December 11, 2012
Mrs. Wendy Fedec,
Executive Director,
Ottawa Police Services Board,
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1
Dear Mrs. Fedec,
It is my pleasure to provide to you the following report on the 2012 Ottawa Police Services Board Evaluation Process.
That the Ottawa Police Services Board:
1. Use the results from its 2012 Board Performance Evaluation Process to develop future board performance evaluation processes with due consideration to the continuous improvement opportunities outlined in this report.
2. Request the Board’s Policy and Governance Committee to work with the Board’s Executive Director to include continuous improvement in the Board’s effectiveness and performance evaluation process in the Board’s work plan.
3. Include an overview of the Board’s 2012 performance evaluation process as part of the Board’s annual report on performance, activities and training, and transmit the annual report to City Council, for its information.
In January 2006, the Ottawa Police Services Board (OPSB) approved a comprehensive plan for implementing the December 2005 City Auditor General’s recommendations from a Governance Audit of the Board. One of the key recommendations coming out of the Auditor General’s report was for the Board to carry out regular evaluations of its own performance. The Auditor General recommended regular board evaluation to help it ensure: the Board is accountable and meeting its key responsibilities; the adequacy and timeliness of information before the Board; appropriateness of agendas and time utilization; the Board’s effectiveness when working together and consensus achieved on key decision points; ensuring the Board is meeting its substantial legal and governance responsibilities; testing the effectiveness of its governance practices.
In response to the recommendations of the Auditor General the OPSB decided to move forward with the development of a board governance evaluation process and set a number of key objectives to achieve. These objectives were updated in 2012 to include:
The Policy & Governance (P&G) Committee drafted a board evaluation instrument for use by the Board late in the fall of 2006. Because this initiative was ground breaking the Board decided to take a measured approach, therefore the 2006 evaluation process was implemented as a pilot project to assist the Board in fine tuning both the overall process and the performance evaluation instrument to be used, including reporting. This first pilot was successful and resulted in the development of a work plan to assist the Board in continuously improving its performance. In the fall of 2009 the Board carried out its second full evaluation process.
Following the 2009 review the Board focused its attention on: educating members on their role and in particular the importance of representing the Board as a whole and not respective members’ constituencies; ensuring board members understand and support the role of the Board Chair; its communications policy and the critical importance of confidentiality; fair work allocation; open dialogue and a respectful board environment; and improvements to board member engagement in governance training and development opportunities, including a thorough review of the board’s orientation program.
This report addresses the 2012 process but also reflects on the results of the two prior processes. The Board retained an external consultant with experience in board governance and performance evaluation processes to assist it in conducting the process and assessing its success. The consultant is a principal of the Herne Company Limited, a public sector management consulting company with 25 years experience working in the public and not for profit sectors, who assisted with the pilot process in 2006 and the follow up process in 2009.
DISCUSSION
In order to provide an objective analysis of the OPSB’s performance it was important to consider the Board’s progress from 2006 to 2012 of its own evaluations and to once again measure the Board against recognized best practices in board governance within the police service board sector. The OPSB is one of the few police services boards in Ontario that carries out such a comprehensive evaluation process and is able to measure its progress against its prior experience.
The Canadian Association of Police Services Boards carried out an extensive study of best practices in board governance in 2004 and reported on its results in 2005. The following are a paraphrasing of the key findings of that study, which are relevant benchmarks against which to consider board performance:
· Determine composite skill set and inform appointing bodies of gaps
· Ensure tenure and rotation of members is appropriate and advise appointing bodies of requirements
· Ensure potential members understand the requirements/expectations of board members (workload, timing of meetings, remuneration, etc)
· Review systems and tools of governance that the board uses at least once every three years to be sure they are working effectively
· Carry out a board self assessment at least once every three years
· Ensure an up to date orientation program and materials for new members
· Continuously improve through education and training of board members
· Nurture the board’s relationship with the Chief of Police by ensuring clear division of responsibilities; clear and open communication; well articulated expectations; and agreed upon measures for performance on an annual basis
· Ensure adequate succession planning takes place
· Approve and monitor the process and implementation of a strategic plan and ensure strategic alignment of key planning tools
· Include risk management as an integral part of strategic planning and implementation
· Enhance oversight with an audit policy for policy, program and financial audits
· Ensure accountability with stakeholders and with employees
· Procedural by-laws, minutes, agenda, report formats and other governance tools including regular review cycles for policies are key elements to success.
When asked about its overall performance, the Ottawa Police Services Board members reported that it was performing ‘very well’ to ‘excellent’. This performance rating is on par or slightly above the rating for overall performance in 2009 and a measured improvement from its rating in 2006.
The Board’s evaluation survey provided five rankings which included: do not know; not being done; done but needs improvement; done adequately and done very well. The survey reviewed eleven areas, as well as considering general questions about the Board’s operation and performance. Those areas included: vision and mission stewardship; board structure and roles; board meetings and process; board/chief relations; external relations; external communications; board education and development; strategic/business planning; performance monitoring; financial stewardship and board performance and perception.
There are two significant changes to the survey from 2009: the addition of board performance and perception; and splitting ‘relations’ into three categories – board/chief relations, external relations and external communication. These changes allowed the board to assess its communications with various parties in greater depth, and to drill down into more detail on its own performance and key relationships with more precision. The increased focus on communication is as a result of the Communications Plan the Board commissioned in 2011. These changes also demonstrate the Board’s ongoing effort to continuously improve the performance evaluation tool to better serve its needs.
Generally, the Board found it performed ‘adequately’ to ‘very well’ in all of the areas noted above and especially in the following areas: vision and stewardship; board/chief relations and performance monitoring.
Interestingly, there is only overlap in one performance area when compared to its 2006 review. In 2006 the Board found it performed well in the following areas: vision and stewardship (the one area that overlapped in 2009 and 2012); board meetings and process; board relations and board education and development. In the 2009 review, there were two direct overlaps where the Board felt that it performed well. In 2009 the Board felt it performed well in vision and stewardship; community relations; strategic/business planning; performance monitoring and finance. The direct overlap between 2009 and 2012 is in vision and stewardship and in performance monitoring. Due to the changes in the evaluation tool over the past six years one could also draw some overlap over the past three reviews with a rating of performing well within the general area of board relations.
As part of the Board evaluation, members were asked to identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Board. In the past two reviews the Board identified a couple common strengths but this year the list was varied In 2012 the strengths the Board identified included: a strong set of guiding principles; a well informed Board; diversity of Board membership; commitment to the role and work of the Board and to serving the community; and excellent collaboration between Board, Board staff, and the OPS executive team (already mentioned).
In 2006 the Board echoed some of these strengths noting that the Board’s composition was well balanced in terms of experience, skills, gender and diversity and that with this positive mix the Board worked well together in an open and respectful manner. In 2009 the Board members most often noted the excellent relationship the Board had with the Chief of Police. It also noted among its strengths that year the fact that its composition is varied with a good mix of experience. ‘Community relations’ is also referenced with an emphasis on good communication and responsiveness to community needs, supported by senior police management. With the aid of its governance tools the Board reported that it worked well together and that there was a good rapport and cooperation between members.
Clearly the composition of the Board and its diversity as well as the excellent working relationships the Board enjoys with key staff are critical to the continued success of the Board. During this period the Board has recruited a new Chief of Police and has seen other changes in senior management but has transitioned well through these challenging processes of chief and deputy chief selections and orientation to the Board.
In 2012 the weaknesses identified by the Board focused on the challenge of the work load and the time required to fulfill the role and share equitably in the work of the Board. The strength of the Chair is seen as helpful to contain the impact these challenges could have on the Board’s performance. As can be seen below both in 2009 and in 2006 these matters were noted as weaknesses.
In 2009 weaknesses identified by the Board included confusion by the public about the role of the Board, which is a common concern amongst police services boards. The primary concern raised was the level of commitment and interest devoted to the work of the Board by some members. Member participation was noted as somewhat uneven. Concern was also raised with regard to the tenure of Board members, noting that for continuity the terms should be more carefully planned in terms of length and how appointment tenures are staggered. The appointment process and length of terms is outside of the control of the Ottawa Police Services Board, but is an area the Board can advocate for change. Finally it was noted that when developing the Board’s work plan, it would be helpful to consider a longer horizon in terms of issues brought to the Board as well as allotting more time for more in-depth policy review.
The weaknesses identified by the Board in 2006 included concern with board member participation; the importance of maintaining a proper balance of skills and experience on the Board; improvement in achieving greater public participation in the work of the Board and the fiscal capacity of the Board to access independent third party advice.
When asked for recommendations for important changes to improve the performance of the Board the members did not make any process or policy change recommendations but did reinforce the importance of the time and commitment required to address the significant work load of the Board.
2012 Board Performance Evaluation Analysis
The following are areas the Board identified, through the evaluation, as those requiring improvement to be addressed in its future work plans. As noted above there were many areas the Board identified as being done adequately or being done very well. These are not addressed in this report. Only the areas where opportunity exists for continuous improvement are reviewed in this report.
2.0 Board Structure and Roles
Indicative Results:
The majority of respondents believed that the Board Structure and Roles criteria were being done either adequately or very well. Of note in the being done very well ranking is the Board’s regular review of its policies and the Board’s written policies and procedures that define how it operates, and the performance and reporting of the Board committees. These high rankings were also received in 2009.
Continuous Improvement Opportunities:
Once again in this review, although to a much lesser extent then in 2006 and 2009, there is scope for improvement to ensure Board members understand their role. This concern was reflected in the ranking as well as in general comments by Board members. Training and educating the Board at the time of orientation and on an ongoing basis is critical. The Board Chair may also want to monitor this on a meeting-by-meeting basis and provide input to members as appropriate using a one-on-one approach. Other ways that reinforcement of the role of the board member might be enhanced is in the material provided to potential board members and as questions during the interview process for new board members. It is understood that the Board already has a clear and comprehensive description of the role and the time it takes to meet the demands of this important civic function. The OPSB may want to discuss with its provincial association and with the Big 12 boards how best to advocate for the province to adopt this material.
3.0 Board Meetings and Process:
The results in this area were generally ranked higher than in previous years which is note worthy, because performance of the Board’s processes are key to it operating successfully. Respondents indicated that the following are done very well: respect for the role of the Chair as the official spokesperson; reference to and enforcement of the Board’s conflict of interest policy at meetings; an accurate record of Board meeting proceedings and decisions; and the annual work plan being aligned with the Board’s goals. The marked improvement for respect for the role of the Chair reflects not only the strength and skill of the Chair but also the Board’s efforts to address an issue that was previously (2009) noted as needing improvement.
Continuous Improvement Opportunity:
As noted above the Board’s meetings and processes were generally ranked as very good but one area that was noted for improvement was that all members of the Board need to work on fully participating in discussions at the Board. This matter receive a lower ranking than all others in this category, and throughout the survey written comments from Board members indicated that this is an ongoing challenge. It is our understanding that the Board already uses tools such as a consent agenda to assist with the efficiency of the meetings and that reports are carefully developed to facilitate good decision making. There may be a correlation in the levels of participation at Board meetings between engagement in training opportunities, and understanding the role of a board member and what is involved both in terms of meeting preparation and the time required to prepare. Failure to engage in appropriate training and development opportunities limits their ability to participate effectively as a board member. The Board Chair may wish to follow up with individual board members who appear to be reticent.
6.0 External Communications
Indicative Results:
This category is one of three dealing with relationships. The first (4.0) deals with Board/ Chief Relations and in this category the Board viewed all aspects as being done adequately or more predominantly being very well done. This is a critical relationship which should continue to be nurtured through open two way communication. The second area (5.0) deals with External Relations and it too was generally ranked as being well done.
In the final category of External Communications the Board continues to be concerned about the public’s understanding of the role of the Board. This concern also extends to understanding of the role of the Board by Council and the OPS rank and file.
Continuous Improvement Opportunity:
The Ottawa Police Services Board developed and implemented a robust community engagement strategy so it is not due to a lack of effort on its part that the public hasn’t taken full advantage of this initiative. The issue of lack of understanding of the role of a police services board by the public, Council and the police service rank and file is an issue that is shared by all police services boards across the province, if not the country. The Board may wish to seek the engagement of all of the members of the Big 12, the OAPSB and the CAPB in a project to develop a new approach(es) to this matter that targets the community, Councils and the police service rank and file, as well as continuing with its current efforts.
7.0 Board Education and Development
Indicative Results:
While generally ranked as being done adequately or being done very well, two areas appear to be of some concern to members including fully understanding the ‘working conditions’ for Board members, which includes the time this role requires and the need to be available evenings and occasionally on weekends. The second area is the need for the Board to dedicate time to group learning on both governance and emerging issues. While the Board orientation is generally well received, some members believe it would be enhanced with an information component about the Ottawa Police Service.
Continuous Improvement Opportunity:
An annual review of the orientation process, its information and materials, should be undertaken including feedback from members on how to continuously improve the orientation. This process of review will help reinforce the role of the board member. The Board should also review the materials used to recruit new board members to ensure that the ‘working conditions’ are clearly set out. This information should also be shared with the province for use in its appointments selection process.
As was recommended in 2009, committing time for group learning experience designed to improve the Board’s effectiveness as a governing body and its understanding of emerging issues is a valuable exercise. As this Board is clearly dedicated to continuous improvement, activities for group learning and identification of emerging needs should be discussed. Scheduled group learning experiences to improve the Board’s effectiveness as a governing body should be part of the Board’s annual work plan with an emphasis on those areas identified as weak by the Board through this evaluation and through continuing dialogue about the Board’s performance. A regular environmental scan may help the Board to identify and discuss emerging issues. One approach the Board may wish to consider is to hold quarterly “Early Warning Summits” with senior police management and members of the Board. This can be an informal discussion used to focus solely on the identification and discussion of emerging trends within the sector or emerging issues within the community.
Attending conferences like the OAPSB’s, which regularly includes sessions on board governance training would also help with Board Education and Development.
8.0 Strategic/Business Planning
Indicative Results:
This was generally seen as being done adequately or very well, although the ranking for the Board spending sufficient time on strategic and planning issues, and the Board’s annual workshops devoted to developing its strategic leadership and priority setting role, did not rank as highly as the other areas.
Continuous Improvement Opportunity:
The continuous improvement opportunity for regular environmental scans or “early warning summits’ outlined for 7.0 would also be applicable within this area.
10.0 Financial Stewardship
Indicative Results:
The majority of the Board felt activities in this area are completed adequately or very well. This reflects a marked improvement over the earlier Board evaluation results in this area.
11.0 Board Member Performance and Perception
Indicative Results:
Members felt the Board is functioning adequately or very well in all but one area in this section. The survey results indicate that there is an opportunity for improved participation levels to ensure the Board’s work load is shared equitably. This matter has been raised in a number of areas throughout the evaluation. It is likely directly related to a lack of understanding of the role of a police services board member and the conflicts that arise due to the competing demands of work or Council duties and this role.
Continuous Improvement Opportunity:
Earlier sections of this report provide ideas that the Board may wish to pursue to help address this issue.
The following are high level statements in each of the areas identified as opportunities for continuous improvement. The Board should review and discuss these statements and the actions it feels appropriate to take to achieve these outcomes.
Board Structure and Role
The tenure and role of members is appropriate for the Board to perform well as a highly functioning team.
Each Board member understands their role.
Board Meeting and Process
Board members participate fully in discussions at Board meetings.
External Communications
The public understands the Board’s role.
City Council understands the Board’s role.
Board Education and Development
Before being appointed, I had sufficient information about the ‘working conditions’ for Board members.
The Board commits time to group learning opportunities that are designed to improve board effectiveness and group discussions which help identify and address emerging issues.
Strategic/Business Planning
At Board meetings, the Board devotes sufficient time to strategic and planning issues.
The Board holds annual workshops devoted to developing its strategic leadership and priority setting role.
Board Member Performance and Perception
All members are carrying their weight and sharing the work load.
The Board is to be congratulated for once again implementing and successfully completing this process. It had 100% participation in the process, within the time frame set for completion.
The Board should review the findings in this report against what it hoped to achieve from this Board performance evaluation process. The findings indicate that the systems and processes the Board has in place to guide the Board’s governance are functioning well. Even the best designed process will not function as effectively and optimally as it can without the full participation of all of the individual board members.
The board evaluation instrument appears to have worked very well for the members of the Board and it is therefore recommended that it should continue to form the basis for future formal Board evaluations. The OPSB should task its Policy & Governance Committee with fine tuning the evaluation instrument with input from its members based on its expectations and what was realized through this process. This should be done now while the experience is fresh and reviewed before the Board performance evaluation is administered again in three years.
Finally it is recommended that the Board, through its Policy Committee and Executive Director, consider some of the suggested activities in the Continuous Improvements sections of this report to be incorporated into its annual work plan. Clearly the Board will, through discussion, have to confirm the key findings and determine its priorities for the work plan.
The Board is to be congratulated for once again proactively embracing this opportunity to improve its governance practices and effectiveness through its third formal board performance evaluation process. Opportunities exist for the Board to continue with the review cycle and to further improve its effectiveness. However, it is clear from this performance evaluation process that the efforts of the Board since 2006 have been making a positive impact on the Board's operations in key areas. This not only demonstrates the Board's commitment to continuously improve but also supports the value of continuing this Board performance review process.
(Original signed by)
Barbara Hume-Wright
President
Herne Company Ltd.