed at least once
during the next term of Council, there remains a parallel concern expressed by
some Members of Council with respect to the sufficiency of resources available
for the City’s larger, suburban wards.
On October 18, 2002, the Member Services Committee deferred a staff
report entitled, “Report of the Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries –
Transitional Arrangements for Workload Support – Growth Wards”. Report on file with the City Clerk and
referenced as Document 17. Briefly,
that information report was meant to provide further details and options “with
respect to workload supports” for “Members of Council serving in the high
growth suburban wards.”
By virtue of the provisions contained in the current
Municipal Act, 2001, as well as the former statute, the difficult decisions
regarding remuneration and resources for Members of Council rests with each
municipal council across Ontario.
Having said that, there would appear to be three basic mechanisms for
providing a report on this issue:
i)
As
noted in the direction of the previous Council, City staff could be required to
prepare such a report with the necessary recommendations on compensation
(including the one-third tax free component), as well as the office and salary
budgets for all Members of Council. This is an option that does not easily
provide for community input and consultation.
ii)
A
second option would be to engage the services of a Human Resources Consultant
with knowledge of the operations of municipal governments. However, as with the first option,
contracting for the services of such a consultant may not be an objective means
of determining recommendations. In
addition, there could also be significant, additional costs arising from that
approach.
iii)
Finally,
the third option, which has been endorsed many times, both by those municipal
councils of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton, as well as others across the
province, is to establish a Citizens’ Task Force to formulate recommendations
for Council on these issues. The
primary advantages of such a Citizens’ Task Force are that it would ensure both
independence and objectivity. In
addition, it is anticipated that the costs incurred would largely be those of
staff time spent assisting the Task Force, public consultation costs, as well
as any administrative services that may be required.
As noted in Recommendation No. 2 x, Council is
requested to approve the establishment of a Citizens’ Task Force to review the
remuneration for all Members of Council, including the one-third tax free
component, as well as the relevant office and salary budgets, and make
recommendations to Council for the 2004 budget.
CONSULTATION
It should be noted that broad public consultation
and input was not sought in the development of this report, as the
recommendations refer to processes and structure fully within the purview of
elected officials, and represent the development of a governance structure that
will determine the way in which City Council will carry out business over this
term. However, a number of internal
consultation activities were conducted, as outlined below:
§ A prioritization survey on
all City services and their focus for Committee mandates was prepared and
distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory Committees to
determine areas of priority for Committee mandate. Meetings were held with both Advisory Committees and members of
Council so they could complete the prioritization exercise in person, as well
as electronically.
§ A self-evaluation survey on
each member’s role on a Committee, as well as the role of the Committee as a
whole was distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory
Committees to determine opportunities for efficiency improvements.
§ Members of Council were
contacted, and the majority of members took the time to meet individually with
staff to provide input on the governance structure.
§ Each Departmental Management
Team (General Managers and Directors) were met with to review the governance
structure and opportunities for improvement.
§ A meeting was held with lead
department representatives to Advisory Committees to provide input on the
Advisory Committee structure and departmental relationships with Advisory
Committees.
§ A meeting was held with the
Council and Committee Services Division, which provides support to the entire
governance structure to receive their input and suggestions as service
deliverer.
§ A meeting was held with all
Chairs and Vice Chairs of Advisory Committees to gather input and suggestions
on recommendations for improvement directly related to the Advisory Committee
process.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed reduction in the number of Standing and Advisory
Committees, and the change in minute standards will result in annual savings of
$212,000.
Elimination of the Advisory Committee workplan
funding will result in additional savings of $150,000; resulting in total
annual savings of $362,000.
These savings are based on the structures and standards recommended in
this report. Each committee addition or
standards amendments would reduce the proposed cost savings.
A web casting pilot project is currently underway within the Information
Technology Branch, and the results will be used to determine the recommended
direction for web casting. It is estimated that annual operating funds of
between $96,000 and $288,000 (96 meetings per year at $1,000 to $3,000 per
meeting) are required to outsource the technical support needed to web cast
meetings. The potential to perform this function in-house exists and will be
evaluated prior to moving forward. Staff will be reporting to Council as to the
recommended direction in 2004; and funds will be requested at that time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendix 1 – Governance Options
presented during the Transition Process
- Attached to the report.
Appendix 2 – The new City’s
Governance Structure - Attached to the report.
Appendix 3 – Governance: Theories
and Trends - Attached to the report.
Appendix 4 – Ottawa’s Public Participation
Policy - Attached to the report.
Appendix 5 – Benchmarking and
Municipal Reviews - Attached to the report.
Document
1 – November 25, 1999 – to the Minister of Municipal Affairs - “Local
Government Reform in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton: One City- One Tier” [the “Shortliffe Report”] – On file with
the City Clerk.
Document
2 – August 28, 2000 - Ottawa Transition Board – Political Infrastructure
Project Team – “Governance Model/Budget/Committees” report – On file with
the City Clerk.
Document
3 – January 8, 2001 – City Council – “Political Infrastructure Options” – On
file with the City Clerk.
Document
4 – March 28, 2001 – City Council – “Proposed Advisory Quasi-Judicial Committee
and Task Force Structure” - On file
with the City Clerk.
Document
5 – August 28, 2002 – City Council – “Annual Review of Advisory Committees –
Structure, Policies and Process” – On file with the City Clerk.
Document 9 – Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law –
Attached to the report.
Document 11 – Draft By-law with respect to the Deputy Mayor
rotation list – Attached to the report.
Document 12 – Amending by-law for the Delegation of Authority
– Attached to the report.
Document
13 - Office consolidation of the By-law of the City of Ottawa respecting all
delegations of authority to the various officers of the City - On file with the
City Clerk.
Document 14 – Standing Committee and Council meeting schedule
– Attached to the report.
Document
16 – November 27, 2002 – City Council – “Municipal Act, 2001 – Councillors’
Remuneration” – On file with the City Clerk
Document
17 – October 18, 2002 – Member Services Committee – “Report of the Citizens’
Task Force on Ward Boundaries – Transitional Arrangements for Workload Support
– Growth Wards” – On file with the City Clerk.
DISPOSITION
Upon approval of the report by the 2003-2006
Council, staff in the applicable branches, in particular Secretariat Services
and Legal Services, will implement changes to all related processes and
procedures which are required to carry out the report as approved.
Appendix
1 – Governance Options presented during the Transition Process
On December 22, 1999, Royal Assent was given to the Fewer
Municipal Politicians Act, 1999.
Found at Schedule “E” of this legislation is the City of Ottawa Act,
1999, which established the amalgamated City of Ottawa from its 12 former
municipalities into a single municipality.
As with many local governments across Ontario, the City’s enabling
legislation cannot only be found in its own specific statute, but also within
the broader confines of the Municipal Act, 2001. As such, the rights of a municipal council
to organize itself, including the establishment of committees, delegating of
authority to various officials, and enacting a procedure by-law are all found
in the Municipal Act, 2001.
This section provides some context and historical
background, not only with respect to the governance structure adopted for the
first term of the amalgamated City of Ottawa but, as well, on the two
governance options that were produced immediately before and after the passage
of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999.
The first of these was the Report of the Special Advisor on Local
Government Reform in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton by Glen S.
Shortliffe. The second concerned the
final report and recommendations of the Ottawa Transition Board.
a) Special
Advisor on Local Government Reform
On September 24, 1999, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appointed Mr. Glen S. Shortliffe as Special Advisor on Local Government Reform in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Mr. Shortliffe’s primary goal was to recommend to the Provincial Government various reforms in municipal government in the Ottawa-Carleton Region, including the “initial council-committee structure”, within the sixty-day timeline. On November 25, 1999, Mr. Shortliffe submitted his report to the Minister entitled, “Local Government Reform in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton: One City-One Tier” [the “Shortliffe Report”]. In addition to recommending the one city governance model, Mr. Shortliffe also submitted a variety of related recommendations with respect to the City’s possible political infrastructure, as well as some proposals on the standing committees of Council. Characterizing these committees as “a valuable tool for City Council to seek the views of the community and to interact with the citizens they represent”, Mr. Shortliffe recommended six standing committees: Corporate Services/Planning & Development; Community Services; Emergency Services; Library Services; Rural Affairs; Transportation and Works.
It would
appear that Mr. Shortliffe’s proposed committee structure was based on policy
functions, as well as operational departments.
It is important to appreciate that Mr. Shortliffe’s recommendations for
a Standing Committee on Library Services was dependent upon a second, related,
proposal, “to make libraries a direct City Council responsibility.” As this suggestion (found in Recommendation
19(a)) was not implemented by the Province of Ontario, the Ottawa Library Board
remains a local board governed by the enabling provisions of the Public Libraries
Act.
With respect to the establishment of a Rural Affairs
Standing Committee, Mr. Shortliffe summarized its proposed duties in
Recommendation 13(a) in order to “recognize the importance of rural communities
and to ensure that their concerns are specifically addressed by City
Council.” A copy of the “Shortliffe
Report” is on file with the City Clerk and referenced as Document 1.
b)
Ottawa Transition Board
The Ottawa Transition Board (the “Board”) was a
statutory body established in accordance with the provisions of the City of
Ottawa Act, 1999. One of four such
provincially-appointed transition boards, the statute identified that the
Board’s “primary function” was to “facilitate the transition from the old
municipalities and their local boards to the City and its local boards.” In an effort to provide the Board with
recommendations on governance, the Political Infrastructure Project Team was
established. On August 28, 2000, the
Board approved a series of revised recommendations from its Political Infrastructure
Project Team in an item entitled, “Governance Model/Budget/Committees.” That report recommended the establishment of
the following four Standing Committees:
Operations Committee; Development and Planning Committee; Community
Services Committee (including the protective and emergency services
department); and, Corporate Services Committee.
In a fashion similar to the Shortliffe Report, the Board recommendations had the appeal of Standing Committees based largely upon policy functions derived from the City’s new departmental structure. The rationalization included in the Project Team report for these Standing Committees was summarized in the following succinct fashion: “These recommendations are a result of the public consultation process” that the Team undertook.
Although the Board did not recommend a Standing Committee to address rural/agricultural issues, it did offer a variety of alternatives, including the following:
Copies of the relevant Board reports are on file with the City Clerk and
referenced as Document 2.
Appendix
2 – The new City’s Governance Structure
On January 8, 2001, City Council considered a staff report entitled, “Political Infrastructure Options” A Copy of the report is on file with the City Clerk and referenced as Document 3. Briefly, the staff report included three distinct models for the Standing Committee structure of the new City Council. With some minor modifications, Council endorsed the general format for the Standing Committees that was set forth in one of the options. In its consolidated format, the initial political infrastructure for the amalgamated City of Ottawa in January 2001 includes the following nine Standing Committees: Agricultural and Rural Affairs; Audit; Corporate Services & Economic Development; Emergency & Protective Services; Environmental Services; Health, Recreation & Social Services; Member Services; Planning & Development; and, Transportation and Transit.
On March 28, 2001, City Council considered a staff report entitled, “Proposed Advisory, Quasi-Judicial Committee and Task Force Structure”. A Copy of the report is on file with the City Clerk and referenced as Document 4. At that point in time, Council established 16 Advisory Committees, as well as the structure and associated policies for supporting them. Subsequent to this meeting, two additional Advisory Committees and two Task Forces were also created. One of the motions passed by Council at that meeting directed the City Clerk, “to review the financial support for Advisory Committees after one year of operation and report back to Committee and Council.”
On August 28, 2002, City Council received and considered a report entitled, “Annual Review of Advisory Committees – Structure, Policies and Process.” A Copy of the report is on file with the City Clerk and referenced as Document 5. Recommendations 5 and 6 of that report were as follows:
5.
The amalgamation of the Cycling & Mobility Issues
Advisory Committees, and the Ottawa Forests and Environmental Advisory
Committees, effective December 31, 2003, with development of the new structure
and Terms of Reference, as well as the viability of the new merged Committees
be presented by the Committees to Council by September 2003; and
6.
That a review of Terms of Reference of every Advisory
Committee, including size and structure, and potential for merging Committees
with similar and compatible mandates, be conducted to determine continued
relevancy and appropriateness at the end of every term of Council.
After considering this matter, Council moved that Recommendation No. 5 above, “be referred to the end of the current term of Council and be considered in conjunction with Recommendation No. 6 and the review conducted for the next term of Council.”
In addition to the extensive benchmarking and best
practises review conducted in the preparation of this report, much research was
done on what actually constitutes good governance, including a review of existing
governance theory and recent trends and initiatives that point to continuous
improvements in effective citizen participation, accountability and informed
decision making processes. The United Nations, the Institute on Governance, the
Local Government Institute, the Canadian Policy Research Network and the
Toronto Board of Trade, among others, proved to be valuable sources of
information on governance theory and trends.
As succinctly defined by the United Nations, and
elaborated on by the Institute on Governance, “Governance is a process whereby
societies or organizations make their important decisions, determine whom they
involve in the process, and how they render account.” [IOG Public Policy Brief
15-Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century, John Graham,
Bruce Amos, Tim Plumptre.]
The United Nations has developed five principles
that define good governance:
United Nations Five Good Governance Principles
|
Legitimacy and Voice |
Participation – all men and women
should have a voice in decision-making, either directly, or through
legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their intention. Such broad participation is built on
freedom of association and speech, as well as the capacity to participate
constructively. Consensus
Orientation
– good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on
what is in the best interests of the group, and where possible, on policies
and procedures. |
|
Direction |
Strategic
Vision –
leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good
governance and human development, along with what is needed for such
development. There is also an
understanding of the historical, social and cultural complexities on which
that perspective is grounded. |
|
Performance |
Responsiveness – institutions and
processes try to serve all stakeholders. Effectiveness
and Efficiency – processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while
making best use of resources. |
|
Accountability |
Accountability – decision makers in
government, the private sector and civil society are accountable to the
public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This accountability differs depending on the organization and
whether the decision is internal or external. Transparency – Transparency is built
on the free flow of information.
Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to
those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand
and monitor them. |
|
Fairness |
Equity – all men and women have
opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. Rule of Law – legal frameworks should
be enforced impartially, particularly the laws of human rights. |
Building on the United Nations principles of good
governance, the City of Ottawa conducted the governance review of the existing
structures and processes utilized in the municipality. This review took into account that an
improved governance structure adds benefits to public policy development,
service delivery, and decision-making that the City will be challenged with in
coming months and years. It must take
the voice of citizens and stakeholders into account, and aid in the
implementation of an informed and accountable decision-making process.
Through
the consultation process, a set of principles were developed to guide the
review of Ottawa’s governance, focusing on important relationships and
structures for achieving and improving effective and accountable
governance. The primary objectives of
the review included the following:
It should be noted that research has indicated that
principles of good governance are best applied to an organization or “system”
as a whole, rather than individually to one process or structure within the
organization. Applying this approach,
key components of the structure and key stakeholders must be dealt with as an
inter-related whole (i.e. “the sum of the whole is greater than its parts” and
that the role of citizens, community associations and organizations, business,
non-profit and other important sectors of the community are a key part of the
governance structure).
In October 2003, City Council approved the Public
Participation Policy, effective January 2004.
The policy outlines the fact that local government works most
effectively and representatively in an environment of openly shared information
and viewpoints. Vital to success is
mutual understanding and trust among elected officials, citizens and
government.
The
following principles are outlined in detail in the Public Participation Policy,
and reflect the following:
The policy is predicated on the following core
values for public participation:
§
Include the commitment/promise that the public’s
contribution can influence the decision;
§
Communicate the interests and consider the
needs of participants;
§
Seek out and facilitate the involvement of
those potentially affected;
§
Using appropriate feedback mechanisms,
communicate to participants how their input affected the decision; and
§
Provide participants with the information
necessary to participate in a meaningful way.
Inherent in the key principles and core values of
the Public Participation Policy is the fact that public participation is most
effective when it is conducted early in the process, prior to decisions being
made. This does not preclude the role
of the public in bringing valuable input and insight to Standing Committees and
even Advisory Committees when decisions are being taken. However, underlying this assumption is that
the public will be involved prior to these decisions being taken in a
consistent, meaningful and inclusive manner, before these issues rise to
Standing Committee for decision.
Although critics may suggest that fewer committees
may mean fewer opportunities for public input, the passing of the Public
Participation Policy and the creation of a Roundtable for Citizen Engagement
provides a commitment to Ottawa’s residents that they will be consulted in a
meaningful way on issues that affect them.
In addition, the refocusing and review of Advisory Committee Terms of
Reference and mandates in a manner that prioritizes community outreach and
advice to Council will further fulfill this citizen engagement mandate.
The current and proposed governance structure for
the City of Ottawa can be described as a “Strong Council” model. Features of a Strong Council model of local
government include:
· Legislative and
administrative responsibilities;
· Passage of by-laws, creation
of policies and programs;
· Many committees which assist
Council in carrying out its decision- making policies;
· Providing numerous forums
for engaging the community and extensive opportunities for public
participation; and
· Equitable division of
workload among Councillors and Committees.
The review of municipalities across Canada conducted for this report,
found this to be a common model adopted by the majority, with some variation on
the structure. However, in terms of
standing committees, there has not been a common trend. Some municipalities have established subject
based standing committees (i.e. with a single policy focus), while other
municipalities have grouped related policy areas together (resulting in fewer
committees) and yet others have chosen to have no standing committees and
operate instead as committee of the whole. A table on the Comparison of
Canadian Municipalities’ Governance Structures is attached to the report as
Document 6.
Some of the municipalities canvassed, particularly those with smaller
Councils, operated under a Committee of the Whole approach. Although this method has its benefits and
meets some of the guiding principles of this governance review (i.e. it enables
all members of Council to participate in the decision-making system, balances
the workload and streamlines the process), it is recommended that this approach
would not be appropriate for the City of Ottawa. The volume of issues that would have to be considered at one
meeting would be unmanageable and would impede effective public participation
and collaborative input. A case in
point would be the City of Hamilton which has recently undergone a governance
review and is changing from a Committee of the Whole system to a standing
committee structure consisting of five standing committees (i.e. Community
Services Committee, Corporate Administration Committee, Planning and Economic
Development Committee, Social and Public Health Services Committee and Public
Works, Infrastructure and Environment Committee) and a Strategic Planning and
Budgets Committee. In general,
governance structures in Canada’s larger municipalities have been following a
trend away from a Committee of the Whole process.
Another approach reviewed is the use of community councils or community
committees. Three examples of
municipalities in Canada that utilize this structure (i.e. in addition to their
standing committee or committee of the whole structure) were found, namely,
Toronto, Halifax and Winnipeg.
Community committees have been in existence in Winnipeg since the early
1970’s. Originally entrenched in the
legislation governing the City (i.e. The City of Winnipeg Act), the
provision for community committees was removed from their new Charter enacted
in 2002. The existence of community
committees continues at the discretion of the Winnipeg City Council and is
under review.
The City of Toronto, which has had community councils since its amalgamation
in 1997, recently reduced the number of community councils from six to four,
primarily in order to better align the community councils with the service
districts in the City. Statistics
produced in a recent governance discussion paper confirmed that community
councils continue to be an important forum for public participation.
Although the concept of community councils offers food for thought and
some distinct advantages in line with the guiding principles of this governance
review (e.g. effective public participation opportunities for collaborative
input and accountable and affordable governance structure that is responsive to
the community it services), there is conflicting evidence with respect to the
effectiveness of community councils (i.e. in relation to the decision-making
powers conferred on a community council) and would require a great deal more
study.
In looking at the specific Standing Committee mandates of the
municipalities canvassed, none had a Rural Issues Committee. As well, there was no example of a
stand-alone Environmental Services Committee.
Responsibility for this latter Committee was commonly divided between a
“Works” Committee (e.g. infrastructure issues) and Planning Committee (e.g.
environmental policy issues).
Emerging Trends in Other Municipalities
In terms of emerging trends, the “Strong Mayor” and/or “Strong Executive
Committee” models are in place or are being considered in some
municipalities. Two examples of
municipalities that currently operate with an executive committee are London,
Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba. The
Mayor of Winnipeg is also considered a “Strong Mayor”, in that he has authority
to appoint the Deputy Mayor, the standing committee chairs, up to seven members
of the Executive Policy Committee and the chairs and members of other bodies
such as ad-hoc committees or sub-committees.
A recent report by the Toronto Board of Trade endorsed a Strong Mayor
and strong Executive Committee Model for the City of Toronto. In addition, Toronto City Council, at a
meeting held in July 2003 considered a staff report entitled “City of Toronto
Council Governance Review” and referred to the incoming Council, consideration
of this report together with a number of motions dealing with the mandate and
composition of an Executive Committee model, as well as motions dealing with
increased powers of the Mayor.
The Province of British Columbia, has introduced Bill 14: “Community
Charter”, which received Third Reading in May of this year and is expected to
be in place by the beginning of 2004.
Among other things, this legislation increases the powers of the Mayor
for such things as initiating policies, programs and by-laws and leading the
process for setting priorities and objectives.
In terms of Advisory Committees, all municipalities
canvassed have advisory committees in place.
However, except for the Accessibility Advisory Committee and Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (particularly in Ontario where
the existence of these committees is legislated by the Province), the number
and mandates of Advisory Committees varies greatly between municipalities (i.e.
dependent on the needs and priorities of a particular municipality).
None of the municipalities canvassed that had
conducted a review of their governance structure in this term of Council, had
reviewed their Advisory Committees. The
City of Hamilton Council however, approved a motion directing staff to review
the volunteer committee structure, how to incorporate these bodies into the
(newly adopted) standing committee structure and the staffing implications and
report back in the first part of the new term of Council. As well, the City of Toronto, in their governance
report, addressed some concerns raised about the abundance of ad hoc and
advisory committees and the lack of control over the creation of these
committees. The recommendation that
staff review and report on a rationalized system to be used in creating these
bodies, was deferred to the new Council for consideration. Toronto staff have also advised that a
review of its existing Advisory Committees will be undertaken in the new term
of Council, to determine how many and what their roles should be in terms of
the Council-Committee Structure. Unlike
Ottawa, a rationalization of the various advisory bodies was not carried out
when Toronto amalgamated.
In January 2003, the City of Vancouver approved the
creation of a Task Force (composed of Councillors, staff and the public) to
review the effectiveness of that city’s advisory bodies as a form of civic
engagement. The Task Force issued its
draft report, which included recommendations for improvements to the
effectiveness of existing Advisory Committees and guidelines for creating new
ones. However, Vancouver Council has
not yet considered the Task Force’s final report. It should be noted that many of the recommendations to improve
the effectiveness of Vancouver’s Advisory Committees are already in place in
the City of Ottawa (e.g. training for Chairs and Vice Chairs in running
meetings and new member orientation).
With respect to procedure by-laws, codes of conduct
and conflict of interest guidelines specifically for Advisory Committees, none
of the municipalities canvassed had any of these documents in place. However, in Toronto’s governance report, the
issue of the Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law being too formal
for citizen advisory committees was raised.
Staff of that city have indicated there is ongoing discussion with
regard to developing a more relaxed set of rules for citizen Advisory
Committees. Many of Toronto’s Advisory
Committees have adopted resolutions, or built into their Council approved Terms
of Reference that they will abide by City Council’s Code of Conduct (which
includes Conflict of Interest Guidelines).
As well, the City of London requires citizen members to sign an
acknowledgement that they will abide by the City’s Code of Conduct.
[1] See Appendix 2 - The new City’s Governance Structure
[2] See Appendix 5 - Benchmarking and Municipal Reviews
[3] See Appendix 1 - Governance Options presented during the Transition Process
[4] See Appendix 1 - Governance Options presented during the Transition Process
[5] See Appendix 3 – Governance Theories and Trends
[6] See Appendix 5 - Benchmarking and Municipal Reviews
[7] See Appendix 4 – Ottawa’s Public Participation Policy
[8] See Appendix 5