Report to:

Council

22 November 2006

Submitted by: Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager

Contact: P.G. Pagé, City Clerk

580-2424 x 22408, Pierre.Page@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2006-CMO-OCM-0012

SUBJECT:

2006 – 2010 COUNCIL governance review

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That, at its meeting on 22 November 2006, the 2003-2006 Council receive and table the "2006-2010 Council Governance Review" report, specifically recommendations 2 (a) to 2 (t) inclusive and the associated supporting documents.

2. That, at its meeting on 6 December 2006, the 2006-2010 Council consider and approve the following recommendations:

PART I – COUNCIL AND STANDING COMMITTEES

(a) The following structure for Standing Committees for the 2006-2010 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:

i) Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

ii) Community and Protective Services Committee

iii) Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

iv) Planning and Environment Committee

v) Transportation Committee

vi) Transit Committee

(b) The continuation of the current Audit Working Group and membership until the mid-term Governance Review.

(c) The revised Terms of Reference for Standing Committees be submitted in draft form to the respective Committees in early 2007 for consideration and recommendation to Council for approval.

(d) The enactment of the revised Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 1).

(e) The Council and Standing Committee meeting schedules as outlined in the report and the related changes to a City Council meeting curfew.

(f) The continuation of the current Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to act as Interim Committees to consider any public hearings and planning issues that may occur between December 1, 2006 and the appointment of the new Committees in late December 2006.

PART II – ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND LOCAL BOARDS

(g) The changes to the membership of the Taxi Advisory Committee and the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee as outlined in the report.

(h) The revised Terms of Reference for Advisory Committees be submitted in draft form to the respective Advisory Committees in early 2007, for review and recommendation to the appropriate Standing Committee and Council for approval.

(i) The enactment of the revised Advisory Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 2).

(j) The revised Appointment Policy for Advisory Committees, Task Forces and External Agencies, Boards and Commissions as outlined in the report (Document 3).

(k) The revised Participation Expense Policy for Advisory Committees, Task Forces External Agencies, Boards and Commissions as outlined in the report (Document 4).

(l) The change to the Advisory Committee Recruitment Process to a winter recruitment/spring appointment schedule as outlined in the report.

(m) The enactment of the revised Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 5).

PART III – GOVERNANCE PROCESS – OTHER RELATED MATTERS

(n) The enactment of amendments to the revised Delegation of Authority By-law as outlined in the report.

(o) The enactment of the amendments to the Public Notice By-law as outlined in the report.

(p) The rotation list of Councillors to serve as Deputy Mayor as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 6).

(q) The enactment of the amendments to the Animal Care and Control By-law as outlined in the report.

(r) 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 Committee, Boards and Selection Panels at a meeting scheduled for December 14, 2006.

(s) The Ottawa Public Library Guidelines as outlined in the report (Document 7).

(t) The adoption of the White Paper pilot project as outlined in the report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The City of Ottawa’s governance structure, like those of other Ontario cities, facilitates the legislative process. It consists of several different but related deliberative bodies, namely City Council, Standing Committees, Advisory Committees and arms-length Agencies, Boards and Commissions (“ABCs”), as well as various regulatory tools that govern those Committees, such as the Procedure By-law, the Delegation of Authority By-law and the Public Notice By-law. As the level of government closest to citizens, the City’s governance structure is designed to enable formal, direct community input into decision-making through citizen Advisory Committees and Standing Committee presentations to Members of Council. It also facilitates the legislative and governmental work of the elected representatives through Standing Committee and City Council meetings.

The Municipal Act, 2001 statutorily mandates that every council and local board in Ontario shall enact “a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.”

As part of the above-noted requirement, it has become the City of Ottawa’s standard practice to review its entire governance structure prior to a new term of City Council. The consideration and approval of the Governance Report is generally one of Council’s first items of business following its swearing into office.

As part of its preparation of the 2006-2010 Governance Review report, the City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Solicitor and the City Manager’s Office, consulted with elected representatives, members of Advisory Committees and the Executive Management Committee as well as staff in City Clerk’s Branch, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office who work most closely with the legislative process.

Overall, there are only a few significant revisions to the City’s governance structure being recommended in this report, largely because it was generally held that most of the changes introduced in 2003 were working well. In addition, however, it was noted that the changes to municipal powers being proposed as part of Bill 130 have the potential to lead to further significant changes in City governance (see “Bill 130 – Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act” ACS2006-CRS-LEG-0008, approved by Council on 25 October 2006). Once enacted, it is expected that City Council will be examining the impact of Bill 130 on city operations and governance in 2007. Therefore, it is suggested that the mid-term Governance Review in 2008 is the best time to look at any major changes to the City’s governance structure. This timeline would provide Council an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive and holistic review of governance, taking into account the context of the new scope of authority granted to the City under Bill 130.

As in 2003, the following principles guided the review of Ottawa’s governance structure. Any change must ensure that:

• the governance structure and related processes remain transparent and accountable to the community at large;
• they contribute to an efficient and effective decision-making process; and
• the governance structure and processes are focused and aligned with identified City priorities.

The Governance Review report contains a series of inter-connected recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure, and the associated procedures and policies required for Council, its Standing Committees and Advisory Committees. Where there was general consensus for a change in mandate, structure or process identified during the consultation process, a recommendation has been included. Where there was no consensus, the issue or suggestion is identified in the body of the report but no recommendation has been made. In addition, there are a number of ‘housekeeping’ amendments (changes where existing processes need to be ‘cleaned up’, or where new direction or updates may be required) being recommended as part of the normal practice.

The major recommendations in this 2006-2010 Governance Review report are summarized as follows:

Standing Committees

Overall, it was felt that the current Standing Committee structure was working well. The following adjustments to Standing Committees are being recommended:

• Standing Committees will be able to recommend all in-year budget adjustments directly to City Council.
• The Emergency and Protective Services Committee will be merged with the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee to create the Community and Protective Services Committee in order to effect a more balanced workload and take advantage of the alignment with a single department.
• The Transportation Committee will be divided into a Transportation Committee and a Transit Committee. The two Standing Committees will share both membership and meeting days, but have different Chairs to balance the workload and provide a separate focus to the respective Agendas.
• The Planning and Environment Committee will meet over Mondays and Tuesdays for agendas where the workload peaks on a seasonal basis.
• Due to the proposed change in the City Council meeting days, described further on in this report, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meetings will move to the 2^nd and 4^th Wednesdays of the month.

There were a number of other issues around Standing Committees raised during the consultation phase where there was no consensus (such as having new committees for Recreation, Audit, and the Environment, making the Long-Range Financial Plan Sub-committee a Standing Committee, amalgamating all water and sewer issues into a single Committee mandate and having Standing Committee Chairs change on an annual basis). Should City Council wish to consider these or other options, it is recommended that they be referred to the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

Advisory Committees

There was general consensus that the existing Advisory Committee structure should continue and the majority of the changes being recommended address minor issues that have been raised over the past term. These have been discussed with Advisory Committees and include:

• Closer alignment of the size of the Arts, Heritage & Culture Advisory Committee with other advisory committees to address quorum issues.
• Adjusting the membership of the Taxi Advisory Committee to take into account the change to a single zone and the need to improve the balance between industry representatives and the public.
• Clarifying the membership rules for Sub-committees and the Selection Panel.
• Changing the dates for the recruitment process.
• Revising the Code of Conduct.

The most significant change is the recommendation to remove the Councillor-Liaison position on Advisory Committees. It was generally agreed that Advisory Committees working with City Councillors by invitation on an issue-by-issue basis would better serve the process.

In addition, there were issues that were raised during consultations or referred to the Governance Review by City Council or other groups. Specifically:

• The review of how well the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee and the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee are working has been completed and both are continuing to function adequately within the allotted budget.
• The proposal to form an Aboriginal Advisory Committee was reviewed and it was determined that the Community and Protective Services Department have recently established an Aboriginal Working Committee. The Department will use this formalized process to provide support and demonstrated commitment to the Aboriginal Community and address issues that would be brought to such an Advisory Committee.
• The Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee indicated in 2005 that separate committees would in their view, better address arts and heritage issues. Staff are not recommending dividing this Advisory Committee at this time due to the overwhelming number of shared items.

City Council

There was general consensus that the existing Procedure By-law was working well. The major issue that still needed to be addressed was the unpredictability of the length of City Council meetings. It was felt that better meeting and agenda planning could improve City Council’s ability to manage heavy agendas. Specifically, the following recommendations are being made:

• The Council meeting start time of 1:00 p.m. is to be maintained.
• If, at 5:00 p.m., it becomes clear that the Council meeting will run past 6:00 p.m., there will be an automatic, thirty minute dinner break at 6:30 p.m.
• A meeting curfew of 9:00 p.m. will be established. If the Council agenda is not finished, the meeting will automatically reconvene at 10:00 a.m. the following morning.
• Council can extend the meeting curfew by the will of Council or simple majority
• To accommodate the potential “spillover” agendas without having a negative impact on the Standing Committee meeting schedule, City Council meetings will move to the 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month.
• Where the agendas are anticipated to be long (typically in June, July, August and December), additional meeting days will be set in advance as required (adding the preceding Tuesday and Wednesday, for example), and the Standing Committee meeting schedules adjusted accordingly.

During the last term, City Council received its first report from the Auditor General. As part of that meeting, it was understood that the 2006-2010 Governance Review report would need to formally establish how Council would receive future reports. The City Clerk, working with the Auditor General, is recommending the following process for all Audit reports:

· The Auditor General will provide notice at Council two-weeks in advance of when the report will be tabled.

· The Auditor General will then table the report at the following Council meeting, it is then debated and discussed two weeks thereafter.

• The items where Management agrees with the Auditor General’s recommendations will be received and forwarded to the Audit Working Group established by City Council during the last term to track the status of the implementation of the recommendations.
• The items where Management disagrees with the Auditor General’s recommendations will be addressed directly by City Council for discussion and recommendation.
• Once City Council has made a decision, the disposition will be referred to the Audit Working Group to track the status of the implementation of the recommendations.

Although there was some discussion around creating a specific Audit Committee or Sub-committee, no consensus was achieved regarding this suggestion. In response to the potential new accountability initiatives that may be adopted as a result of the enactment of Bill 130, no new Committee is being recommended at this time. Further, it is recommended that the Audit Working Group created by the last City Council be confirmed, that they work with the Auditor General and the City Manager to refine their mandate, that they report to City Council through the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and that they make recommendations regarding a future Audit Committee or Sub-committee as part of the mid-term Governance Review. The members of the current Audit Working Group are Councillors Hunter, Chiarelli, Brooks and Legendre.

Staff are also recommending that the changes previously enacted, to streamline the process for City Council when acting in its role as sole shareholder of Hydro Ottawa Incorporated and the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation be confirmed. These changes enable specific Shareholder Meetings to be replaced by a ‘special resolution’ format that allows City Council to consider shareholder items within the context of a regular Council meeting, and then pass a special resolution confirming the decisions taken at that meeting.

In order to provide a greater degree of flexibility to priority measures in the budget, it is being recommended that any amendments to such a measure during that same term of Council require a majority vote of the whole Council (i.e. 13 votes)

Other Related Matters

The Governance Review report also includes changes to the Delegation of Authority By-law and Public Notice By-law recommended by Legal Services, as well as identifying any adjustments needed to improve the City’s governance with respect to its arms-length Agencies, Boards and Commissions (“ABCs”). In addition, it includes recommendations regarding the Deputy Mayor rotation by-law, the quasi-judicial License Committee, Nominating Committee and the Selection Panels for the citizen members of the Ottawa Public Library, the Ottawa Police Services Board and the Committee of Adjustment. The Ottawa Public Library has provided recommendations for setting up the Library Board for City Council’s consideration. In addition, staff are also recommending City Council consider undertaking a pilot White Paper approach to new, major policy development.

Overall, there are very few major changes to these areas being proposed at this time as Bill 130 has the potential to lead to further significant changes in City governance. As such, it is believed that a more comprehensive review will be required for the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

The highlights of the recommendations in these areas are as follows:

Delegation of Authority By-law

There are no changes identified in the main body of the By-law. The revisions recommended for the Community and Protective Services Department, the Planning and Growth Management Department (soon to be the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department) and the Department of Corporate Services involve aligning and consolidating authorities where it makes sense to do so and providing consistency for executing third-party agreements.

Public Notice By-law

The major change staff is recommending adds a provision to allow City Council to waive the notice requirements to deal with an urgent matter within a short time frame and to deem that the notice that has been given is reasonable. In addition, there are amendments recommended to separate road closures and permanent alterations to roads. In essence, notice is always required for road closures whereas it is only required for permanent alterations to a highways where access is deprived. As well, the public notice for street naming is recommended for repeal as it is addressed in another by-law. It is also recommended that the various notice requirements for signs be changed to require a single notice period (i.e. a minimum of fourteen days) before the matter is dealt with at a Standing Committee.

Deputy Mayor Rotation

There were several suggestions to change the current practice of each Councillor being Deputy Mayor for a time-period when the Mayor is otherwise unavailable. One option was to have a single Deputy Mayor for the entire 2006-2010 term of Council. Another suggestion was to have four Deputy Mayors for a period of one year each. However, as there was no consensus on this matter, staff is recommending the current practice continue.

License Committee

The License Committee is a quasi-judicial body that conducts oral hearings in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and also serves as the Animal Control Tribunal. In order to streamline the process of appeals for muzzle/leash orders and reduce the workload of the Committee, staff is recommending that City Council delegate the authority to act as the Tribunal to the Director of By-law Services, in line with the current practice in the City of Toronto and a number of other municipalities.

As well, it is recommended that members of the Committee be afforded the opportunity to attend the training seminar offered by the Canadian Institute on their specific quasi-judicial roles and responsibilities.

Nominating Committee

No changes to the Nominating Committee are being proposed. Therefore, staff is recommending that ten members of City Council, in addition to the Mayor as Chair of the Committee, be elected to serve as the Nominating Committee to make recommendations to Council on appointments of members of City Council to Standing Committees, as well as Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Upon City Council’s appointment of the Nominating Committee, staff will circulate a survey of the Standing Committees, external ABCs on which City Councillors serve to all members of City Council. Councillors will be asked to indicate the bodies that they wish to serve on. The Nominating Committee will take into account the preferences of all members, together with their interests and experience as well as the need for citywide balance and perspective and make recommendations to City Council for their consideration and approval.

Staff is also recommending that City Council approve the election and appointment of two members of City 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 local bodies would then meet in January 2007 to review the citizen applications, conduct interviews and recommend to City Council the appointment of the citizen members to the three bodies. Recruitment for these three legislated boards is being conducted in late 2006/07, in order to ensure that new boards are in operation early in the term of Council.

Ottawa Public Library Board

The Ottawa Public Library (“OPL”) Board has forwarded its guidelines for Board membership and selection for City Council’s consideration (Document 7). These guidelines include: maintaining the current Board size of fourteen trustees; recognizing the commitment to provide library services in both official languages; making reasonable efforts to ensure that Board members show a clear interest in public libraries and in public service; and represent, as a whole, a diversity of geographic areas of the municipality and its urban/rural make-up; language and cultural groups; age distribution; and a variety socio-economic backgrounds representing the demographic nature of the municipality and that provides a mixture of professional and other skills related to the work of the library board or issues dealt with by the Board.

In addition to the guidelines, the OPL raised two other matters for Council’s consideration: reducing the number of Councillors who serve on the Board; and reflecting the ‘changing face of Ottawa’ on the Board.

Proposed Pilot for White Papers

Improving public policy development is one of the major concerns for a number of City Councillors. To that end, staff is recommending the establishment of a pilot White Paper approach to new, major policy initiatives. The pilot, proposed to run for two years, will be designed so that:

• City Councillors will be able to provide more direction to staff at the beginning of the policy development process rather than at the end.

• City staff will have a more fulsome appreciation of what elected representatives want to see in terms of consultation, information and outcomes before work is begun on a new policy and incorporate that understanding as part of the initial development of the policy rather than after the work has already been done.
• Advisory Committees, stakeholders and citizens will be able to provide input to the White Paper early on in the policy development stage, as well as provide feedback on the final policy recommendations.

The recommended pilot White Paper process would be as follows:

• City Council identifies its major priority initiatives as part of the Corporate Plan process in early 2007;
• Staff identify those initiatives that would involve major new policies with a City-wide impact;
• Staff reports to Council on those policy initiatives that would be developed through the White Paper process and identifies the Standing Committee(s) that will receive the White Paper;
• When ready, a White Paper is prepared that is no more than five pages long and includes: what the policy would govern; the desired outcome; a summary of scope issues, jurisdiction issues, and financial issues; the options staff will examine with a summary of what, why and how and, the steps staff are planning to use for development of the policy.
• A White Paper will be tabled at a regular Standing Committee meeting for discussion as the only major item of business at the following meeting and public comments will be solicited.
• Following the discussion at Standing Committee and Council, a revised White Paper reflecting the additional directions is posted to the website for ongoing comment and policy development will occur as per White Paper direction.
• The final draft policy will be forwarded to Standing Committee and then City Council for approval.

This is very similar to the process used by provincial and federal ministries. Following the conclusion of the pilot project, a review of the results will be included as part of the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

Consultation:

In drafting its recommendations, the City Clerk’s Office undertook a review of the recent history of governance in the City of Ottawa and a bench marking process of other Canadian municipalities. As well, the following internal consultations took place:

• All members of City Council were invited to share their concerns or suggestions on the 2006 governance review priorities and staff met with the Mayor’s office and Councillors, one-on-one to discuss specific issues.
• All members of the City’s Advisory Committees, were circulated copies of the City’s Advisory Committee Procedure By-law, Terms of References, Operational Policies and staff met with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs on September 7, 2006.
• All Deputy City Managers were circulated with copies of the City’s Standing and Advisory Committee Terms of References and invited to discuss the issues with their staff and forward any comments or concerns to the governance review.
• Meetings were held with Council and Committee staff, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office.

Numerous responses were received and have been addressed within the following report.

Financial Implications:

Additional meeting days for City Council will require additional interpretation, web casting, sound and other logistical support and additional training dollars are required for License Committee members. The budget pressure is estimated to be approximately $80,000 annually.

BACKGROUND

The City of Ottawa’s governance structure, like those of other Ontario cities, facilitates the legislative process. It consists of several different but related deliberative bodies, namely City Council, Standing Committees, Advisory Committees and arms-length Agencies, Boards and Commissions (“ABCs”), and the regulatory tools that govern those Committees, such as the Procedure By-law, the Delegated Authority By-law and the Public Notice By-law. As the level of government closest to citizens, the City’s governance structure is designed to enable formal, direct community input into decision-making through citizen Advisory Committees and Standing Committee presentations to elected representatives. It also facilitates the legislative and governmental work of the elected officials through Standing Committee and City Council meetings.

The Municipal Act, 2001 statutorily mandates that every council and local board in Ontario shall enact “a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.”

As part of the 2003-2006 Governance Review, City Council directed that staff consider and recommend continuous improvements to the governance structure and associated elements at the end of every term of Council. The review is intended to ensure that continuous improvements are made to the governance structure, and that proposed changes are evaluated to determine effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and opportunity for public input.

Part of the Governance Review includes a review of various administrative by-laws and policies including: Council & Committee Procedure By-law; Advisory Committee Procedure By-law; Advisory Committee Appointment Policy and Advisory Committee Participation Expense Policy. Mid-term reviews of the procedure by-laws and policies were conducted in 2005. The 2006-2010 Governance Review was initiated in June 2006.

As part of its preparation of the 2006-2010 Governance Review report, the City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Solicitor and the City Manager’s Office, consulted with elected representatives , members of Advisory Committee, and the Executive Management Committee as well as staff in City Clerks Branch, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office who work most closely with the legislative process.

DISCUSSION

Overall, there are only a few significant revisions to the City’s governance structure being recommended in this report, largely because it was generally held that most of the changes introduced in 2003 were working well. In addition, however, it was noted that the changes to municipal powers being proposed as part of Bill 130 have the potential to lead to further significant changes in City governance.

On June 15^th, 2006, Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, was introduced into the Ontario Legislature; three days after the Provincial Government gave Royal Assent to Bill 53, the Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005 [the “City of Toronto Act”]. Bill 130 includes almost 200 pages of proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001. In essence, these amendments will provide Ontario’s 444 municipalities with many of the same broad powers and duties given to the City of Toronto in Bill 53. However, one of the major differences is that none of the financial tools received by Toronto, have been included in Bill 130. Instead, the Provincial Government initiated its Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review on August 14^th, 2006. Expected to be completed by the spring of 2008, this broad-based review will include “funding, service delivery and service governance and will focus on how the best possible services can be delivered…in an affordable way.”

The bulk of the amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 in Bill 130 have been described by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO”) as moving “Ontario toward a more mature relationship with municipal governments by reducing Provincial micro-management and providing broader, accountable authority for municipal governments to pass laws.” More specifically, Bill 130 provides that the powers afforded to a municipality under the Municipal Act or any other Act are to be interpreted broadly “to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues.” For example, single-tier municipalities, such as the City of Ottawa, would have the authority to pass by-laws respecting the following eleven areas:

1. Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards;
2. Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its local boards and their operations;
3. Financial management of the municipality and its local boards;
4. Public assets of the municipality;
5. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality;
6. Health, safety and well-being of persons;
7. Services and things the municipality is authorized to provide;
8. Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection;
9. Animals;
10. Structure, including fences and signs; and
11. Business licensing.

These powers will replace the ten, more prescriptive spheres of jurisdiction in the current legislation.

Many of the amendments proposed in Bill 130 correspond to various recommendations previously endorsed by City Council at earlier stages in the Municipal Act, 2001 Review (ACS-2004-CRS-LEG-0012), approved by Council on November 10, 2004, as well as a parallel review of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 (ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0037), approved by Council on July 5, 2005.

In October 2006, City Council dealt with the report, Bill 130 - Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act (ACS2006-CRS-LEG-0008). At that time, City Council directed staff to report back on how the proposed powers and duties more specifically impact on City services, as well as which, if any, new programs policies or procedures may be implemented, including governance issues, along with any associated costs. These subsequent policy reports will, for the most part, be developed following broad rounds of consultation (i.e. with both the general public as well as key stakeholders such as local boards and advisory committees) and after various options and cost analysis had been finalized.

It is expected that City Council will be examining the impact of Bill 130 on city operations and governance in 2007. Therefore, it is suggested that the mid-term Governance Review in 2008 is the best time to look at any major changes to the City’s governance structure. This timeline would provide Council an opportunity to review Bill 130 in the context of the new scope of authority granted to the City in a comprehensive fashion.

As in 2003, the following principles guided the review of Ottawa’s governance structure. Any change must ensure that:

• the governance structure and related processes remain transparent and accountable to the community at large;
• they contribute to an efficient and effective decision-making process; and
• the governance structure and processes are focused and aligned with identified City priorities.

The Governance Review report contains a series of inter-connected recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure, and the associated procedures and policies required for Council, its Standing Committees and Advisory Committees. Where there was general consensus for a change in mandate, structure or process identified during the consultation process, a recommendation has been included. Where there was no consensus, the issue or suggestion is identified in the body of the report but no recommendation has been made. In addition, there are a number of ‘housekeeping’ amendments (changes where existing processes need to be ‘cleaned up’, or where new direction or updates are suggested) being recommended as part of the normal practice.

It should be noted that those minor matters of an administrative nature (correction of departmental name and managerial staff titles, etc.) will not be expressly identified within this report, but are listed in the appendices. All other significant concerns, as well as proposed amendments, are summarized in the body of the report. Detailed explanations, where required, appear in the appendices as well.

The substantive recommendations within this report result from consultations with elected representatives, interdepartmental staff and the City’s Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs. There were a number of issues raised that staff did not include in the recommendations. These concerns are listed in the Consultation Details attached to this report (Document 9).

For ease of reference, the report has been separated into three distinct sections:

Part I – Council and Standing Committees

Section A) Standing Committee Structure

Section B) Standing Committees’ Terms of Reference

Section C) Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law

Section D) Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule

Section E) Interim Standing Committees

Part II – Advisory Committees and Boards

Section A) Advisory Committee Structure

Section B) Advisory Committees’ Terms of References

Section C) Advisory Committee Procedure By-law

Section D) Advisory Committee Operational Policies

o Appointment Policy

o Participation Expense Policy

Section E) Advisory Committee Recruitment

Section F) LACAC By-law

Part III – Governance Process - Other Related Matters

Section A) Proposed Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law

Section B) Proposed Amendments to the Public Notice By-law

Section C) Deputy Mayor Rotational List

Section D) License Committee

Section E) Nominating Committee

Section F) Ottawa Public Library Board

Section G) White Paper Pilot Project

PART I

COUNCIL AND STANDING COMMITTEES

SECTION A) Standing Committee Structure

Recommendation 2(a):

The following structure for Standing Committees for the 2006-2010 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Community and Protective Services Committee

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Planning and Environment Committee

Transportation Committee

Transit Committee

Recommendation 2(b):

The continuation of the current Audit Working Group and membership until the mid-term Governance Review.

Overall, it was felt that the current Standing Committee structure was working well. Presently, there are six Standing Committees that report directly to City Council:

· Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee;

· Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee;

· Emergency and Protective Services Committee;

· Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee;

· Planning and Environment Committee; and

· Transportation Committee.

An examination of quantitative outputs and actions as well as the current Standing Committee mandates can be found in Document 8.

The proposed changes to the Standing Committee structure are recommendations based on overall workload and improving agenda alignment. The proposed changes are as follows:

(1) Continuation of the Enhanced Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Among the key results of the 2005 Rural Summit was the provision of enhanced powers to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (“ARAC”). On April 26, 2006, City Council amended the Committee’s Terms of Reference to effectively include most planning matters in the rural areas of Ottawa. A staff review of how the enhanced ARAC is managing its strengthened mandate, found that the current structure is working well.

(2) Establish the Community and Protective Services Committee

There was a general consensus that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee did not have sufficient workload to support its mandate. Staff recommends merging the Emergency and Protective Services Committee with the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee to create the Community and Protective Services Committee. This change will create a more balanced workload for the Committee and align the new standing committee with a single department.

(3) Transportation Committee to be divided into a Transportation Committee and a Transit Committee

The current Transportation Committee deals with a heavy workload of both transportation and transit issues. Staff recommend that two committees be established, a Transportation Committee and a Transit Committee. Both Standing Committees would have the same membership and meet on the same day. However, one committee would meet in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The Committees would consist of the same membership but have different Chairs in an effort to balance the workload and improve agenda management.

(4) Standing Committees to recommend all year-in budget adjustments within their mandate

Presently, the applicable policy committee is responsible for the recommendation on the policy direction and prioritization alone. However, the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee has the mandate to recommend to Council funding requirements and budget adjustments that cannot be accommodated from within an approved departmental capital or operating budget. This dichotomy requires decisions to be made at a Standing Committee and then the financial issues to be determined at a subsequent meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee. After both of these committees have considered the matter (either separately or jointly) it is referred to Council for approval.

The general consensus among Councillors was that the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee approval was redundant, as all of these types of recommendations require City Council approval. As such, staff recommends the revision to the mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to allow the applicable Standing Committee to consider both the funding and the policy direction on new matters not contained in the approved in-year budget.

In addition to the above recommendations, there were a number of other issues around Standing Committees raised during the consultation phase where there was no consensus. These are summarized below:

• Concerns were expressed that recreation does not have sufficient focus in the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee.
• There were calls for a return to a stand-alone Environment Committee.
• There was a suggestion that the Long-Range Financial Plan Sub-committee should be its own Standing Committee, another that its membership should be expanded beyond that of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.
• There was a suggestion to rename Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to Corporate Services and Audit Committee
• There was a suggestion to return to a stand-alone Audit Committee.
• There was a suggestion to continue the current Audit Working Group but make it a formal committee/subcommittee of City Council rather than a working group.
• There was a suggestion to place all utility issues, including billing, within the same terms of reference and give utility services more prominence.
• There was a suggestion to have the Ottawa Public Library Board report to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (recommended to be the Community and Protective Services Committee).
• There was the suggestion that City Council formally meet as the Board of Health, rather than simply delegating many of those functions to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (recommended to be the Community and Protective Services Committee).
• There were a number of different suggestions regarding the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Standing Committees, specifically:
• Formal training should be provided for Chairs and Vice Chairs of all Standing Committees
• New Chairs should be elected every year, not to repeat in a term
• Chairs should be reviewed mid-term
• Vice-Chairs should be given a more formal role
• It was suggested that a way be found to differentiate between staff reports and Advisory Committee reports in Standing Committee agendas.
• It was suggested that the Committee of Adjustment should not be located solely at Ben Franklin Place, but localized panels should be located at the other Client Service Centres as well.

Although there was some discussion around creating a specific Audit Committee or Sub-committee, there was no consensus. In response to the potential new accountability initiatives that may be adopted as a result of the enactment of Bill 130, no new Committee is being recommended at this time. Further, it is recommended that the Audit Working Group created by the last City Council be confirmed, that they work with the Auditor General and the City Manager to refine their mandate, that they report to City Council through the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and that they make recommendations regarding a future Audit Committee or Sub-committee as part of the mid-term Governance Review. The members of the Audit Working Group are Councillors Hunter, Chiarelli, Brooks and Legendre.

Staff will investigate the provision of formal training to the Chairs. As well, Advisory Committee reports will be printed on colored paper for ease of reference.

In the interim, staff is recommending that Subsection 11(1) of By-law 2005-84 – A By-law to Establish the Position and Duties of the Auditor General (Document 10) - be revised in regard to the tabling of the Auditor’s reports. Specifically it is recommended that Subsection 11 (1) be revised to specify that:

· The Auditor General will provide notice at Council two-weeks in advance of when the report will be tabled.

· The Auditor General will then table the report at the following Council meeting, and then debated and discussed two weeks thereafter.

· The items where Management agrees with the Auditor General’s recommendations will be received and forwarded to the Audit Working Group established by City Council during the last term to track the status of the implementation of the recommendations.

· The items where Management disagrees with the Auditor General’s recommendations will be addressed directly by City Council as required for discussion and recommendation.

· Once City Council has made a decision, the disposition will be referred to the Audit Working Group to track the status of the implementation of the recommendations.

Additional detailed information can be found in the Consultation Details (Document 9). Should City Council wish to consider these or other options, it is recommended that they be specifically referred to the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

SECTION B) Standing Committees’ Terms Of Reference

Recommendation 2(c):

That revised Terms of Reference for Standing Committees be submitted in draft form to the respective Standing Committee in January 2007 for consideration and recommendation to Council for approval.

It is recommended that upon approval of the structure for the Standing Committees of Council for the next term as well as the appointment of the Nominating Committee, staff will review the Terms of Reference for the Standing Committees. After the review, staff will return to each Committee with the revised draft Terms of Reference for the Committee’s consideration and recommendation to Council for approval.

SECTION C) Council and Committee Procedure By-Law

Recommendation 2 (d):

The enactment of the revised Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-Law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 1).

The recommendations for changes to the Procedure By-law are being proposed to provide clarity around current practice and to confirm the consistent and streamlined approach to how City Council discharges its shareholder responsibilities. In accordance with Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Council and Committee Procedure By-law governs the proceedings of the Council and its Committees. The following are recommended amendments to By-law 2005-431:

(1) New Section 15 - Reconsidering Policy Priorities

The principles applied to the revisiting of Council funding decisions have provided that any financial decision by Council can be revisited in each subsequent, budget year. In contrast, a major, non-fiscal policy decision of Council cannot be revisited, absent new information or a waiver of the rules of procedure, for the entire term of Council. It has been requested that a way be found to give more flexibility to the policy priorities of Council as determined through the budget process.

Staff considered three options:

1) Requiring a majority vote of the whole Council (i.e. 13 votes);

2) Requiring a vote of two-thirds of those present and voting; or

3) Requiring endorsement by two successive meetings of Council.

Option 2 while providing a significant threshold before a decision on an approved priority could be altered would appear to be inconsistent with the requirement that decisions being made by a majority of the Council. Option 3 would provide for a guaranteed period of reflection as to whether the past decision of the Council should be altered. However, there is already the opportunity for such reflection between Committee and Council consideration. Further, in periods where there is only one Council meeting per month, the requirement that the policy priority be considered at two meetings of Council would mean the decision would take almost eight weeks to review.

In the end, staff are recommending Option 1. With this option, Council would, by resolution, identify during the priority setting and budget processes what items are to be considered as priorities. Once the priority was identified and the budget approved, amendments to that policy priority in subsequent years within that term of Council would only require 13 votes.

With a new term of Council however, the standard requirement of a majority of those present and voting would again apply.

(2) New Section 16 - Shareholder Meetings

At its meeting of November 20, 2004, Council Report (ACS2004-CRS-LEG-0013 - Ottawa Community Housing Corporation – General Meeting Process – Minutes – Confirmation of Chair), was carried by Council. It made recommendations on allowing City Council to use the ‘special resolution’ format for annual and general meetings of the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (“OCHC”) and the City of Ottawa Non-Profit Housing Corporation (“CONPHC”) as authorized under Section 104 of the Business Corporations Act. The report also allowed that: “the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign a written resolution on behalf of the City of Ottawa as shareholder confirming the recommendations approved by Council above.”

As City Council is the sole shareholder of Hydro Ottawa, it was recommended that in lieu of moving into a formal general meeting of the shareholders of Hydro Ottawa Inc., City Council use the “special resolution” format. The “special resolution” format allows a corporation that has all of its shareholders at a general meeting to pass a special resolution confirming the decisions taken at that [Council] meeting. This streamlined approach eliminated the need to hold a separate shareholders’ meeting outside of the Council meeting. As City Council is also the sole shareholder of the OCHC and the CONPHC it was suggested that the same process be followed for their respective general and special meetings. This option is authorized under Section 104 of the Business Corporations Act and Section 11.07 of the O.C.H.C’s own operating by-law.

Accordingly, a new Section 16 has been incorporated in the City’s Procedure By-law governing Council and its Standing Committees to formalize the process previously endorsed by Council in 2004. Specifically, Section 16 indicates that:

Section 16 - Shareholder Meetings

Council at a regular meeting may consider reports from the City of Ottawa Non-Profit Housing Corporation and Hydro Ottawa and the Mayor and Clerk are authorized, upon approval by Council, to sign any necessary resolutions.

(3) New Subsection 18(1) - [Formerly Subsection 16(1)] – Mayor Absent

Subsection 18 (1) of the Procedure By-law provides for a means of choosing a Deputy Mayor to preside over a meeting in the Mayor’s absence. Staff is recommending that it be amended to also allow for a means to select a presiding officer for those times when both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are absent. Therefore, the following revision is proposed to Subsection 18(1) for City Council’s consideration: “If the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, pursuant to the rotation list established by Section 5, does not attend within fifteen minutes after the time appointed for a meeting of the City Council, the Clerk shall call the members to order and the next listed member on the aforementioned rotation list shall preside over the meeting until the arrival of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. Should the next listed member not be present, the next member on the list shall be called until a member is present to act.”

(4) Subsection 45(1) - [Formerly Subsection 43(1)] – Time Limited

To be more consistent with the language used throughout the Procedure By-law, staff has replaced the word “Item” with the word “Motion” within Section 45. Specifically, the provision would read, “No member shall be permitted to ask questions and /or speak to a motion, for more than five minutes, excluding staff response time.”

(5) Subsection 72(3) [Formerly Subsection 70 (3)] – Committee Chair

To enable the new term of City Council to proceed with City business at the earliest possible time it is suggested that Subsection 72(3) be amended to allow for the election of Standing Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs immediately following City Council’s consideration of the Nominating Committee report. Specifically, if Council approves the proposal, Subsection 72(3) would be amended to read, “The inaugural meeting of standing committees will be held immediately following adjournment of the Council meeting in which the Nominating Committee Report was considered in order to elect the Standing Committee Chair and Vice-Chairs and to confirm the Standing Committees first meeting dates.”

(6) Subsection 76(9) - [Formerly Section 74] - Speaking Times at Committee Meetings

Due to an administrative oversight, Subsection 76(9) was omitted from the Procedure By-law within Report ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0038 – (Procedure By-law Mid-Term Review) when it was tabled on August 24, 2005. Subsection 76(9) indicates that: “Notwithstanding Ss. (8) while at a Standing Committee Meeting if an Advisory Committee Chair, Vice Chair or member(s) designated by the Advisory Committee is asked to comment on – or asks to comment on a report or report item that is not related to the report submitted by the Advisory Committee, said Advisory Committee representative is then addressing the Standing Committee as a resident and shall therefore limit his or her comments to a total of up to 5 minutes on any one item”.

(7) New Subsection 82(2) (b) - [Formerly Section 80] - Joint Meetings of Committees

Joint meetings continue to be necessary and are encouraged as a good governance model. To enhance the process, and at the request of Members of Council, a joint-meeting procedure has been developed. The procedure sets out the purpose, requirements and administrative details for holding a joint meeting (Document 11). Accordingly, Subsection 82 (2) of the Procedure By-law has been amended to reflect that: “All joint meetings will be in accordance with the Standing Committee’s Joint Meeting Procedure.”

SECTION D) Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule

There was general consensus that the existing Procedure By-law was working well. The major issue that still needed to be addressed was the unpredictability of the length of City Council meetings. It was felt that better meeting and agenda planning could improve City Council’s ability to manage heavy agendas. Specifically, the following recommendations are being made:

Recommendation 2(e):

The Council and Standing Committee meeting schedules as outlined in the report and the related changes to a City Council meeting curfew.

In accordance with Section 8 of the Procedure By-law, regular meetings of City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. Staff recommends that Council meetings be moved to the second and fourth Thursday in each month to allow for the agenda or debate to continue on the following day without interfering with Standing Committee meetings. Further, staff recommends a City Council meeting curfew of 9:00 p.m. where remaining agenda items would carry-over automatically when City Council reconvenes at 10:00 a.m. on the following morning. In the event that a meeting will run past 6:00 p.m., an automatic dinner break of thirty minutes will occur at 6:30 p.m. City Council may choose to extend the meeting curfew by the will of City Council, being a simple majority.

During the months of March, July and August the regular meeting of City Council shall be held at 1:00 p.m. on the second or fourth Thursday of each month as determined by the Mayor. During the months of November and December in an election year, the regular meeting of City Council shall be held at 1:00 p.m. on a Thursday of the month, as determined by the Mayor.

Pursuant to Section 77 of the Procedure By-law, regular Standing Committee meetings 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. Each Committee may determine the start time, however, it is recommended that the first meeting in 2007 of each Committee start at 1:30 p.m. The Committee may then confirm its regular start time for future meetings.

Finally, during the 2003-2006 period, the Planning and Environment Committee considered 887 items and logged just over 270 hours of meeting time. Due to the planning and development nature of the items considered, there are periods in the year where the agendas are substantial. As such, staff recommends that the Planning and Environment Committee meet on the second and fourth Monday and Tuesday during those seasonal peaks, being June, July, August and December.

Set out below is a chart, which identifies the membership and relevant meetings of Council and Committees:

Name	Membership	Day and Frequency of Meetings
City Council	24	Meets on the second and fourth Thursday of the month
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee	9	Meets on the first and third Tuesday of the month
Agriculture and Rural Affairs	9	Meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month
Community and Protective 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 (Mondays & Tuesdays during seasonal peaks)
Transportation Committee	9	Meets on the first and third Wednesday of the month (a.m.)
Transit Committee	9	Meets on the first and third Wednesday of the month (p.m.)

SECTION E) Interim Standing Committees

Recommendation 2(f):

The continuation of the current Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to act as Interim Committees to consider any public hearings and planning issues that may occur between December 1, 2006 and the appointment of the new Committee in late December 2006.

The Planning Act does not make allowance for delaying various planning and zoning items during the non-operational period that arises in the last few months of a municipal election year (lame duck period), nor the time required for the establishment of the new City Council and its committees. Therefore, as in 2003, staff recommends that City Council allow an interim Planning and Environment Committee (“PEC”) as well as an interim Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (“ARAC”) be appointed to hear public hearings and planning issues that may arise during the non-operational period.

The membership of the interim committees would be the current committee members who have successfully been re-elected to City Council through the November 13, 2006 municipal election. Accordingly, the PEC Committee Chair and Vice-Chair will continue to be Councillor Peter Hume and Councillor Peggy Feltmate respectively and the ARAC Committee Chair and Vice-Chair will continue to be Councillor Rob Jellett and Councillor Doug Thompson respectively. The interim Committee would automatically terminate upon City Council’s appointment of new committees in December 2006. The interim Committees would also operate within the Terms of Reference of the existing Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

PART II

ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND LOCAL BOARDS

There was general consensus that the existing Advisory Committee structure should continue and the majority of the changes being recommended below address specific issues that have been raised over the past term. These recommendations have been developed in consultation with the affected Advisory Committees.

In addition, some concerns were raised about how closely Advisory Committee work relates to City Council’s legislative agenda and about the overall productivity of the work. Although staff has identified alternative approaches in the past, such as the use of Task Forces, it was felt that the White Paper approach should help address the concerns raised.

SECTION A) Advisory Committee Structure

There are presently sixteen Advisory Committees and two quasi-judicial bodies:

1) Accessibility Advisory Committee

2) Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

3) Business Advisory Committee

4) Environment Advisory Committee

5) Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee

6) French Language Services Advisory Committee

7) Health and Social Services Advisory Committee

8) Local Architectural and Conservation Advisory Committee

9) Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

10) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

11) Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee

12) Poverty Issues Advisory Committee

13) Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

14) Rural Issues Advisory Committee

15) Seniors Advisory Committee

16) Taxi Advisory Committee

17) License Committee

18) Committee of Adjustment

Recommendation 2(g):

The changes to the membership of the Taxi Advisory Committee and the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee as outlined in this report.

(1) Taxi Advisory Committee

When the Terms of Reference for the Taxi Advisory Committee were approved in February 2004, there were three taxi service zones in the City of Ottawa. As such, Council approved a composition that included up to seven voting representatives from the taxi industry to ensure that each zone would be adequately represented.

Effective January 1, 2006, the three existing taxi service zones merged into one zone that encompasses the entire regulated geographical area of Ottawa. In light of this change, the composition of the Taxi Advisory Committee needs to be revised to provide for a more balanced representation between the taxi industry and the public stakeholders.

Staff recommends the following changes to the Taxi Advisory Composition, supported by the current Taxi Advisory Committee:

The Taxi Advisory Committee shall have a membership of 9 to 15 and shall include the following:

Voting Members

1 Taxi Broker

1 Taxi Plate Holder

1 Taxi Driver

1 Accessible Plate Holder

1 Taxi Representative

Up to 2 members of the public who do not have any pecuniary interest in the taxi industry

1 citizen appointed to represent the disabled community

1 member from Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority

1 member from the Ottawa International Airport Authority

1 member of the Hotels and Convention industry

Non-Voting Members

1 Representative from each of the following:

· Algonquin College Taxi Driver Training Program

· Accessibility Advisory Committee

· Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

(2) Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

The Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee presently has a composition of 20 members. The larger membership was due to merging of the two advisory committees in December 2003. However, the committee’s size has led to quorum difficulties and is hampering equal participation by all members. Staff recommends that the membership of the committee be reduced to 18 to more closely align with the membership of other Advisory Committees.

Other items were raised during consultation or referred by City Council to be considered as part of the 2006-2010 Governance Review process. As these issues have not resulted in any recommended changes, they are summarized below. Furthermore, detailed information can be found in the Consultation Details (Document 9).

(1) Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee & Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

On December 3, 2003, Council approved that the Transportation Advisory Committee be divided to create the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee and the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee and that these committees “not cost more than the single Transportation Advisory Committee”. Staff was directed to complete a one-year review to evaluate whether the methodology was cumbersome and a more effective approach could be established. On 13 July 2005, Council considered the one-year review in a staff report, which provided five options (see “Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee and Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee – One Year Review” ACS2005-CRS-CSO-0027). However, Council referred this matter back to staff for further examination during the 2006-2010 Governance Review process. Having reviewed this report with the City Clerk’s Office, it was concluded that the two advisory committees continue to function adequately and satisfies budget requirements. Therefore, no change is recommended at this time.

(2) Aboriginal Advisory Committee

The proposal for an Aboriginal Advisory Committee to develop more formal structures for consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal organizations, community leaders and Elders has been raised. The Community and Protective Services Department in agreement with the Ottawa Urban Aboriginal Coalition have established an Aboriginal Working Committee to identify, prioritize and develop solutions to address emerging issues that impact the Aboriginal community. At this time, staff is not recommending the creation of a new Advisory Committee due to the Department’s recent progress and commitment to begin addressing Aboriginal issues that would be brought to an Advisory Committee.

(3) Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

At its March 31, 2005, meeting, the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee indicated its belief that arts and heritage issues would be better addressed by individual committees. In response, the Committee forwarded a motion to the City Clerk requesting: “staff to convey this position to Council in its 2006 Governance Review Report.” Based on the overwhelming number of shared items, staff is not recommending dividing these two committees at this time.

SECTION B) Advisory Committees’ Terms of References

Recommendation 2(h):

The revised Terms of Reference for Advisory Committees be submitted in draft form to the respective Advisory Committees in early 2007, for review and recommendation to the appropriate Standing Committee for approval.

It is recommended that upon approval of the structure for the Advisory Committees of Council for the next term, staff will review the Terms of Reference for these Advisory Committees. After the review, staff will return to each Committee in early 2007 with the revised draft Terms of Reference for its consideration and recommendation to the applicable Standing Committee and Council. It should be noted that there was general consensus among both Councillors and Advisory Committee members that the Councillor Liaison role should be removed from the Terms of Reference of the Advisory Committees.

SECTION C) Advisory Committee Procedure By Law

Recommendation 2(i):

The enactment of the revised Advisory Committee Procedure By-Law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 2).

(1) Advisory Committee Members’ Code of Conduct (Appendix A to By-law 2006-64)

Since approval of the revised Advisory Committee Procedure By-law on February 8, 2006, a few Advisory Committee members expressed concern over two of the following clauses contained in the Code of Conduct:

(a) Brings credibility and good will to the City of Ottawa and his or her respective Advisory Committee;

(i) Accepts and promotes the decisions of the Advisory Committee.

These members subsequently offered alternative wording that staff and the Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs recommend in the following changes to Section 1:

· That Section 1 (a) be modified to read: Fulfils the mandate and mission statement of his or her Advisory Committee; and

· That Section 1 (i) be deleted.

SECTION D) Advisory Committees’ Operational Policies

(1) Appointment Policy For Advisory Committees, Task Forces, External Boards, Commissions and Authorities (“Appointment Policy”)

Recommendation 2 (j):

The revised Appointment Policy for Advisory Committees, Boards, Task Forces, External Agencies, Board and Commissions as outline in the report (Document 3).

It should be noted that regardless of the change to the Council term of office, Advisory Committee members will continue to serve a three-year term. The following are recommended amendments to the aforementioned Appointment Policy:

(a) Section 1.1 Qualification of Members:

The Business Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference indicates that its members may live outside the City of Ottawa provided they own a residence or business within the City of Ottawa. Accordingly, staff is recommending that Section 1.1 of the Appointment Policy for Advisory Committees, Boards, Task Forces, External Boards, Commissions and Authorities be amended to include the following: All members of City advisory committees, boards . . . with the exception of the Business Advisory Committee, in which case members may be residents of the City of Ottawa or must own a property or business within the City of Ottawa. . .”

(b) New Subsection 4.8(c) - Selection:

The Selection Panel composition does not allow for City Staff to be members. To clarify the matter, staff is recommending the addition of the following new subsection (c) to Section 4.8 of the Appointment Policy: “City of Ottawa staff, including departmental liaisons are not eligible to serve on the Selection Panel.”

(c) Section 6.1 – Subcommittees:

For the purposes of clarity, staff is recommending that the Subcommittees’ section be re-formatted as follows:

6.1 City advisory committees, boards and task forces may create subcommittees to work on specific areas of their mandate. Subcommittee membership can include ‘non-members’ - meaning members of the public who are not currently serving on an Advisory Committee, task force or board however:

a. the subcommittee must have a minimum of one-third of the members as voting committee members of the main committee, board or task force;

b. the subcommittee shall be guided by the City’s Procedural By-law and Code of Conduct for Committees.

c. non-members must be invited by the Advisory Committee to participate in an Advisory Committee Sub-Committee for his or her unique set of skills or expertise, which otherwise do not exist within the current Committee’s complement. (These members are eligible for reimbursement of disabled persons expenses).

d. sub-committee membership must be approved/confirmed by the Advisory Committee at a regular meeting,

e. since sub-committee memberships are often confirmed only at the time the sub-committee is formed, it is suggested that the Advisory Committee periodically review its sub-committees and membership lists so as to maintain current membership lists. Where sub-committee attrition no longer maintains the one-third rule, that sub-committee must be reviewed.

f. a member of the Advisory Committee should be noted as the ‘lead’ to act as central contact, since staff support is limited for subcommittees (see Section 6.2)

(2) Advisory Committee Participation Expense Policy (“Expense Policy”)

Recommendation 2(k):

The revised Participation Expense Policy for Advisory Committees, Task Forces and External Boards, Commissions and Authorities as outlined in the report (Document 4).

(a) New Subsection 1.1.4 - Definitions

The City’s Participation Expense Policy applies to costs incurred by members to perform committee business, including parking costs to attend an ‘official’ meeting. An ‘official’ meeting can include a non-committee meeting wherein the member is explicitly asked to attend on the Committee’s behalf. As this criterion is not within the current Definition Section; staff is recommending that Council approve the addition of the following provision to the current Definitions Section 1.1 – Official Meeting: “a meeting where a motion and/or minutes exist(s) that show the member was specifically requested to attend on behalf of the Committee on a day and time outside of a regularly scheduled Advisory Committee meeting.”

SECTION E) Advisory Committee Recruitment

Recommendation 2(l):

The change to the Advisory Committee Recruitment Process to a winter recruitment/spring appointment process as outlined in the report.

Approval of the last Governance Review report changed the timing of the recruitment for Advisory Committee and board members from a winter recruitment/spring appointment to a fall recruitment/winter appointment. In a municipal election year, this recruitment/appointment timeframe is subject to Council’s consideration of the Governance Review report. Therefore, staff cannot meet this time frame, as the selection panel cannot be established until the new City Council is in place following the November election. With the support of its Advisory Committee members, staff recommends a winter recruitment/spring appointment process with the new term of office beginning May 1.

SECTION F) Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee By-law

Recommendation 2(m):

The enactment of the revised Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee By-law 2001-269 as outlined in the report and the associated by-law (Document 5).

Pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as amended, the City of Ottawa established its Heritage Committee (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee [“LACAC]) through By-law 2001 No. 269. The By-law was written to protect the continuance of a LACAC in 2001 when the former cities and townships of the Ottawa-Carleton Region were amalgamated under the Government Efficiency Act, 2002. The By-law has been updated as indicated in attached Document 5 to remove references to such wording as “repealing former City By-laws,” to correct departmental name changes and implement other administrative changes, all of which are noted in Document 5.

PART III

Governance Process - Other Related Matters

The Governance Review report also includes changes to the Delegation of Authority By-law and Public Notice By-law recommended by Legal Services, as well as identifying any adjustments needed to improve the City’s governance with respect to its arms-length Agencies, Boards and Commissions. In addition, it includes recommendations regarding the Deputy Mayor rotation by-law, the quasi-judicial License Committee, Nominating Committee and the Selection Panels for the citizen members of the Ottawa Public Library, the Ottawa Police Services Board and the Committee of Adjustment. The Ottawa Public Library has provided recommendations for setting up the Library Board for City Council’s consideration. In addition, staff is also recommending City Council consider undertaking a pilot White Paper approach to new, major policy development.

Overall, there are very few major changes to these areas being proposed at this time. Because Bill 130 has the potential to significantly affect these areas, it is believed that a more comprehensive review will be required for the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

SECTION A) Proposed Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law

Recommendation 2(n):

The enactment of the amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as outlined in the report.

Legal Services Branch regularly undertakes a review of the Delegation of Authority By-law in conjunction with the various departments to incorporate changes in administrative and operational practices. The proposed amendments reflect the input from the departments received during the latest review. For the most part, the changes involve clarifications in authority and transfers of responsibility as a result of organizational change. It contains a detailed description of the proposed amendments to the by-law. It should be noted that in this review, no changes were identified to the main body of the by-law; Schedule “A”, the City Manager or Schedule “C”, the Public Works and Services Department.

With respect to Schedule “B”, Community and Protective Services Department, Section 7 which dealt with the Innovative Housing Loan Fund of the former City of Ottawa is recommended to be repealed as the program no longer exists. However, a new section is proposed that would provide the Director of Housing and the Deputy City Manager with the delegated authority to enter into agreements related to a variety of housing services provided the agreements are in accordance with City policies, related to approved departmental programs and within approved budget limits. This authority is similar to authority that has previously been provided to the Director of Parks and Recreation and to the Director of Cultural Services and Community Funding. Similarly, delegated authorities to the Medical Officer of Health and the Directors of Parks and Recreation, Cultural Services and Community Funding and Employment and Financial Assistance have been amended to reflect the current operational responsibilities in the various program areas. A new delegated authority is proposed to Managers in Cultural Services and Community Funding to execute community funding service agreements where the total funding to be provided does not exceed $20,000 over a three-year period. All of these proposed amendments are intended to reflect current operational responsibilities and are consistent with delegated authorities previously approved by Council.

Some of the changes proposed to Schedule “D”, Planning and Growth Management Department, are to extend to the relevant staff at the Manager level some previously delegated authorities in order to maintain consistency in the level to which approval authorities have been delegated. In addition, references throughout the by-law to the Planning and Growth Management Department will be changed to the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to reflect the new department structure that is to take effect on December 1, 2006.

There are two new Sections proposed to Schedule “D” of the By-law. The first is to provide delegated authority to the Deputy City Manager and the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to enter into agreements where the City would be reimbursed by a third party for infrastructure works that the City completes for the third party where that party cannot complete the work itself, the City is in the process of doing work in the vicinity and extending the infrastructure would be both efficient and cost effective for both parties. Financial limits on the value of the works are included as well as a requirement for security if the third party is not a government agency. The second proposal is to add delegated authority to the Deputy City Manager, the Director of Economic Development and Strategic Projects and the Manager of Economic Development to enter into agreements related to the purchase of service for economic development initiatives and minor capital projects provided that the agreements are in keeping with City policies, within monetary limits consistent with those established in the Purchasing By-law and within approved budgets. This authority would assist the Branch to promote the participation of the City in various economic development initiatives.

With respect to Schedule “E”, Department of Corporate Services, the changes proposed relate to the Real Property Asset Management Branch and are intended to clarify and consolidate the delegated authorities previously approved by Council. No additional delegated authority is being recommended at this time for the Branch.

Concurrence With or Withdrawal of Delegated Authority – Planning Approvals

For most planning approvals, other than zoning by-laws and official plan amendments, staff have delegated authority to give approval. It is a prerequisite of granting such approval that the Ward Councillor concur. In the absence of such concurrence, the matter proceeds to Committee, and in such but not all cases, Council.

Pursuant to Council’s decision of 11 July 2001, where a Councillor does not provide his/her concurrence within three days (seven days in the case of site plans), the absence of such concurrence is deemed as a “no” and the matter is to proceed to Council. The practice has been for staff to seek to continue to work with the Councillor to see is his/her issues can be addressed. The extension of this period has led to delays in the approval processes and to resulting concerns being expressed to members of Council by the development industry.

Staff are not recommending a change to the Delegation of Authority By-law at this time but will monitor the situation and report back to Committee and Council during the 2006-2010 term of Council.

SECTION B) Proposed Amendments to the Public Notice By-law

Recommendation 2 (o):

The enactment of the amendments to the Public Notice By-law as outlined in the report.

The review identified that there were instances when the public notice requirements outlined in the By-law could not be met because of a requirement to deal with an urgent matter in a short time frame or because the content of the notice did not specifically comply with all aspects of the By-law even though some form of notice had been provided. As currently drafted, the By-law contains no provision that would enable City Council to waive the notice requirements under these circumstances or deem notice that had been given to be reasonable in the circumstances. It is therefore recommended that such a provision be included in the by-law to address these unique situations.

Schedule “A” to the By-law identifies the form of notice for various matters. As it is currently drafted, the notice requirements for road closures and permanent alterations to roads are combined. It is proposed to separate these two matters to clarify that notice is always required for road closures and only required for permanent alterations to a highway where access is deprived. The actual notice requirements will not change.

The item in Schedule “A” that describes the public notice required for street naming is recommended for repeal as this notice is contained in Section 6 of the Municipal Addressing By-law (By-law No. 2005-322).

Finally, with respect to the notice requirements for signs, it is recommended that the number of insertions in daily newspapers be reduced from two to one, a minimum of fourteen days before the matter is dealt with at the appropriate Standing Committee. In the opinion of staff, two insertions is not necessary as the departments having carriage of the various signs by-laws, each have extensive public consultations with stakeholders, communities, property owners and the sign industry prior to bringing forward new by-law provisions.

SECTION C) Deputy Mayor Rotation By-law

Recommendation 2(p):

The rotation list of Councillors to serve as Deputy Mayor as outlined in the report and associated by-law (Document 6).

Section 5 of the Procedure By-law outlines the process required for the establishment of a Deputy Mayor rotation list By-law. There were several suggestions to change the current practice of each Councillor being Deputy Mayor for a period time. One option was to have a single Deputy Mayor for the entire term; another was to have a Deputy Mayor for a period of one year.

As there was no consensus, staff is recommending the current practice continue and the use of the Deputy Mayor rotation list will remain unchanged. The City Clerk will also maintain the ability to forward any issue related to the rotation list to Council for its consideration.

SECTION D) License Committee

Animal Control Tribunal

Recommendation 2(q):

The enactment of the amendments to the Animal Care and Control By-law as outlined in the report.

The City has established a three-member sub-committee of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee of Council, known as the License Committee, which sits as a quasi-judicial body tasked with imposing suspensions or revocations of business licences. It also serves as the Animal Control Tribunal wherein it hears submissions from dog owners who wish to appeal the muzzle/leashing orders imposed by By-law Officers pursuant to the Animal Care and Control By-law 2003-77.

It is proposed that authority be delegated to the Director of By-law Services to act as the Tribunal for purposes of hearing appeals and rendering decisions on the muzzling/leashing orders. Since the Director is not directly involved with dog bite/attack investigations and has no prior knowledge of the incidents, it would be appropriate for her/him to render decisions on appeals of this nature. In addition, it is proposed that the Manager of Enforcement and Inspections, or her/his designate, represent the City, in particular in relation to hearings about dog bites to other domestic animals and that the Manager, or her/his designate, be the staff person responsible for the administrative functions related to muzzle orders and appeals to such orders. Varying with the circumstances, the ability to involve a representative from Legal Services Branch, as necessary (e.g. dog to human bites) is also proposed. The effective date of February 1, 2007 will allow sufficient time to prepare the amending by-law and to implement other necessary requirements.

The proposed revisions are intended to streamline the process for appeals to muzzling/leashing orders and reduce the workload of the Committee. Staff will continue the process of oral hearings, in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, whereby due process will prevail and fair hearings will be conducted. The proposed appeal structure and process are currently practised in other Ontario municipalities, such as the City of Toronto, with a high level of efficacy.

Citizen Members

In accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, the License Committee reviews cases relating to license suspensions, revocations, refusals and renewals brought forward by the Chief License Inspector and makes 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. As part of the 2003-2006 Governance Review, Council directed that staff pursue special legislation to appoint citizen members to the Committee. The request was also pursued as part of the City of Ottawa Act review.

Training

The License Committee is comprised of 3 members of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee (recommended to be part of the new Community and Protective Services Committee). In July 2005, Committee and City Council considered the City of Ottawa Act report (ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0037), which proposed a host of regulatory and statutory amendments to the City’s enabling legislation. During debate at the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting, concern was expressed regarding the removal of all elected officials from the License Committee given its quasi-judicial role. As such, the proposal was amended to read, “Authority for the Council to have the option to appoint citizen members to the License Committee.”

The proposed amendments of the City of Ottawa Act review are evident in Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act. Presently, Bill 130 includes provisions which could accommodate the appointment of citizen members to the License Committee.

The Canadian Institute is holding a conference entitled “Running a Fair Hearing - Essential Information for Tribunal Members and Arbitrators” to be held in Ottawa on January 22-23, 2007. Conference sponsors confirm that both municipal councillors and members of the general public have attended this seminar in the past. Staff recommend that the License Committee members attend this training seminar to help prepare them for the quasi-judicial role.

SECTION E) Nominating Committee

Recommendation 2(r):

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 City Council to Standing Committee, Boards and Selection Panels at a meeting scheduled for December 14, 2006.

Pursuant to Sections 87 – 89 of the Procedure By-law, Council must elect a Nominating Committee in accordance with the process set out in Section 88. 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 City Council, in addition to the Mayor as Chair of the committee, be elected to serve as the Nominating Committee.

Subsequent to City Council’s consideration and appointment of the Nominating Committee, staff will circulate to all members of Council, a survey of the Standing 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 citywide balance and perspective, into account.

It is proposed that the Nominating Committee would then convene a meeting on December 13, 2006 to consider the Councillors’ survey results and formulate their recommendations for Council approval on December 14, 2006.

Staff is also recommending that City Council approve the election and appointment of two members of City 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 2007 to review the citizen applications, conduct interviews and recommend to City Council the appointment of the citizen members to the three boards. Recruitment for these three legislated boards is being conducted in late 2006/07, in order to ensure that new boards are in operation early in the term of City Council.

SECTION F) Ottawa Public Library

Recommendation 2(s):

The Ottawa Public Library Guidelines as outlined in the report (Document 7).

The Ottawa Public Library (“OPL”) Board has forwarded its guidelines for Board membership and selection for City Council’s consideration (Document 7). These guidelines include: maintaining the current Board size of fourteen trustees; recognizing the commitment to provide library services in both official languages; making reasonable efforts to ensure that Board members show a clear interest in public libraries and in public service; and represent, as a whole, a diversity of geographic areas of the municipality and its urban/rural make-up; language and cultural groups; age distribution; and a variety socio-economic backgrounds representing the demographic nature of the municipality and that provides a mixture of professional and other skills related to the work of the library board or issues dealt with by the Board.

In addition to the guidelines, the OPL raised two other matters for Council’s consideration: reducing the number of Councillors who serve on the Board; and reflecting the ‘changing face of Ottawa’ on the Board.

SECTION G) Proposed Pilot for White Papers

Recommendation: 2(t)

The adoption of the White Paper pilot project as outlined in the report.

Improving public policy development is one of the major concerns for a number of City Councillors. To that end, staff is recommending the establishment of a pilot White Paper approach to new, major policy initiatives. The pilot, proposed to run for two years, will be designed so that:

• City Councillors will be able to provide more direction to staff at the beginning of the policy development process rather than at the end.

• City staff will have a more fulsome appreciation of what elected representatives want to see in terms of consultation, information and outcomes before work is begun on a new policy and incorporate that understanding as part of the initial development of the policy rather than after the work has already been done.
• Advisory Committees, stakeholders and citizens will be able to provide input to the White Paper early on in the policy development stage, as well as provide feedback on the final policy recommendations.

The recommended pilot White Paper process would be as follows:

• City Council identifies its major priority initiatives as part of the Corporate Plan process in early 2007;
• Staff identify those initiatives that would involve major new policies with a City-wide impact;
• Staff reports to Council on those policy initiatives that would be developed through the White Paper process and identifies the Standing Committee(s) that will receive the White Paper;
• When ready, a White Paper is prepared that is no more than five pages long and includes: what the policy would govern; the desired outcome; a summary of scope issues, jurisdiction issues, and financial issues; the options staff will examine with a summary of what, why and how and, the steps staff are planning to use for development of the policy.
• A White Paper will be tabled at a regular Standing Committee meeting for discussion as the only major item of business at the following meeting and public comments will be solicited.
• Following the discussion at Standing Committee and Council, a revised White Paper reflecting the additional directions is posted to the website for ongoing comment and policy development will occur as per White Paper direction.
• The final draft policy will then be forwarded to Standing Committee and then City Council for final approval.

This is very similar to the process used by provincial and federal ministries. Following the conclusion of the pilot project, a review of the results will be included as part of the 2008 mid-term Governance Review.

CONSULTATION

In drafting its recommendations, the City Clerk’s Branch undertook a review of the recent history of governance in the City of Ottawa and a bench marking process of other Canadian municipalities. As well, internal consultations took place. Specifically:

Ø All members of Council were invited to share their concerns or suggestions on the 2006 governance review priorities and staff met with the Mayor’s office and Councillors, one-on-one to discuss specific concerns.

Ø All members of the City’s Advisory Committees, Task Forces and Boards were circulated copies of the City’s Advisory Committee Procedure By-law, Terms of References, Operational Policies and staff met with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs on September 7, 2006.

Ø All Deputy City Managers were circulated with copies of the City’s Terms of Reference and invited to discuss the issues with their staff and forward any comments or concerns for governance review.

Ø Meetings were held with Council and Committee Services staff, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office.

All proposed changes were circulated to Legal Services, Information Technology Services and the Financial Services Branches for comment.

As comments were received, efforts were made to ensure that any proposed changes would align with identified priorities, accountability would remain intact and changes would contribute to an efficient and effective decision-making process. In addition, recommendations for the new governance structure were based on a general consensus for a change in mandate structure or process.

Outstanding proposals and matters raised during consultation and not addressed in the body of the report are summarized in the Consultation Details (Document 9).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Additional meeting days will require additional interpretation, web casting, sound and other logistical support and additional training dollars are required for License Committee members. The budget pressure is estimated to be approximately $80,000 annually.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Revised Council and Committee Procedure By-law

Document 2 - Revised Advisory Committee Procedure By-law

Document 3 - Revised Advisory Committee Appointment Policy

Document 4 - Revised Advisory Committee Participation Expense Policy

Document 5 - Revised Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee By-law

Document 6 - 2006 – 2010 Deputy Mayor Rotational By-law

Document 7 – Ottawa Public Library Guidelines

Document 8 – Standing Committee Quantitative Outputs

Document 9 – *Consultation Details

Document 10 – Auditor General’s By-law

Document 11 – Standing Committee Joint Meeting Procedure Policy

Document 12 – Advisory Committee Quantitative Outputs

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of the report by the 2006-20010 Council, staff in the applicable branches, in particular City Clerk’s Branch and Legal Services, will implement changes to all related processes, procedures and By-laws which are required to carry out the report as approved.

* Will follow under separate cover prior to December 6 , 2006 meeting of City Council.