Report to:
Submitted by: Steve Kanellakos, A/City Manager
Contact Person: Pierre Pagé, Director/City Clerk
Secretariat
Services
(613)
580-2424 x22408, Pierre.Page@Ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
That, at its meeting on 19
November 2003, the 2000-2003 Council receive and table the "Council
Governance Review - 2003 - 2006 Council" report, specifically
recommendations 2 a) to 2 x) inclusive and the associated appendices.
2.
That, at its meeting on 3
December 2003, the 2003-2006 Council consider and approve the following
recommendations:
PART A – STANDING COMMITTEES OF CITY
COUNCIL - STRUCTURE
a) The continuation of the current Planning and Development Committee to act
as an Interim Planning and Development Committee (re-elected members only) to
consider any public hearings and planning issues that may occur between 3
December 2003 and the appointment of the new Committee structure and membership
in January 2004.
b)
The following structure for Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Corporate Services and Economic Development Standing Committee
§
Emergency and Protective Services Standing Committee
§
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee
§
Planning and Environment Standing Committee
§
Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Standing Committee
PART B – ADVISORY COMMITTEES
AND BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL –
STRUCTURE
c) The
following structure for Advisory Committees and Boards for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Accessibility Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
§
Environmental Advisory Committee
§
Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services Advisory Committee
§
Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
§
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
§
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
§
Seniors Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory Committee
§
Youth Advisory Committee
§
License Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board
PART
C – CITY OF OTTAWA DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIVE GROUPS
d) The following change in structure from Advisory Committee to Departmental Consultative Group for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
§
Richmond Conservation Area Departmental
Consultative Group
PART D – GOVERNANCE PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION
e)
The revised Terms of Reference for all Standing Committees be submitted
in draft form to the first meeting of the Committees in January for review and
approval.
f)
The enactment of a revised Council and Standing
Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the report and the associated by-law.
(Document 9).
g)
The enactment of an Advisory Committee Procedure By-law, inclusive of a
Code of Conduct and guidelines, as outlined in the report and the associated
by-law. (Document 10).
h)
The rotation list of Councillors to serve as Deputy Mayor in the
absence of the Mayor be comprised of all members of Council as outlined in the
report and the associated by-law.
(Document 11).
i)
The proposed amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as
outlined in the report and the associated by-law. (Document 12).
j)
The Standing Committee and Council meeting schedule as outlined in the
report. (Document 14).
k)
The location of City Council meetings for the 2003-2006 term to be
Andrew Haydon Hall at City Hall.
l)
The guidelines and efficiency improvements for staff attendance at
Standing Committee meetings as outlined in the report.
m)
The Standing and Advisory Committee minutes and agenda standards as
outlined in the report.
n)
An overall reduction in Advisory Committee membership to between 9-11
members for each Committee, to be achieved gradually over time for all
Committees, and revisions to the Appointment Policy for Advisory Committees,
Boards and Authorities as outlined in the report, as well as guidelines for
addressing membership for merged Advisory Committees.
o)
The revised process for recruitment for Advisory Committee members as
outlined in the report to improve and streamline the process.
p)
The guidelines for training for Advisory Committee members to improve
member effectiveness and provision of advice to Council, to be provided by
staff in a cost effective manner, as outlined in the report.
q)
The elimination of $150,000 annually in Advisory Committee workplan
funding, and confirm the requirement for Advisory Committees to submit annual
reports and workplans outlining priorities for each year.
r)
The review of the Advisory Committee structure and Terms of Reference
at the end of every term of Council.
s)
The mandate for staff to review and recommend continuous improvements
to the Governance Structure and associated elements at the end of every term of
Council.
PART E – OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
t) That Legal Services Branch be directed to seek special enabling legislation from the Province to permit the appointment of citizen members to serve as the License Committee, as outlined in the report.
u)
An amendment to the By-law for the Ottawa Public Library Board to
revise the membership on the Board to 14 members (four Councillors) as outlined in the report. (Document 15).
v)
The election and appointment of six members of Council (two members per
panel) to serve as the Selection Panel for citizen members for each of the
following (to meet in January 2004 to review citizen applications for
appointment for the 2004-2006 term):
§
Committee of Adjustment Selection Panel
§
Ottawa Public Library Board Selection Panel
§
Ottawa Police Services Board Selection Panel
w)
The election and appointment of 10 members of Council to serve as the
Nominating Committee, in addition to the Mayor as Chair, to make
recommendations to Council on appointments of members of Council to Standing
and Advisory Committees, Boards and Selection Panels at a meeting scheduled for
Friday, January 9, 2004.
x)
The creation of a Citizen’s Task Force to review the 1/3 tax free
portion of elected representative compensation and review elected
representative compensation in general, office and salary budgets and make
recommendations to Council in 2004.
REPORT
INDEX
|
SECTION |
PAGE
NO. |
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
07 |
|
BACKGROUND |
08 |
|
PART A – STANDING COMMITTEES OF CITY COUNCIL – STRUCTURE Introduction Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Emergency and Protective Services Committee Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee Planning and Environment Committee Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Committee Transfer of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
responsibilities Transfer of the Audit Committee responsibilities Transfer of the Environmental Services Committee responsibilities Transfer of the Member Services Committee mandate Interim Planning and Development Committee |
11 13 15 15 16 17 18 20 20 21 21 |
|
PART B – ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL – STRUCTURE Introduction Advisory Committee
to Council Accessibility
Advisory Committee Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Advisory Committee – Dissolution Arts, Heritage and
Culture Advisory Committee City-School Boards
Liaison Committee – Dissolution Environmental
Advisory Committee Equity and Diversity
Advisory Committee French Language
Services Advisory Committee Greenspace and
Forests Advisory Committee Health and Social
Services Advisory Committee Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee Pineview Municipal
Golf Course Board Poverty Issues
Advisory Committee Ottawa Municipal
Campground Authority Seniors Advisory
Committee Taxi Advisory
Committee – Dissolution Transportation
Advisory Committee Youth Advisory
Committee |
22 24 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 |
|
PART C – CITY OF OTTAWA
DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIVE GROUPS Departmental
Consultative Group Cycling Departmental
Consultative Group Richmond
Conservation Area Departmental Consultative Group |
37 38 38 |
|
PART D – GOVERNANCE
PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION Standing Committees
Terms of Reference Procedure By-law –
Amendments Advisory Committee
Procedure By-law Deputy Mayor
Rotation By-law Delegation of
Authority By-law – Amendments Meeting Schedule Location of City
Council Meetings Staff Attendance at
Standing Committee meetings – Improved
Efficiencies Minute and Agenda
Standards Advisory Committee
Membership Advisory Committee
Member Recruitment Advisory Committee
Member Training Advisory Committee
Workplan Funding, Requirement for Annual Reports
and Workplans Review of Advisory
Committee Terms of Reference Each Term of
Council Review of Governance
Structure and Associated Elements Each Term of
Council |
39 39 42 44 44 45 47 48 48 51 52 53 54 54 55 |
|
PART E – OTHER RELATED
MATTERS License Committee Ottawa Public
Library Board Membership Nominating Committee
and Committee / External Board Appointments Councillors’
Compensation |
55 57 58 59 |
|
CONSULTATION |
60 |
|
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS |
61 |
|
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION |
61 |
|
DISPOSITION |
62 |
|
APPENDICES Governance Options
presented during the Transition Process The new City’s
Governance Structure Governance: Theories
and Trends Ottawa’s Public
Participation Policy Benchmarking and
Municipal Reviews |
63 65 66 68 70 |
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
The Governance Review report includes a
comprehensive review of the recent history of governance in the City of Ottawa,
benchmarking and best practises research of other Canadian municipalities and
trends in governance.
The report contains a series of inter-connected
recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure.
A
set of principles was developed to guide the review of Ottawa’s governance,
focusing on important relationships and structures for achieving and improving
effective and accountable governance.
The primary objectives of the review included the following:
Recommendations
for the new governance structure have been based on the guiding principles for
the governance review combined with two clear criteria:
Financial Implications:
The proposed reduction in the number of Standing and
Advisory Committees, and the change in minute standards will result in annual
savings of $212,000. Elimination of the Advisory Committee workplan funding
will result in additional savings of $150,000; resulting in total annual
savings of $362,000. These savings
are based on the structures and standards recommended in this report, and would
be reduced in proportion to any committee additions or standards amendments.
Public Consultation/Input:
Broad public consultation and input was not sought
in the course of the governance review, as the recommendations refer to
processes and structure fully within the purview of elected officials, and
represent the development of a governance structure that will determine the way
in which City Council will carry out business over this term. However, a number of internal consultation
activities were conducted, as outlined below:
§ A prioritization survey on
all City services and their focus for Committee mandates was prepared and
distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory Committees to
determine areas of priority for Committee mandate.
§ A self-evaluation survey on
each member’s role on a Committee, as well as the role of the Committee as a
whole was distributed to all members of Council and all members of Advisory
Committees to determine opportunities for efficiency improvements.
§ Members of Council were
contacted to provide input on the governance structure.
§ Each Departmental Management
Team (General Managers and Directors) provided input to the governance
structure and identified opportunities for improvement.
§ A meeting was held with lead
department representatives to Advisory Committees to provide input on the
Advisory Committee structure and departmental relationships with Advisory
Committees.
§ A meeting was held with the
Council and Committee Services Division, which provides support to the entire
governance structure to receive their input and suggestions as service
deliverer.
§ A meeting was held with all
Chairs and Vice Chairs of Advisory Committees to gather input and suggestions
on recommendations for improvement directly related to the Advisory Committee
process.
In addition to this internal consultation,
municipalities across Canada were also contacted to gather information about
governance structures and trends.
BACKGROUND
When the new City of Ottawa was created in 2001, one
of its first challenges was to define its own governance structure. The new City’s first Council wanted a
governance structure that would maximize public participation and streamline
decision-making. They wanted to make
sure the Committee structure and the guidelines and procedures for the
legislative process were designed to provide citizens and stakeholders the
opportunity to be involved with policy and service decisions prior to Council
approval. As well, the structure and
governance rules would enhance transparency and accountability throughout the
decision-making process. To that end, in early 2001, City Council set up 9
Standing Committees and 16 Advisory Committees (2 more Advisory Committees and
2 Task Forces were added later)[1].
These committees, together with those Boards and Authorities that were retained
from the former municipalities, formed the basis of the governance structure of
the new City of Ottawa from 2001-2003.
The Committee structure and legislative process
adopted by the City of Ottawa, and the policies and procedures governing their
operation, can best be described as the “Strong Council” model (as opposed to
the “Strong Mayor/Executive” model) of governance.[2] While both models are employed in
municipalities across Canada, the Strong Council model is the most common. The
shared features of a Strong Council governance structure include establishing
committees which assist Council in carrying out its decision making policies,
creating opportunities for engaging the community/public participation and
establishing an equitable division of workload among Councillors and
Committees.
Because both the City government and the City’s
governance structure were new, no performance indicators had been determined to
see how well Ottawa’s structure matched Council’s goals. While the City had the
governance models of the 12 former municipalities, and the recommended
governance models from the Special Advisor on Local Government Reform and the
Ottawa Transition Board[3]
to use as references, there was no way to anticipate whether or not or how the
new structure would work.
Over the first term of Council, it became clear
that, while much of the current structure was working well, there were clear
challenges that needed to be addressed. The sheer number of committees meant
that at least one Standing Committee, Advisory Committee, Board or Authority
was meeting every day of the week, and often there were two meetings in a day.
This meant a significant increase in the time Councillors had to spend in
legislative meetings at City Hall, at the expense of community meetings and
time for dealing directly with constituent concerns. As well, it was clear that
workloads across Committees were not balanced and that the rules governing
meetings needed to be adjusted to address areas that were not working. While some Advisory Committees were working
well within the established framework, others needed to be redefined to
optimize their efforts.
Council directed Secretariat Services to review the
governance structure and propose solutions to address the existing
challenges. Before proposing solutions,
Secretariat Services undertook a comprehensive review of the recent history of
governance in the City of Ottawa,[4]
trends in governance[5],
and a benchmarking/best practises research of other Canadian municipalities[6].
As well, extensive internal consultation took place.
Specifically:
§ All members of Council and
all members of Advisory Committees were sent a prioritization survey to
determine areas of priority for Committee mandates and a self-evaluation survey
on the roles of the Committee and members on the Committee.
§ A meeting was held with all
Chairs and Vice Chairs of Advisory Committees to gather input and suggestions
on recommendations for improvement directly related to Advisory Committee
process.
§ A meeting was held with lead
department representatives to Advisory Committees to provide input on the
Advisory Committee structure and departmental relationships with Advisory
Committees.
§ Members of Council and each
Departmental Management Team (General Managers and Directors) provided input to
the governance structure and identified opportunities for improvement.
§ A meeting was held with the
Council and Committee Services Division to receive their input and suggestions,
because they support governance services.
As solutions were developed, efforts were made to
ensure that necessary changes and improvement changes would align with identified
priorities, ensure that programs and services met the designated expectations
and objectives, allow for effective public/community consultation and
participation, contribute to an efficient and effective decision-making
process, and ensure that the governance structure and related processes remain
accountable to the community.
Accountability will also be considerably enhanced by Ottawa’s Public
Participation Policy, adopted by City Council in October, 2003. This policy
will include the creation of a Roundtable for Citizen Engagement, and commits
the City to consult residents in a meaningful way on issues that affect them.[7]
In addition, recommendations for the new governance
structure have been based on two clear criteria:
The results involve recommended changes to the
Standing Committee structure, the Advisory Committee structure, the Procedure
By-law, the Delegated Authority By-law, and a number of other areas. The series
of proposals involves several different inter-related components, each of which
constitutes a different part of the City’s on-going efforts to be a responsive,
effective and accountable government.
The City’s new structure would see the creation 5
Standing Committees with more balanced workloads, 13 Advisory Committees, 5
miscellaneous Boards, and 2 Departmental Working Groups. When taken together,
the governance changes proposed either enhance the current decision-making
process, or meet current goals and expectations. They will save the City
$362,000 annually.
“The following structure
for Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the
report, effective immediately:
§
Corporate Services and Economic Development Standing Committee
§
Emergency and Protective Services Standing Committee
§
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee
§
Planning and Environment Standing Committee
§
Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Standing Committee”
As
noted in the Background section of the report, there are presently nine
Standing Committees, as follows (Reference Document 7 for an organization chart
of the existing governance structure, and Document 8 for the proposed
governance structure):
§
Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee
§
Audit Committee
§
Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee
§
Emergency and Protective
Services Committee
§
Environmental Services
Committee
§
Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee
§
Member Services
Committee
§
Planning and Development
Committee
§
Transportation and
Transit Committee
The
recommendations described in detail below propose a revised Standing Committee
structure based on five committees, versus the previous nine.
Recommendations
for the new structure have been based on the guiding principles for the
governance review (Continuously improving the organization’s work practises and
procedures; Ensuring that programs and services meet the designated
expectations and objectives; Ensuring that there is effective public
consultation; Ensuring that the governance structure is accountable to the
community; Contributing to an efficient and effective decision-making process;
and Ensuring that the governance structure is aligned with identified
priorities). In addition, benchmarking and best practises research in other
municipalities and organizations, as well as consultation, was used to
determine recommendations for the proposed structure.
For
Standing Committees where changes are proposed, it should be noted that all
recommendations were measured using the following methodology.
If
a Committee did not meet all three criteria, change has not been recommended at
this time.
In
general, consultation during the governance review showed that the Standing
Committee structure is working well, and could be improved with opportunities
for streamlining and increased efficiency.
These opportunities specifically related to the following concerns:
imbalance in workloads between Committees; time spent in meetings; and a need
to refocus priorities and attention for decision-making purposes at a more
refined level. Many members of Council
also noted an over-abundance of meetings that required a significant amount of
their time, thereby limiting their ability to address issues in their wards, or
other broader issues of priority.
Fewer
committees and fewer meetings should resolve many of these concerns, and will
place the priority for decision-making on policy, priority and focus, and
achieve a more balanced workload. In
addition, the rebalancing of workload, and streamlining of focus will place the
emphasis for decision-making within the guiding principles for good governance.
The
review of the City of Ottawa governance structure also included an examination
of the quantitative outputs and actions taken by the Standing Committees
created in 2001, as an attempt to measure their productivity, decision-making
and effectiveness. Set out below is a
summary of these findings, followed by a review of each Standing Committee.
COMMITTEE
|
#
OF MEETINGS |
#
OF ITEMS DISCUSSED |
#
OF JOINT MEETINGS |
#
OF PUBLIC DELEGATIONS |
#
OF MEETING HOURS |
#
OF ITEMS THAT ROSE TO COUNCIL |
|
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee |
33 |
116 |
3 |
140 |
68 |
54 |
|
Audit
Committee |
15 |
58 |
1 |
4 |
19 |
34 |
|
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee |
57 |
609 |
4 |
429 |
189 |
500 |
|
Emergency
and Protective Services Committee |
37 |
168 |
2 |
234 |
119 |
67 |
|
Environmental Services Committee |
39 |
156 |
1 |
166 |
82.5 |
69 |
|
Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee |
48 |
340 |
3 |
768 |
205 |
254 |
|
Member
Services Committee |
7 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
6.5 |
0 |
|
Planning
and Development Committee |
58 |
899 |
5 |
1727 |
365 |
728 |
|
Transportation and Transit Committee |
53 |
256 |
2 |
450 |
230 |
207 |
[Note: Statistics gathered reflect meetings from
January 2001 to the end of August 2003, and also reflect the impact of the
consideration of the Official Plan in 2003 on number of meetings, items
considered, public delegations and hours of meetings. Reports that rose to
Council as a result of joint meetings of Committees are not reflected.]
The Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee is responsible for providing
direction on the administration of the City of Ottawa with a view to
strengthening management and administrative practices, providing policy
guidance on all matters of a financial or administrative nature, as well as
corporate strategic planning and policies that have a long-term impact on the
corporation, and developing recommendations on issues relating to
economic/business development.
Presently,
items considered by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
represent 27% of items that rise to Council for decision.
It
is recommended that in streamlining the governance structure, there occur a
transfer of responsibilities from the Environmental Services Committee to other
Standing Committees. The Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
would assume the following responsibility currently within the purview of the
Environmental Services Committee:
The
City of Ottawa presently has a Member Services Committee, comprised of three
members of Council who review, consider and approve issues relating to the
elected representatives and specifically their office and salary budgets and
operation. These issues are fully
within the purview of the Member Services Committee, and have not risen to City
Council in the last term.
The Member Services Committee does not at this time
have a formalized Terms of Reference for its operation, however Section 80 of
the existing Procedure By-law references the Committee and its role as follows:
1.
The Member Services
Committee shall be composed of three members of Council.
2.
The Member Services
Committee has jurisdiction regarding:
a)
the administration of
the offices of the Councillors;
b)
expenditures by
Councillors;
c)
entitlement of
Councillors to City facilities and resources for the performance of their
duties; and
d)
personnel matters
related to:
I.
the offices of the
Councillors, or
II.
the performance by the
Councillors of their duties.
The Member Services Committee
has considered reports on some of the following issues over the 2001-2003 term
of Council:
§
Report of the Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries
– Transitional Arrangements for Workload Support – Growth Wards
In
the interests of accountability, public participation and effective and
efficient governance, it is recommended that these issues become part of the
mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee. It is recommended that should the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee choose, these issues could be addressed
by a sub-committee (i.e. the Member Services sub-committee).
The Audit Committee is responsible for providing, on behalf of City Council, oversight on matters relating to financial reporting and assurance that an effective control and governance framework is in place.
The
creation of a separate standing committee to serve the work of this single
department is not well supported from a good governance perspective, when there
is general agreement its mandate and workload could be easily transferred to the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.
General
consultation reflected that the current mandate and structure for the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee is an effective part of the
existing governance structure at the City.
The membership of the revised Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee is recommended below:
Emergency and Protective
Services Committee
The
Emergency and Protective Services Committee is responsible for issues relating
to Fire Services, Emergency Medical Services, By-law Services and Emergency
Measures.
Presently, items considered
by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee represent 4% of items that
rise to Council for decision.
It is recommended that the
Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting schedule be reduced from
two meetings per month to one meeting per month to reflect the workload of the
Committee and the likelihood of a decrease in the number of potential
departmental items that will rise to the Committee for consideration during the
2003-2006 term of Council. In consultation
with existing Committee members, there was a general consensus that the work of
the Committee could be effectively achieved with one meeting per month.
General consultation
reflected that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee is operating
well within the governance structure. However the agendas for many meetings
have been light, and could be accommodated within the proposed reduced
schedule.
The membership of the Emergency and Protective
Services Committee is recommended below:
Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee
The Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee is responsible for
issues relating to Housing, Public Health, Long Term Care, Community Services
(including children’s services, recreation and culture), Employment and
Financial Assistance, Innovation, Development and Partnerships (including
community funding and cultural affairs) and the Ottawa Public Library.
Presently, items considered
by the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee represent 13% of items
that rise to Council for decision.
General consultation reflected that the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee was working effectively in the
existing governance structure. Some comments
were received on the importance of recreation and parks issues in the City, and
a proposal was submitted that called for the creation of a separate Standing
Committee to address these issues. The
creation of a standing committee to deal with very few issues is not deemed an
effective use of time, resources or accountability, and the proposal was not
recommended. Should the Committee
choose, they could create a sub-committee to address recreation issues (i.e.
the Recreation sub-committee).
The membership of the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee is recommended below:
Planning and Environment
Committee
The Planning and Development Committee is currently responsible for the
investigation of physical, social, economic and environmental conditions in the
development and implementation of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, making
recommendations on issues relating to Building Services; Planning and Infrastructure
Approvals; and, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy.
Presently, items considered
by the Planning and Development Committee represent 39% of items that rise to
Council for decision.
The proposed name change from Planning and Development
Committee to the Planning and Environment Committee reflects the new emphasis
in the committee mandate on environmental policy and environmental
sustainability, as well as the principles of the Official Plan relating to
environmental issues, and smart growth rather than strictly on development
related initiatives.
There
was general consensus that, in the streamlining of the governance structure,
there be a transfer of responsibilities from the Environmental Services
Committee to other Standing Committees.
It is recommended that the Planning and Environment Committee assume the
following areas within the current mandate of the Environmental Services
Committee:
§ Responsibility
for environmental policy issues;
§ Review and revise, if
necessary, staff comments and recommendations on environmental initiatives as
proposed by the Federal and Provincial Governments; and
§ Ensure co-ordination and
consultation with other committees and departments where responsibilities
overlap on issues of environmental protection and on issues relevant to the
mandate of more than one committee.
General consultation reflected that the workload of
the Planning and Development Committee was significantly greater than other
Standing Committees, however that may have been related to the Official Plan
process undertaken during the last term of Council. Some suggestions relating to the transfer of local zoning and
planning items to community councils or local boards were received during
consultation, but there was no general consensus on this option. Furthermore,
the transfer of zoning and local planning issues out into the community for
decision-making could result in uneven or conflicting application of the
Official Plan and 20/20 growth management plans among different geographic
areas.
The membership of the revised
Planning and Environment Committee is recommended below:
Public Works, Transit and
Infrastructure Services Committee
Currently, the existing Transportation and Transit Committee is
responsible for the provision of overall guidance and direction to the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department for issues relating to
transportation, parking and transit services.
Presently,
items considered by the Transportation and Transit Committee represent 10% of
items that rise to Council for decision.
It
is recommended that the Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services
Committee assume the following responsibilities currently within the mandate of
the Environmental Services Committee:
§ The Utilities Branch of the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department;
§ The Infrastructure Services
Branch of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works on items related to
piped services;
§ The Surface Operations
Branch of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department on items
related to the administration and maintenance of open spaces and the Urban
Forest (not including parks and sports fields);
§ Be responsible for providing
overall guidance and direction in areas of water supply, solid waste management
and disposal, and water pollution control.
The
re-alignment of these responsibilities from the Environmental Services
Committee to the new Standing Committee serves to more closely align the work
of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department within one
Standing Committee. Previously, the department was reporting to up to four
Standing Committees, depending on the issues under consideration. This proposed re-alignment of reporting
relationship should prove to be a more effective and efficient process for the
Committee, City staff and the public.
With the proposed transfer of responsibilities from
the Environmental Services Committee to the Transportation and Transit
Committee, a name change is proposed to more accurately reflect the new mandate
and responsibilities of the Committee.
As the Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services Committee would
now have responsibility for issues relating to piped services, infrastructure,
maintenance of open spaces and trees, waste management etc, in addition to the
former transportation and transit responsibilities, the name change reflects a
departmental alignment as well as recognition of issues considered by the new
Committee.
General consultation on the Transportation and Transit
Committee reflected that it was working well within the existing governance
structure. The addition of increased responsibilities transferred from the
Environmental Services Committee will serve to align the Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works Department more closely with one Standing Committee
and address comments received regarding departmental and committee alignment
for improved efficiency, as well as seeking the best use of staff time. It was generally felt that the
Transportation and Transit Committee could accommodate the additional
responsibilities within its overall workload.
The
membership of the revised Public Works, Transit and Infrastructure Services
Committee is recommended below:
The
Rural Issues Project Team to the Ottawa Transition Board made recommendations
to the new City concerning the reflection of rural interests in Ottawa in late
2000. These recommendations are noted
below:
The
recommendations provided to the new City by the Rural Issues Project Team of
the Ottawa Transition Board hold much merit, and reflect extensive consultation
with rural residents at the time of amalgamation.
When Council established the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Standing Committee in 2001, research indicated that it would be the first
of its kind in Canada. That holds true
to this day (i.e. see the Benchmarking of other Canadian municipalities above
in the Background section).[8] The primary reason no other Canadian
municipality has a Rural Affairs committee appears to be that the different
experiences of rural, urban and suburban residents is not only based on
geographic location, but also on many other factors including race, gender,
language, disability, and socio-economic status. This view was raised and reflected in the consultation related to
this Committee.
Consultation on the function of the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Standing Committee revealed a general consensus that the existing
role, mandate and purpose of the Committee lacked direction and focus. The City’s governance structure does not
align itself with a reporting relationship directly focused on rural issues,
nor does the Committee have budgetary responsibility for specific operational
areas. As well, many of the issues addressed
by other Standing Committees have an impact on rural residents, resulting in
duplication and/or inconsistent lines of accountability and decision-making and
the requirement for joint meetings. As
well, participation by rural residents has not been demonstrably improved by
the function of the Standing Committee. These factors, when taken as a whole,
led to an overall sense that the Standing Committee was not able to meet its
intended goals.
Presently,
items considered by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee represent 3% of
items that rise to Council for decision.
Application of the principles for good governance
would suggest that the issues affecting rural residents would be most
appropriately addressed as these items are considered at the Standing Committee
with the mandate to deal with those items. It is therefore recommended that all
Standing Committees for the 2003-2006 term of Council include a minimum of one
member from a predominately rural ward, to ensure that representation and
consideration of rural issues are appropriately reflected in the business of
every Standing Committee.
As
another alternative, Councillors with a rural component in the ward could
reference the suggestions made by the Rural Issues Project Team to the Ottawa
Transition Board to establish “Rural Issue Advisory Committees” in their wards
if they have not already done so. These
groups could then report directly to the elected representative and serve as a
source of input and advice of the views of rural residents on various City
issues under consideration. The
creation of such ward advisory committees would ensure a strong voice from
residents directly to their ward representative, and provide an alternate
avenue for public participation and accountability in the decision-making
process.
The Audit Committee is responsible for providing, on behalf of City Council, oversight on matters relating to financial reporting and assurance that an effective control and governance framework is in place.
As
noted in the statistics gathered above, the Audit Committee met 15 times from
January 2001 to August 2003, and considered 58 items, a significantly fewer
number of meetings and items than other Standing Committees. In addition, only 4 public delegations were
received during that time. Presently,
items considered by the Audit Committee represent 2% of items that rise to Council
for decision.
On
October 22, 2003, City Council approved a joint report from the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee and the Audit Committee entitled
“Implementation of Mr. Denis Desautel’s report on the City’s Audit Function”.
One
of the foundations of the report was that the City’s independent auditor must
have the necessary institutional protection and security to maintain real
independence from both management and partisan politics. This recommendation was approved by Council
and is premised on an arms-length relationship between the Auditor General and
Council and its Committees. The
creation of a separate standing committee to serve the work of this single
department is not well supported from a good governance perspective.
Consultation
during the governance review reflected a strong general consensus that the
Audit Committee should not be a separate standing committee, and that for
effectiveness, public participation and accountability reasons, responsibility
for the Audit mandate would be best served by the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee.
Transfer of the
Environmental Services Committee responsibilities to other Standing Committees
As
noted in the statistics gathered above, the Environmental Services Committee
met 39 times from January 2001 to August 2003, considered 156 items, and
received 166 public delegations. This
is significantly fewer than the Corporate Services and Economic Development,
Health, Recreation and Social Services, Planning and Development and
Transportation and Transit Committees.
Although
the Emergency and Protective Services Committee (EPS) met fewer times than
Environmental Services Committee (ESC) (37), they considered 168 items and
received 234 public delegations. In
addition, the number of meeting hours for EPS during the term was 119 compared
with 82.5 hours for ESC.
Presently,
items considered by the Environmental Services Committee represent 4% of items
that rise to Council for decision.
General
consensus was to transfer responsibilities from Environmental Services
Committee to the other Standing Committees in order to more appropriately align
departmental responsibilities, achieve cost savings, and improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the governance structure.
As noted earlier, the
existence and mandate of the Member Services Committee is presently outlined in
Section 80 of the Procedure By-law 247-2002, the only committee so
characterized:
1)
The Member Services
Committee shall be composed of three members of Council.
2)
The Member Services
Committee has jurisdiction regarding:
a)
the administration of
the offices of the Councillors;
b)
expenditures by
Councillors;
c)
entitlement of
Councillors to City facilities and resources for the performance of their
duties; and
d)
personnel matters
related to:
I.
the offices of the
Councillors, or
II.
the performance by the
Councillors of their duties.
3)
The Member Services
Committee shall meet at the call of its Chair
in accordance with the notice provision in Section 79.
4)
A decision of the
Member Services Committee may be forwarded directly to Council but only upon
written request of two members of Council.
Furthermore, no formal Terms of Reference for the
operation and responsibilities of the Member Services Committee exist. As noted above, over the 2001-2003 term of
Council the Member Services Committee has dealt with various administrative
issues.
During
the last term, the Member Services Committee did not report to Council. However, it is suggested that the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee could best serve consideration of
these issues from a governance, accountability, and open and transparent local
government perspective. As noted above,
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee can choose to create
a sub-committee of the main committee to address these issues or deal with them
as part of regular business.
“The continuation of the current Planning and
Development Committee to act as an Interim Planning and Development Committee
(re-elected members only) to consider any public hearings and planning issues
that may occur between 3 December 2003 and the appointment of the new Committee
structure and membership in January 2004.”
During discussions with the General Manager of
Development Services, concern was expressed over the non-operation period that
arises during the municipal election, the lame duck period, and the time
required for the establishment of the new City Council and its committees. As a result, an alternative is being
recommended to allow an interim Planning and Development Committee to consider
public hearings and planning issues that may arise.
Of the present composition of the Planning and
Development Committee, three Councillors will not be seeking re-election,
leaving a possible seven members to continue as an Interim Planning and
Development Committee.
Through the tabling of the Council Governance Review
report, one of the first areas of business would be to establish an interim
Planning and Development Committee to consider any public hearings and planning
issues that may arise between December and the appointment of the new Committee
structure and membership. The membership
of the interim committee would be the current committee members that have
successfully been re-elected to City Council through the 10 November municipal
election.
It is recommended that the current Committee Chair
and Vice-Chair will continue to be Councillor Gord Hunter, Chair, and
Councillor Janet Stavinga, Vice-Chair.
The interim Committee would automatically terminate upon City Council’s
appointment of a new committee in January 2004. The interim Committee would operate within the Terms of Reference
of the existing Planning and Development Committee and consist of up to seven
re-elected members.
PART B –
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND
BOARDS OF CITY COUNCIL -
STRUCTURE
(Recommendation
No. 2 c)
“The
following structure for Advisory Committees and Boards for the 2003-2006 term
of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Accessibility Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
§
Environmental Advisory Committee
§
Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services Advisory Committee
§
Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
§
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (legislated)
§
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
§
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
§
Seniors Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory Committee
§
Youth Advisory Committee
§
License Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board”
As
noted in the Background section of the report, there are presently 19
Advisory Committees (and other miscellaneous Boards), as follows (Reference
Document 7 for an organization chart of the existing governance structure, and
Document 8 for the proposed governance structure):
§
Accessibility Advisory
Committee
§
Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Advisory Committee
§
Arts Advisory Committee
§
Cycling Advisory
Committee
§
Environmental Advisory
Committee
§
Equity and Diversity
Advisory Committee
§
French Language Services
Advisory Committee
§
Health and Social
Services Advisory Committee
§
Heritage Advisory
Committee
§
Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee
§
Ottawa Forests Advisory
Committee
§
Ottawa Youth Cabinet
§
Poverty Issues Advisory
Committee
§
Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee
§
Richmond Conservation
Area Management Team
§
Seniors Advisory
Committee
§
Taxi Advisory Committee
§
Transportation Advisory
Committee
§
License Committee
§
City-School Boards
Liaison Committee
§
Cumberland Museum Board
§
City of Ottawa
Superannuation Fund
§
Ottawa Municipal
Campground Authority
§
Pineview Municipal Golf
Course Board
The recommendations described in detail below propose
a revised Advisory Committee structure based on thirteen Advisory Committees,
versus the previous nineteen, as well as change in status of two Advisory
Committees to Departmental Consultative Groups. Reference is also made to two of the four existing City of Ottawa
Boards, as minor amendments to reporting relationships for these bodies are
referenced in the report. Numerous recommendations for streamlining and
improving the processes governing the role and involvement of Advisory
Committees in the governance process have also been recommended.
As
indicated in Part A – Standing Committee Structure, recommendations for the new
structure have been based on the guiding principles for the governance
review. In addition, benchmarking and
best practises research in other municipalities and organizations and
consultation were used to determine recommendations for the proposed
structure.
For
Advisory Committees where changes are proposed, it should be noted that all
recommendations were measured using the following methodology.
§
Application of the guiding
principles for the Governance Review
§
Was there general
consensus for a change in structure, process or mandate?
§
In making a change,
would cost savings be achieved?
If
a Committee did not meet all three criteria, change has not been recommended at
this time.
In
March of 2001, City Council approved a report entitled “Proposed Advisory and Quasi-judicial
Committee and Task Force structure”, which outlined the creation and criteria
for the establishment of Advisory Committees in the present governance
structure. Those criteria are outlined
below:
This
type of Committee is established at Council’s discretion and provides a means
of regular, on-going community input with respect to particular issues and
policies. Advisory Committees to
Council must address Citywide,
cross-departmental issues. Advisory
Committees report to a specific Standing Committee and have a relationship with
a specific City Department. Advisory
Committees enlist persons with special knowledge or interest in a particular
topic to give representation to such interests. They report on a regular basis to the Standing Committee with an
annual report on activities and an annual workplan of proposed activities, as
well as address any issues referred to them from Standing Committee or
Council. Creation of an advisory
committee must be based on the following principles:
Need - There is clearly a
“value-added” component to the Committee in terms of its impact on the
municipality’s business.
Annual Review - Council must review, at
least annually, the mandate and ongoing need of the Committee to determine
whether it is still relevant and has not been replaced by some other mechanism.
Terms of Reference - The Terms of Reference
must be clearly defined and written in advance of any appointments to
Committee.
Role of Councillors - The role for the Council
appointee(s) is as a non-voting liaison between the Advisory Committee and
Standing Committees/Council. The
Councillor is expected to bring forward the Advisory Committee’s views to the
Standing Committee/Council and not be the spokesperson for the Advisory
Committee. That role belongs to the Chair of the Committee.
Rotation of members - The Council appointment
of members is rotated at least once every term of Council.
Advisory Powers - The Committee is to be an
advisory body unless given more powers by legislation or by-law.
Reporting Mechanism - The reporting mechanism is
clear (i.e. an annual report and workplan from the Chair of the Committee to
the applicable Standing Committee each year.)
Standing Committee
relationship
- Each Advisory Committee is to be designated to report to the appropriate
Standing Committee to ensure administrative and committee review prior to any
matter being considered by Council.
Relationship to staff - The Committee’s
relationship to staff is to be clear, wherein the Committee has no authority to
direct staff.
Breadth of mandate - Over time, committees
that have a narrow focus tend to become more administrative in nature and focus
less on their policy advisory role.
Complementary functions and mandates should be grouped together under
one umbrella in order to ensure the most effective committee.
Annual Report - an annual report
outlining definable results should be submitted to the appropriate Standing
Committee for review. In addition an
annual workplan outlining proposed projects and programs for the upcoming year,
with associated budget implications should be submitted for Committee approval.
Staff comment - That the City Manager
and/or General Managers be provided an opportunity to include comments on
Advisory Committee recommendations.
The
criteria for the creation of Advisory Committees were based on extensive
research as well as benchmarking, and provided a framework for the
establishment of Advisory Committees.
As such, it is recommended that the use of these criteria continue.
In general, governance review consultation showed that
the Advisory Committee structure is working reasonably well for some
committees, and could be improved for others.
A number of Advisory Committees were identified which focused on single
departmental issues, did not meet the approved criteria for creation of
Advisory committees (i.e. cross-departmental, addressing citywide issues) and
their work might well be optimized within a different structure.
Fewer
meetings, increased focus strictly on provision of advice to City Council and
Standing Committees, and community outreach within their mandated areas were
generally seen as key contributors to the success and long-term value of an
Advisory Committee.
The
existing structure would be improved with opportunities for streamlining and
efficiency, specifically related to imbalance in workloads, time spent in
meetings, a refocus of priorities and attention for advice giving and
decision-making by Council at a more refined level. A specific concern that has been raised is that the sheer volume
of Advisory Committees significantly increases the meeting workload for
everyone, and the outcomes are not always clear. The City of Toronto has
concerns with their Advisory Committee process as well, and in a recent report
on their governance structure, noted “One specific concern is that the creation
of many ad hoc and advisory committees significantly increases the workload for
members of Council and for staff, thus diluting the capacity of the governance
system overall.” In addition, some
Advisory Committees exist with duplicate or overlapping mandates, which can
result in conflicting advice or positions taken by the respective
Committees.
A
number of committees and/or boards that are a hold-over from pre-amalgamation
structures in former municipalities continue to exist. Due to timelines and the need to review the
legal status and purpose of these entities on a case-by-case basis, these
bodies are not addressed in this report.
However, the point has been raised that future reviews of the City’s
governance structure should resolve their role, mandate and position within a
streamlined, efficient and accountable process. These bodies include:
Not
all of the Boards referenced above are discussed in this report, however
consideration of minor amendments to the reporting relationship for the
Pineview Municipal Golf Course Board and the Ottawa Municipal Campground
Authority are proposed. As no changes are presently proposed for the City of
Ottawa Superannuation Fund or the Cumberland Museum Board, they are not
referenced.
The
review of the City of Ottawa governance structure included an examination of
the quantitative outputs and actions taken by the Advisory Committees created
since 2001, as an attempt to offer some objective measure of their productivity
and advice to Council.
|
COMMITTEE
|
# OF MEETINGS |
# OF ITEMS DISCUSSED |
# OF PUBLIC DELEGATIONS |
# OF MEETING HOURS |
# OF ITEMS THAT ROSE TO
STANDING COMMITTEE IN A REPORT |
# OF ITEMS IN A MEMO OR
OTHER FORM PROVIDING ADVICE TO COUNCIL AND DEPARTMENTS |
|
Accessibility
Advisory Committee |
23 |
234 |
19 |
55 |
4 |
8 |
|
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee |
25 |
153 |
18 |
66.5 |
0 |
14 |
|
Arts
Advisory Committee |
13 |
76 |
0 |
29 |
1 |
0 |
|
City-School
Boards Liaison Committee |
3 |
29 |
4 |
4.75 |
3 |
0 |
|
Cycling
Advisory Committee |
24 |
166 |
14 |
62 |
6 |
0 |
|
Environmental
Advisory Committee |
23 |
213 |
47 |
81 |
1 |
26 |
|
Equity
and Diversity Advisory Committee |
19 |
128 |
48 |
38 |
1 |
2 |
|
French
Language Services Advisory Committee |
16 |
111 |
18 |
31 |
1 |
10 |
|
Health
and Social Services Advisory Committee |
21 |
139 |
9 |
74.5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Heritage
Advisory Committee |
22 |
292 |
19 |
156 |
5 |
24 |
|
Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee |
34 |
213 |
85 |
73.5 |
52 |
13 plus 197 memos/comments on Committee of
Adjustment/Site Plan Applications |
|
Ottawa
Forests Advisory Committee |
20 |
210 |
31 |
65 |
5 |
24 |
|
Ottawa
Youth Cabinet |
20 |
171 |
36 |
48.5 |
5 |
1 |
|
Parks
and Recreation Advisory Committee |
21 |
163 |
31 |
53.25 |
1 |
5 |
|
Poverty
Issues Advisory Committee |
20 |
238 |
23 |
74 |
9 |
2 |
|
Richmond
Conservation Area Management Team |
22 |
241 |
32 |
53.5 |
4 |
0 |
|
Seniors
Advisory Committee |
20 |
155 |
16 |
50.5 |
4 |
4 |
|
Taxi
Advisory Committee |
13 |
88 |
13 |
26 |
2 |
1 |
|
Transportation
Advisory Committee |
19 |
253 |
9 |
132 |
4 |
18 |
[Note: Statistics gathered reflect meetings from the
creation of the respective Advisory Committee – generally at a point between
June and October of 2001- to end of August 2003. The number of meetings noted reflects only formal, regular
meetings of the Advisory Committee and does not reflect the work of
subcommittees or the entire committee at special events or projects. It should
be noted that the statistics reflecting number of items that rose to Standing
Committee does not include submission of Advisory Committee annual reports
and workplans over the term].
It
should be carefully noted that although quantifiable terms may be used to
discern in some part, the overall effectiveness of some Advisory Committees
within the existing governance structure, attention should be paid to the
countless hours of volunteer effort and expertise provided to the City free of
charge, as well as the hard work, perseverance and talent that Advisory
Committee members bring to the governance process. The significant value provided to the City by these dedicated
residents, both individually and collectively, is difficult to measure.
Accessibility
Advisory Committee
(legislated requirement under the
Ontarians with Disabilities Act)
The statutory mandate of the Accessibility Advisory Committee is to develop an awareness and understanding of issues and concerns of the citizens of the City of Ottawa with disabilities, with a goal to improving the quality of life for those with disabilities.
No
change to the mandate of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in the governance
structure is recommended at this time.
It
should be noted that the lead department for the Accessibility Advisory
Committee is presently the Human Resources Department. However, as the lead for the development of
both the Accessibility Plan for the City, and the development and
implementation of the Multiple Formats Policy has been the Corporate Services
Department, it is recommended that the lead department relationship change from
Human Resources to Corporate Services to more accurately reflect what is
occurring in practise.
With
the proposed dissolution of the Taxi Advisory Committee (see details noted
below), it is recommended that a designated position on the Accessibility
Advisory Committee be made available for a citizen member from the existing
Taxi Advisory Committee, to ensure that the work of that Committee and the
background of those issues are reflected in the future work of the
Accessibility Advisory Committee.
The
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee has a mandate that includes
the following:
o To provide advice and input
to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Ottawa City Council on
issues affecting the farming community, agricultural organisations and the
rural community. The Committee will
assist City Council in its efforts to protect and preserve the rural area, and
to promote healthy rural communities that contain living, working and
recreational opportunities and respect the natural environment and resources.
As
was noted in the discussion on the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Standing
Committee, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee is unique in
local governance structures across Canada.
The Committee has met 25 times over the term of Council, and dealt with
153 items. However it received a total
of only 18 public delegations, despite having regularly hosted meetings in
rural wards. The Advisory Committee did
not send any reports for consideration to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Standing Committee in 2001, 2002, or 2003, although it did forward 14 memos to
members of Council over the term, largely on the hog farm issue, making
recommendations.
It should also be noted that, as with the Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Standing Committee, the primary reason for the creation of
this Advisory Committee was to address issues of concern to rural
residents. This focus is a geographic
one and includes issues under consideration by many other Advisory Committees
and community organizations. This
results in duplication, lack of focus and unclear accountability.
Consultation
on the function of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
reflected a general consensus that the existing role, mandate and purpose of
the Committee have been lacking in
direction and focus. The City structure
does not align itself with a reporting relationship directly focused on rural
issues.
Application
of the principles for good governance would suggest that the issues affecting
rural residents would be most appropriately addressed within the consideration
of these items as a whole. As well, the
function of the Committee has at times resulted in duplication of consideration
of issues, and a requirement for joint meetings.
It
is also recommended that all Advisory Committees for the 2003-2006 term of
Council include a minimum of one dedicated seat for a rural representative, to
ensure that representation and consideration of rural issues are appropriately
reflected in the business of every Advisory Committee.
The
Arts Advisory Committee presently has a mandate as follows:
The
Heritage Advisory Committee presently has a mandate as follows:
It is recommended that, as the mandates of these two
Advisory Committees are complimentary that the two committees be merged to
become the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee. It is suggested that the merging of these
two mandates would better serve residents, and City Council, in the provision
of advice on these issues.
Proposed recommendations to address the merged
membership of the committees are addressed below.
The
following reflects the mandate of the City-School Board Liaison Committee:
o
Recognizing
that, while the City of Ottawa and the four area school boards (Conseil
des écoles
catholiques de
langue française du Centre-est; Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board;
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board; and Conseil des écoles
publiques de l’est
de l’Ontario) are independent and autonomous
entities, and that cooperation between and among these entities is mutually
beneficial, the mandate of the City-School Boards Liaison Committee is to
provide a forum for interaction with respect to areas of mutual concern between
the City of Ottawa and the four School Boards within the municipality of
Ottawa. This will include, but will not
be limited to, mutual use of facilities, reciprocal agreements, health,
recreation, safety, social services, and planning. This Committee will also identify further areas of
cross-jurisdictional cooperation and potential reciprocal arrangements where
appropriate.
The
City-School Boards Liaison Committee met 3 times during the 2001-2003 term of
Council, considered 29 items and received 4 public delegations. The Committee met for a total of 4.75 hours
in the entire term. Despite the aims and objectives of the Committee, the
amount of work accomplished and the staff time dedicated by both the School
Boards and City required to support the Committee could be more ably served by
a staff liaison committee. This staff liaison committee could include
management from all four school boards, and the appropriate City departments
where cross-jurisdictional issues are impacted, and send items to Council and
Standing Committees where decisions or approvals were required. The Secretariat Services Branch will pursue
this option of a staff liaison committee.
The
present mandate of the Environmental Advisory Committee is as follows:
The
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) is one of the City’s busiest Advisory
Committees. Since its creation it has hosted numerous workshops and symposium
on environmental issues, in addition to providing advice and input to
departments and Council. In
consultation with the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee, it is recommended that
the Environmental Advisory Committee’s mandate and responsibilities be
refocused, with transfer and re-alignment of some of its responsibilities. It is recommended that the EAC continue
to monitor air quality, water quality, and other quality of life indicators
that are related to greenspace, while the Greenspace and Forests Advisory
Committee would continue to work on forest issues, including biodiversity,
health, canopy measure, etc. of forested greenspace.
Further
review of the Environmental Advisory Committee Terms of Reference and the
Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee Terms of Reference will include a focus on
additional responsibilities for the Greenspace and Forests Advisory Committee on
greenspace acquisition and management and conservation development, and a
streamlining of present Environmental Advisory Committee responsibilities. Both Advisory Committees agree with these
changes.
The mandate of the Equity and Diversity Advisory
Committee is to work towards the elimination of discrimination within the City
of Ottawa.
No
change to the mandate of the Equity and Diversity Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
The mandate of the French Language Services Advisory Committee is to
provide advice to Ottawa City Council and its departments, on issues that
impact official languages in the City.
No
change to the mandate of the French Language Services Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
General
consultation resulted in suggestions that the French Language Services Advisory
Committee does not have the workload necessary to require monthly
meetings. It is recommended that the
French Language Services Advisory committee reduce its meeting schedule to a
maximum of six times per year.
Presently,
the mandate of the Ottawa Forests Advisory Committee is as follows:
As
noted above, it is recommended that the mandate of the Ottawa Forests Advisory
Committee be expanded to include greenspace acquisition and management and
conservation – as the name change implies.
The following responsibilities would be added to the Committee mandate:
o Protection, management, acquisition and conservation of greenspace and other environmentally sensitive areas in Ottawa.
o To work to reduce the burden on the City’s Environmental Resources Areas Acquisition Fund by promoting partnerships with developers (in the form of land bequests and conservation development) and with other stakeholders (in the form of land trusts and conservation easements).
The mandate of the Health and Social Services Advisory
Committee is to advise on policy, programs and service delivery in the area of
provision and support of social, health and related services.
No
change to the mandate of the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee in
the governance structure is recommended at this time.
Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(legislated requirement under the
Planning Act)
The mandate of the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) is to advise City Council
on matters relating to Ontario Heritage (pursuant to the Ontario Heritage
Act), including identifying properties and areas in the City of Ottawa that
may deserve protection; providing City Council with advice on applications to
alter designated heritage properties and new construction in heritage
districts; advising property owners on appropriate conservation and maintenance
practices; and, promoting heritage conservation within the community.
No
change to the mandate of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
in the governance structure is recommended at this time.
The
mandate of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is to advise on all
aspects of the provision of leisure and recreation services in the City of Ottawa,
including development of recreation policy, and promoting and maintaining
communication with the public on parks and recreation needs.
No
change to the mandate of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
A
distinct board of directors to manage and administer the Pineview Golf Course
is related to a pre-amalgamation situation in the former City of
Gloucester. The Golf Course Board is
responsible for managing the golf course, which is a City-operated business, on
lands leased from the National Capital Commission. The members of the Board presently include six members of
Council and four citizen appointees.
As
noted above, recommendations for anything other than the status quo for
this Board are not addressed in this report, however the point is raised that
future reviews of the governance structure should resolve the role, mandate and
position within a streamlined, efficient and accountable governance process.
It is recommended that the Golf Course reporting
relationship be amended from the Health, Recreation and Social Services
Standing Committee to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
to more accurately reflect and re-align the Authority with the reporting
relationship of the Venture Properties Division in the Real Property and Asset
Management Branch of the Corporate Services Department.
At
present, the Chair of the Golf Course Board arranges secretariat support, and
agendas, so that minutes and procedure are being administered outside of the
Secretariat Services Branch. This
situation, which is change from the practice of the former City of Gloucester,
does not align with the City Clerk’s mandate to ensure the appropriate procedures
are followed, that meetings are open and accessible to the public, and that the
decisions made by the Board are undertaken within the governance process. It is recommended that the Golf Course Board
re-establish the procedures used by the former municipality of Gloucester, so
that the Secretariat Services Branch provides secretariat support to the Golf
Course Board.
The mandate of the Poverty
Issues Advisory Committee is to provide advice to Ottawa City Council, through
the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee, and its Departments, on
issues that impact and address poverty issues in the City.
No
change to the mandate of the Poverty Issues Advisory Committee in the
governance structure is recommended at this time.
The
carry-over of a separate board to manage and administer the work of the Ottawa
Municipal Campground Authority is related to a pre-amalgamation agreement
between the former Cities of Ottawa and Nepean. The Authority is presently responsible for managing the work of
the Campsite, which is a City-operated business, on lands under long-term lease
from the National Capital Commission.
The members of the Authority presently include one member of Council,
and four citizen members.
As
noted above, recommendations for anything other than the status quo for
this Authority are not addressed in this report. However the point is raised that future reviews of the City’s
governance structure should resolve the role, mandate and position within a
streamlined, efficient and accountable governance process.
It
is recommended that the Campsite reporting relationship be amended from the
Health, Recreation and Social Services Standing Committee to the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee to more accurately reflect and re-align the
Authority with the reporting relationship of the Venture Properties Division in
the Real Property and Asset Management Branch of the Corporate Services
Department.
Secretariat
support to the Campground Authority will continue to be provided by Secretariat
Services Branch until such time as a future review is conducted.
The mandate of the Seniors Advisory Committee is to act as a liaison to enrich and enhance the lives of seniors in the City, identify barriers, form partnerships with the community, and act as a public forum for issues affecting seniors.
No
change to the mandate of the Seniors Advisory Committee in the governance
structure is recommended at this time.
The Taxi Advisory Committee was established by City
Council in late 2001, an election was held to appoint members of the Taxi
industry to the Committee in early 2002.
The mandate of the Taxi Advisory Committee is as follows:
o To act as a conduit between
and among City Council and affected citizens and groups and the Taxi
Industry. The Taxi Advisory Committee
will work with all stakeholders to encourage the self-management of the industry,
so as to improve its overall quality.
In doing so, it will represent both the interests of the taxi industry
and those with whom it serves in order to best promote and maintain a safe,
accessible and friendly environment for all riders, including seniors and those
with disabilities. The Taxi Advisory
Committee will work to encourage better communication between the industry and
its customers, better training for drivers, the promotion and use of
environmentally friendly cabs that are either fuel-efficient, solar/ water
powered or electric, as well as the recognition of those drivers with superior
driving records and customer service.
Since amalgamation, the By-law Services Branch has
held monthly meetings with the Taxi industry and its representatives to address
many of the issues found in the Taxi Advisory Committee mandate in addition to
resolving other issues and concerns raised by the industry. This working group continues to meet
monthly, and has proven to be an effective means of addressing these specific
responsibilities. The creation of the
Taxi Advisory Committee is unique in that it involves advice to Council on
issues for which Council sets policy and regulates in the taxi industry
including licensing. Although the City
operates other service delivery related to this type of regulatory requirement
(e.g. lottery licensing), no other Advisory Committee serves to provide such
advice.
It
is recommended that the Taxi Advisory Committee be disbanded, and that the
industry working group coordinated by the By-law Services Branch continue to
meet. This industry working group
serves a function similar to a departmental consultative group, as the issues
raised and addressed are not cross-departmental. Further cost savings will be achieved, as the upcoming taxi
election will not be necessary.
In
the interests of citizen participation on issues arising from the taxi
industry, it is recommended that seats for citizen members of the Taxi Advisory
Committee be made available on both the Accessibility and Transportation
Advisory Committees.
The mandate of
the Transportation Advisory Committee is:
o To provide advice
and guidance to Ottawa City Council, on policies and programs, which reflect
the City’s commitment to a variety of travel modes, including walking, cycling,
transit and motor vehicles, and that achieve the appropriate balance in a way
that contributes to our City’s overall quality of life. The Committee will specifically advise on
transportation issues such as pedestrian movement, transit, light-rail,
traffic-safety (including education, and area and neighbourhood traffic
management including traffic-calming), and other transportation-related
policies and programs.
It
is recommended that, with the proposed change in status from Advisory Committee
to Departmental Consultative Group for the Cycling Advisory Committee (reference Part C City of Ottawa
Consultative Groups), the Transportation Advisory Committee continue to provide
advice to City Council and its Standing Committees on issues relating to
cycling in the City.
Furthermore,
with the proposed dissolution of the Taxi Advisory Committee (see details noted
above), it is recommended that a designated position on the Transportation
Advisory Committee be made available for a citizen member from the Taxi
Advisory Committee, to ensure that work of that committee and the background of
those issues are reflected in the future work of the Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Presently,
an Advisory Committee called the Ottawa Youth Cabinet is structured to reflect
City Council, as youth representatives from each ward address youth
issues. The mandate is as follows:
o The mandate of the Ottawa
Youth Cabinet shall be to represent all youth in the City of Ottawa, acting as
a bridge between the youth of the City of Ottawa and Ottawa City Council. The Ottawa Youth Cabinet shall actively work
to enrich and enhance the health of every community of the City of Ottawa,
making partnerships in the community and working with community partners, while
engaging youth in all dimensions of the City, to make Ottawa a better place for
youth.
Although
revisions to the mandate of the Ottawa Youth Cabinet are not recommended,
changes to the structure and membership are being recommended. With 21 members on the Cabinet, it has been
extremely difficult achieving quorum, and in fact, many meetings have been
cancelled as a result. Furthermore, the
Cabinet structure was originally envisioned to encourage members to work
closely with their Ward Councillor counterparts and with ward youth, and
reflect these views to the Cabinet when issues were considered. This structure has not operated as
originally envisioned, and may have been too ambitious, given the other responsibilities
Youth Cabinet members have (school, volunteering, jobs).
It
is suggested that changing the membership and the name of the Ottawa Youth
Cabinet to the Youth Advisory Committee, and reducing membership to between 9
and 11 members from the existing 21 will remedy past quorum problems, and may
provide more effective representation, accountability and meeting management.
CITY OF OTTAWA DEPARTMENTAL
CONSULTATIVE GROUPS
Change in
Status from Advisory Committees
to Departmental
Consultative Groups -
(Recommendation
No.2 d)
“The following change in structure from Advisory Committee to Departmental Consultative Group for the 2003-2006 term of Council as outlined in the report, effective immediately:
§
Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
§
Richmond Conservation Area Departmental
Consultative Group”
In
March of 2001, City Council approved a report entitled “Proposed Advisory and
Quasi-judicial Committee and Task Force structure”, outlining the creation and
criteria for the establishment of Advisory Committees and Departmental
Consultative Groups. The criteria for
Advisory Committees has been noted previously.
However the criteria for Departmental Consultative Groups is indicated
below:
This type of Committee advises its responsible department on matters
that are within its responsibility.
Regular review of the nature of the relationship with the Committee is
undertaken by Departmental staff to ensure valuable advice is being
provided. Membership, methods of
operation, staff support and continued existence is the responsibility of the
Department.
It
should be noted that secretariat support is not provided to Departmental
Consultative Groups.
Cycling
Advisory Committee changed to Cycling Departmental Consultative Group
The Richmond Conservation Area Management Team was
carried over from pre-amalgamation structure within the former Township of
Goulbourn, and is responsible for the management of a conservation area in Ward
6.
PART D – GOVERNANCE PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION
Approval of
Standing Committee
Terms of
Reference for the 2003-2006 Term of Council
(Recommendation
No. 2 e)
“The revised Terms of
Reference for all Standing Committees be submitted in draft form to the first
meeting of the Committees in January for review and approval.”
It
is recommended that upon approval of the structure for the Standing Committees
of Council for the next term, and the appointment of the Nominating Committee,
that staff review and develop Terms of Reference for these Standing Committees
and return to the first meeting of each Committee with draft Terms of Reference
for approval that reflect the changes in structure and mandate.
“The enactment of the
revised Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the
report and the associated by-law. (Document 9)”
In accordance with the former Municipal Act,
“every council…shall adopt a Procedure By-law for governing the calling, place
and proceedings of meetings”. In
response to that statutory requirement, the Ottawa Transition Board approved
the first Procedure By-law for City Council, being By-law No. 53 of 2000. At its meeting of January 17, 2001, City
Council repealed By-law No. 53 of 2000 and enacted its own Procedure By-law,
being By-law No. 2001-20 (currently By-law No. 2002-247).
With the implementation of the Municipal Act,
2001, effective January 1, 2003, there was an outstanding requirement to
review the relevant provisions of the City’s existing Rules of Procedure and
update them with respect to the new Municipal Act. In the spring of 2003, City Council directed
staff to bring forward those amendments, and any others after consulting with
Members of Council, in conjunction with the governance review. All proposed changes for the new Procedure
By-law are underlined in Document 9, the major changes from the present
Procedure By-law are discussed below.
The inclusion of the revised Procedure By-law for
the next term of Council satisfies the requirement in the existing Rules of
Procedure that notice of the anticipated changes be given at a previous meeting
of Council.
(1)
Deputy Mayor (Section 5)
At present, if it is a Councillor’s time period for
serving as Deputy Mayor and that Councillor is not available, a motion at
Council is required to alter the Deputy Mayor rotation list. Staff recommend that, upon concurrence in
writing from both Councillors submitted to the City Clerk, Councillors be
permitted to switch the period for which they will serve as Deputy Mayor. Should for some unforeseen reason such a
transfer not be straightforward, the Clerk will have the option of placing the
matter before Council for consideration.
(2)
Time and Date of Council Meetings (Section 8)
It is proposed that the Mayor be given the same
authority to alter the time and date of regular meetings of Council as rests
with Committee Chairs to alter the time and date of Committee meetings.
(3)
Voting
(Section 27)
Some uncertainty was expressed during this term of
Council as to when a Councillor had to be present in order to be able to cast a
vote on a particular matter. In the
normal course, Councillors are counted towards quorum being present so long as
they are in the room where the meeting is taking place. However, the Procedure By-law requires that
they be seated at the time their name is called in order to be permitted to
cast a vote. It is recommended that the
Procedure By-law be amended to clarify that:
in order to be able to cast a vote, the Councillor need only be seated
at the time their name is called (i.e. a Councillor can enter the room and take
their seat after the voting has commenced, but before their name
has been called). This amendment would
only require that the Councillor be seated at a place reserved for Councillors,
not necessarily in the seat normally assigned to them. This approach will continue to permit the
Mayor or a Committee Chair, when they have left the Chair to participate in the
debate or otherwise, to nonetheless vote upon a matter before Council or
Committee.
(4)
Committee of the Whole (Section 47)
While Section 64 of the present Procedure By-law
permits representations by the public only to be to Standing Committees, it is
not clear whether this would include the Committee of the Whole of
Council. To clarify this matter, where
it is intended to utilize the Committee of the Whole, staff recommend that
public submissions be permitted if such have been authorized at a prior regular
meeting of Council. By use of such
prior authorization, members of the public will have the certainty as to
whether they will be able to appear before the Committee of the Whole.
(5)
That the Question Be Now Put (Section 56)
Some dissatisfaction has been expressed about the
current ability to use the motion, “That the Question Be Now Put”. In general terms, it can only be utilized if
there are no amendments under consideration.
On the other hand, the adoption of such a motion ends all debate. For example, if there is a major item before
Council, such as the annual budget or the official plan, there might be a
desire to close off debate on a particular issue without ending debate on the
entire item.
To enhance the flexibility of this motion, two
revisions are recommended. First, it is
suggested that the motion to put the question be permitted when an amendment is
under consideration (i.e. the motion would then apply to the item being
amended, as well as the amendment itself).
Secondly, it is recommended that the mover and seconder of the motion be
able to qualify the motion so that it would only apply to a particular portion
of the matter being considered by Council.
Therefore, in a report with ten distinct recommendations, a Councillor could
move, “That the question be now put on Recommendation 5”. Should the motion carry and Recommendation 5
be voted upon, debate could then continue on the other nine recommendations.
(6)
Reconsideration (Section 61)
During this term of Council, thirteen decisions have
been subject to a motion for reconsideration.
Through consultation with Members of Council, some concerns were
expressed with respect to the ability to have decisions already approved by a
majority of Council reconsidered. Staff
have reviewed the practice of other large municipalities in this area. Several municipalities require
reconsideration to be moved by a Councillor who voted with the majority in the
original decision. However, each of
these municipalities also permit reconsideration to be initiated at a meeting
subsequent to the original decision.
In order to give certainty to Council’s decisions,
staff recommend that it continue to be required that the reconsideration
process be commenced by a Notice of Motion of Reconsideration which must be
given at the meeting where the original decision was made. However, to address the concerns expressed
over the use of reconsideration, staff further recommend that for
reconsideration to be considered at the next Council meeting, it should be
required that it be moved by a Councillor who voted in the majority. Staff do not recommend that the initial
Notice of Reconsideration be required to be introduced by a Councillor in the
majority as it is very unlikely that a Councillor who has voted one way would
wish to support the contrary side at the very same meeting. However, there may be occasions where, with
the passage of two weeks, a Councillor may wish to revisit a decision that s/he
has made and be prepared to move reconsideration at the subsequent meeting of
Council. In summary, therefore, the
proposed procedure would be:
a)
Notice
of Reconsideration – The motion to accept the Notice of Reconsideration could
be moved and seconded by any Member of Council. The notice must be given at the same meeting as the original
decision was made and at least one-third of those present and voting must vote
to accept such notice.
b)
Motion
for Reconsideration – This motion is then debated at the following meeting of
Council. To be considered, it will have
to be moved by a Councillor who voted with the majority in the original
decision (any Councillor may second the motion). Twelve Councillors must then vote in favour of the motion for it
to carry – regardless of the number of Councillors present.
c)
If
the motion for reconsideration carries, then the original item is back before
Council for debate and the standard voting requirements apply.
d)
If
the item being reconsidered is an amendment to a report (as opposed to the
entire report itself) and if, as a result of reconsideration, a different
decision is made, then Council can immediately proceed to a vote, without
debate, as to whether Council wishes to deal with the full report.
(7)
By-laws (Section 63)
Consultation with members of Council gave rise to a concern about the adoption of by-laws being a possibility to re-debate matters already dealt with in a previous report passed by Council. The adoption of by-laws should not be a means to avoid the procedural requirements for reconsideration. Therefore, staff recommend that the Procedure By-law be amended to expressly require that the by-laws be adopted in bulk, as has been the long-standing practice. An exception to this approach would be where the subject matter of a by-law has not previously been consid