|
1.
AUDITOR
GENERAL'S REPORT - GOVERNANCE AUDIT OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD
RAPPORT DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL – VÉRIFICATION DE LA
GOUVERNANCE Ŕ LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS D’OTTAWA
|
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive this
report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DE LA
COMMISSION
Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du
présent rapport ŕ titre d’information.
DOCUMENTATION
1. City of Ottawa Auditor General’s
report dated 14 December 2005 is attached.
2. Preliminary Board response – letter from Board Chair
dated 15 December 2005 is attached.
December 14, 2005
To: Ottawa Police Services Board
I am pleased to submit to the members of the Ottawa Police Services
Board, this report which represents the Auditor General’s findings on the
following: Governance Audit of the Ottawa Police Services Board.
The Board’s response has not been included in the report but will be
provided separately by the Police Services Board.
Sincerely,
Alain Lalonde, CGA CIA
Auditor General
Governance Audit of
the Ottawa Police Services Board
FINAL REPORT, December
2005
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The governance framework of any Board is
something that is continually evolving as the organizations that they govern
are continually evolving. The Ottawa
Police Services Board is no different, even though it operates in a highly
legislated environment. Based on the
criteria used in this audit, the Ottawa Police Services Board has satisfied
many of the criteria but is not meeting several others.
The Ottawa Police Services Board has
demonstrated several key strengths. One
of the key strengths of the Board is the strong, professional relationship it
has with the Chief and OPS senior management, which provides a strong
foundation for Board effectiveness.
This has resulted in the Ottawa Police Services Board being regarded as
one of the top Boards by other Police Services Boards in Ontario and across
Canada.
Other strengths of the Board include:
·
the Boards’ commitment to operating in an
atmosphere of openness and trust – The Board deals with as
many agenda items as possible in the public meeting and only uses in-camera
meetings as required by legislation (i.e., legal, personnel, and security
issues). The Board has also made all
Ministry Inspection Reports public, which is not a common practice of other
police services Boards. Finally, the
Board’s annual operating budget is reported separately in the OPS budget, and
with sufficient detail.
·
the Board being comprised of seven members with
diverse and complementary skills sets who are committed and dedicated to the
job – The Board is made up of seven Board members
with skills ranging from expertise in finance, law, policing, and community
awareness. The Board members are all
accomplished individuals in their respective fields and possess the collective
skills required for an effective Board.
·
high attendance and participation at Board
meetings, including community meetings – Attendance at regular
Board meetings is nearly always 100 percent and the Board has never had a
problem with achieving quorum. Also,
there is always a high level of Board member representation at community
meetings.
·
good orientation from OPS and Executive
Director for new Board members – New Board members
receive a comprehensive orientation from the Executive Director which includes
a detailed information package. OPS
senior management also provides a detailed orientation session to all new Board
members almost immediately after they are appointed to the Board.
·
good corporate memory from Executive Director – The
Executive Director of the Ottawa Police Services Board has occupied the position
for the past 11 years, providing critical continuity and corporate knowledge as
Board member turnover is a reality of Police Services Boards. The Executive Director also served for many
years as the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Police Board
(CAPB), which has benefited the Ottawa Police Services Board in establishing a
close relationship with the Association.
The
audit has noted several areas for improvement with respect to the governance
practices and structures of the Ottawa Police Services Board. The two key areas that require improvement
are:
·
adherence to its own Board Policy Manual – The
Board Policy Manual is a comprehensive document that includes an overview of
the Board’s governance process.
However, many sections of the Manual that are designed to ensure good
governance and oversight are not being followed.
·
more aggressive oversight of reporting to the
Board – There are several reports to the Board that
are supposed to follow a regular reporting schedule (e.g., quarterly financial
reporting, semi-annual status reporting on the Business Plan, and inquiries
made by the Board). However, these
reports often do not come forward to the Board as scheduled.
Some of the other areas requiring the Board’s
attention include:
·
developing a
process for regular review of the Board Policy Manual and other polices,
·
developing a
quality assurance process to comply with section 35 and 37 of the Police Services Act,
·
developing a
process for Board evaluation,
·
more rigorous
follow-up on inquiries,
·
completing and
implementing a Performance Measurement Framework,
·
status reporting
against the Business Plan, and
·
ensuring OPS
reports brought before the Board are linked to the Business Plan, where
appropriate.
What is Board governance?
Board
governance is not an easy function to define.
It often exists in the background of an organization and for most
observers it is an invisible function.
Unlike the operations side of an organization where there are clearly
define activities, outcomes, and processes, Board governance is not often
discussed or analyzed. In many
organizations, Board governance only comes to the forefront when a crisis
arises.
There
is no one definitive definition of Board governance. However, words commonly used to define governance include
leadership, monitoring, priority-setting, strategy development, and policy
setting. In the context of policing,
the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards’ (OAPSB) provides the
following definition in its training materials:
“The police board must perform both a governance and an oversight
function. Governance is controlling and
directing the development of policy as the vehicle for directing and
influencing decisions made by the organization. Oversight involves ensuring that the legislated functions for the
police service are carried out by the organization”. (Keith Taylor)
There
is no one-size-fits all model or approach to governance; not in the private
sector or in the policing sector. What
can be applied to all Boards, regardless of size or industry, are the basic
concepts of good governance.
Why do a governance audit?
Much
has been written in the last two decades about the importance of governance and
strong governance practices. In many
industries, including policing, it has become a hot topic. There have been many organizations that have
made headlines in recent years due to organizational weaknesses. And it is only after these weaknesses become
obvious that governance practices (or lack thereof) come into question and the
Board is held accountable.
The
City of Ottawa’s Auditor General introduced the importance of and the need for
governance audits in the 2005 audit work plan.
The City’s Boards are responsible for overseeing multi-million dollar
budgets on behalf of Council and the public, and are accountable for effective
organizational performance and for efficient expenditure of municipal tax
dollars. The review of governance
structures and practices should be seen as a proactive approach to good
governance, not as a reaction to suspected weaknesses at any of the City’s
Boards.
On
February 28, 2005, the Ottawa Police Services Board (the Board) formally
requested that the Auditor General complete an audit of the governance
structure and practices of the Board.
This governance audit is the first of several planned governance audits
in the Auditor General’s 3-year work plan, which includes governance audits of
the Boards of Directors of Ottawa Hydro, the Ottawa Public Library, and Ottawa
Community Housing Corporation. The
Auditor General intends to make governance an ongoing theme in future work
plans.
The objective of this audit was to examine the
current governance structures and practices to ensure that the Board is equipped
to provide effective direction, support, and oversight to the Ottawa Police
Service (OPS). The
current governance structures and practices were assessed against best
practices, not against the practices of other Police Services Boards.
This audit was conducted within the context of
the Ontario Police Services Act,
which sets out the role and authority of the Police Services Boards.
It was not within the
scope of this audit to:
- determine compliance with Ministry
Adequacy and Effectiveness Standards
- review the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the provincial and legislative framework (i.e., the
Police Services Act, Ministry Adequacy and Effectiveness Standards, OCCPS,
etc.)
- review the Carver governance model that
the Board has adopted.
The intent of this report is to provide
the Ottawa Police Services Board with concrete examples of Board governance
best practices to ensure long-term success of the Ottawa Police Service.
The Auditor General presented the criteria to
be used in this audit to the Ottawa Police Services Board on 28 February
2005. The audit criteria were developed
based on the provisions of the Police
Services Act as well as current best practices for corporate governance
(Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation publication Corporate Governance and the Board – What
Works Best and Risk and Insurance Management Society). Current practices were assessed against a
number of specific criteria in the following categories:
1.
Responsibilities,
Role and Duties of Board Members
2.
Board Membership,
Composition and Selection
3.
Board Evaluation
Process
4.
Board Meetings
and Information
5.
Strategic
Planning and Performance Measurement
Audit results for each specific criterion
are presented below under Section 3 - Observations and Recommendations.
The audit approach included a detailed
literature review of Board governance best practices, interviews with OPS Board
members and OPS staff, and a detailed review relevant policy and regulatory
documents.
Specifically, the audit approach included:
·
interviews with
the current and past Board members
·
interviews with
the OPS executive and other OPS management staff
·
interview with
the Board Executive Director
·
review of Board
meeting minutes for 2003 – 2005
·
an extensive
literature review of current best practices in corporate governance and
governance practices within policing
·
a review of
relevant OPS documents (i.e., policy and by-law documents)
·
The Police Services Act and related
regulatory documentation
·
A review of the
Ministry’s 2005 Adequacy and Effectiveness Standards report
·
OAPSB training
material.
The
Ottawa Police Service is governed by the Ottawa Police Services Board, which in
turn is regulated by the Police Services
Act. In Ottawa, this Board is
comprised of seven members, four of which are selected by Council. Three Councillors are appointed by
resolution of Council; one person, who is neither a member of Council nor an
employee of the municipality, is also appointed by resolution of the Council;
and three persons are appointed by the Province of Ontario. The Board is supported by two staff members
of the City Clerk’s Branch of the City of Ottawa.
The Constitution
Act, 1867 recognizes both federal and provincial governments jurisdiction
over policing. The federal government
is responsible for legislating “peace, order, and good government”, whereas the
provincial governments are responsible for making law in relation to the
administration of justice in each province.
As such, the Ontario Provincial Government was granted the power to
police the province from the federal government.
Police Services Act
The vested powers and responsibilities of
Police Services Boards are determined by the Police Services Act and associated regulations enacted by the
Ontario Provincial Government.
As stated in the Police Services Act, the Board’s responsibilities include:
·
submitting
operating and capital budgets to Council that will “maintain the police force
and provide it with equipment and facilities”
·
appointing the
members of the municipal police force
·
generally
determining, after consultation with the chief of police, objectives and
priorities with respect to police services in the municipality
·
establishing
policies for the effective management of the police force
·
recruiting and
appointing the chief of police and any deputy chief of police, and annually
determining their remuneration and working conditions, taking their submissions
into account
·
directing the
chief of police and monitoring his or her performance and
·
establishing
policies respecting the disclosure by chiefs of police of personal information
about individuals.
Under the provisions of the Police Services Act, the Board may give
orders and directions to the chief of police, but not to other members of the
police service, and no individual member of the Board may give orders or
directions to any member of the police service. The Board is authorized to pass by-laws to establish rules for
the effective management of the police service and, with some exceptions, can
establish its own rules and procedures in performing its duties under the Act.
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
The Policing Services Division of the Ministry
of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the Ministry), is responsible
for the ongoing development and improvement of policing throughout the province
of Ontario. The Policing Standards
Section of the Ministry develops regulations and guidelines to:
·
ensure adequate
and effective police services across Ontario
·
support the
implementation of professional police practices
·
address a broad
range of issues to assist police in protecting public safety and preventing
crime.
The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police
Services (OCCPS) is an independent oversight agency committed to serving the
public and ensuring that adequate and effective policing services are provided
to the community in a fair and accountable manner. As an independent quasi-judicial agency, OCCPS carries out a
number of duties that are primarily adjudicative and decision-making in nature. Specifically:
·
hearing appeals
of police disciplinary penalties
·
adjudicating
disputes between municipal councils and Police Services Board involving budget
matters
·
conducting
hearings into requests for the reduction, abolition, creation or amalgamation
of police services
·
conducting
investigations and inquiries into the conduct of chiefs of police, police
officers and members of Police Services Boards
·
determining the
status of police service members
·
conducting
reviews of local decisions relating to public complaints at the request of
complainants
·
general
enforcement relating to the adequacy and effectiveness of policing services.
In Ontario, police services and Police Services
Boards are ultimately accountable to the public through OCCPS. The mandate and duties of the Ontario
Civilian Commission on Police Services are set out in the Police Services Act and it reports to the Minister of the Ministry
of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
The Ottawa City Council is the funding body of
Ottawa Police Services. Under the Police Services Act, City Council has
the authority to establish the overall budget for Police Services, however, it
does not have the authority to approve or disapprove of specific items within
the budget. If the Board is not
satisfied that the budget established by Council is sufficient to provide an
adequate level of policing to the community, the Board may request that the
Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) determine the question.
As previously mentioned, the Auditor General presented the criteria to
be used in this audit to the Ottawa Police Services Board on 28 February
2005. The
current governance structures and practices were assessed against best
practices, and not against the practices of other Police Services Boards.
The table below presents each of the audit criteria used to assess the
governance structure and practices of the Board (as outlined in section 1.2 of
this report) and summarizes the results of the audit for each. Detailed observations in areas where there
are opportunities for improvement are discussed in the sections following the
table.
Table 1 – Summary of Audit
Results by Criterion
|
AUDIT CRITERIA
|
AUDIT RESULTS
|
|
1.
Are the responsibilities, roles, and duties of Board
Members clearly defined and understood, including:
|
|
·
Have
individual Board member duties and responsibilities been clearly defined?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Do members of
the Board fully understand their responsibilities as specified in the Act?
|
See section 3.1
|
|
·
Has the Board
established clear policies and procedures to guide it in carrying out its
role?
|
See section 3.2
|
|
·
Is there a
transparent and clear structure of responsibility that differentiates between
what the Board can do and what managers and employees can do?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board and the sub-committees have clearly defined terms of reference?
|
See section 3.3
|
|
·
Does the
Board have appropriate communications with Council?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board exercise a sufficiently independent voice that is not unduly influenced
by senior management?
|
See section 3.4
|
|
·
Does the
Board operate in an atmosphere of openness and trust?
|
Achieved
|
|
2.
Is there appropriate Board membership, composition,
and selection, including:
|
|
·
Have Board
member qualifications and competencies been clearly articulated?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Are the
committees that have been established to assist the Board sufficient to
ensure adequate and effective governance?
|
See section 3.3
|
|
·
Does the
Board have at least one member with financial expertise, including knowledge
of accounting practices, financial controls, and financial analysis?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board have a search or nominating committee that is responsible for selecting
Board members?
|
See section 3.5
|
|
·
Is the
orientation for Board members adequate?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is the
ongoing training for Board members adequate?
|
See section 3.6
|
|
3.
Is the Board evaluation process adequate, including:
|
|
·
Have annual
objectives and/or performance indicators for the Board been established?
|
See section 3.7
|
|
·
Is there a
process for and annual self-evaluation of the Board’s and/or individual
member performance?
|
See section 3.7
|
|
·
Is there a
regular review undertaken regarding the quality of the agenda and minutes?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board periodically assess its approach on how it reviews financial and budget
information?
|
See section 3.10
|
|
·
Are there
processes are in place for external audit or review?
|
See section 3.7
|
|
4.
Is there appropriate conduct of Board meetings and
recording information, including:
|
|
·
Do meeting
agendas focus on strategic, substantive issues?
|
See section 3.8
|
|
·
Do meetings
afford Board members adequate opportunity to provide meaningful input and
provide a forum for raising and discussing significant issues?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is the
quality and timeliness of information provided to Board members adequate?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Are minutes
of the previous meeting approved at the following meeting?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is
responsibility for any required action clearly indicated in the minutes?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Are the Board
meetings well attended by Board members?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is there a
high level of member participation at Board meetings?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is there an
adequate process for recording, tracking, and following up on an interest?
|
See section 3.9
|
|
5.
Does the Board play an adequate role in strategic
planning and performance measurement, including:
|
|
·
Does the
Board have an adequate role in budget direction?
|
See section 3.10
|
|
·
Does the
Board have an adequate role in strategic planning?
|
See section 3.11
|
|
·
Does the
Board have an adequate role in risk management?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board play a role in setting “tone at the top”?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Does the
Board have an adequate role in performance measurement?
|
See section 3.12
|
|
·
Is there an
effective process for evaluating the performance of the Chief?
|
Achieved
|
|
·
Is there an
effective process for succession planning for senior staff?
|
Achieved
|
The Police
Services Act outlines the duties and responsibilities of Board
members. The Board has further defined
Board and Board member duties and responsibilities in the Board Policy
Manual. The Policy Manual provides a
detailed “Board Job Description” (section 1.3) and a detailed description of
the “Chairperson’s Role” (section 1.4).
The Police
Services Act also requires the Board to develop policies “for the effective
management of the police force”. The
Board has done this by developing policies, procedures, and by-laws in the
following areas:
·
Board Policy
Manual,
·
Public Complaints
Process,
·
Public
Consultation Policy,
·
Discretionary
Fund Policy,
·
False Alarm
Reduction By-Law and Policy, and
·
Information
Sharing Protocol with Municipal Council
One of the principle regulations used to assist
Police Services in implementing the Police
Services Act is the Regulation on the Adequacy
and Effectiveness of Police Services.
The Regulation states that:
·
Section
35: Every board and chief of police
shall implement a quality assurance process relating to the delivery of
adequate and effective police services, and compliance with the Act and its
regulations.
·
Section 37 (1): Every board shall evaluate
the adequacy and effectiveness of the services provided by its police force by
comparing those services with the requirements of this Regulation.
The Board Policy Manual addresses Section 35 of
the Adequacy and Effectiveness of Police Services regulations in two sections:
·
Section 1.9 Cost of Governance indicates that outside monitoring assistance
will be arranged so that the Board can exercise confident control over
organizational performance
·
Section 2.4 Monitoring the Chief’s Performance talks about policy monitoring via external
reporting – discovery of compliance information by a disinterested, external
auditor, inspector or judge, or by the Ministry as part of their regular audit
of the police service.
Ensuring compliance to the Police
Services Act and its regulations is a major civilian oversight function of
Police Services Boards. However, with
the exception of the Board receiving the Ministry’s inspection report every 4
years from the Police Quality Assurance Unit, the Board is not taking proactive
steps to ensure this is being done. The
Board has not required compliance reporting from OPS senior management, nor has
it engaged external expertise to provide outside monitoring assistance. As a result, the Board relies solely on the
Ministry’s inspection reports to evaluate compliance. This is not to say that OPS management do not have their own
processes and procedures in place to ensure compliance, rather there is no
requirement to report back to the Board on these activities.
The OPS currently does not have an audit function, which would
strengthen internal oversight of all aspects of the Ottawa Police Service. However, a current OPS senior management
initiative is in process to develop an internal audit function as a part of a
larger plan that encompasses risk management, ethics, and discipline. The decision to create an internal audit
function indicates the commitment of OPS senior management to ensure
organizational effectiveness. Board
participation in the development of an audit policy and annual audit plan will
be important in ensuring the success of the internal audit function.
Regarding the Board’s communication with Council, the Board Policy Manual states (section 3.9 Independence of the Board)
that when the Chief appears before City Council or any of its committees, he
will be accompanied by the Board Chair or another Board member so designated,
unless he is there for an administrative matter within the Chief’s purview, or
to monitor Council or a Committee’s discussions. This is not current practice as most all presentations made to
Council are made solely by the Chief.
Aside from the policy requirement, from an optics perspective, the lack
of Board presence during presentations to Council diminishes the prominence of
the Board and its governance and oversight role, and may give the perception
that the Chief is wholly responsible for the Ottawa Police Service. As such, a greater presence by the Board on
these occasions would be appropriate and beneficial.
Recommendations
1. That
the Board:
-
develop a quality assurance process to ensure
compliance to the Police Services Act and its regulation.
-
require OPS senior management to provide information
to the Board on the status of the internal audit function. Furthermore, that the Board, with input from
the Chief, develop an audit policy.
-
as
per the Board Policy Manual, ensure at least one Board member is present when
the Chief appears before Council.
Overall,
the Board Policy Manual is very thorough and well thought out from a governance
perspective. The Manual is intended to
be a comprehensive source of information Board members require to carry out
their governance role. It includes
information from other applicable legislation, by-laws, and policies. It should be noted that Section 4 (Ends to
be Achieved Policies) of the Manual was not complete at the time of this
audit. The Ministry of Community Safety
and Correctional Services’ Report on the Inspection of the Ottawa Police Service
(March 2005) also recommended that the Board complete the Board Policy
Manual. In response to the Ministry
Inspection Report, the Executive Director made amendments to the Board Policy
Manual in June 2005. These amendments
were largely an indexing and cross-referencing exercise to satisfy Ministry
recommendations. On November 28th,
2005 the Board approved amendments to Section 4 of the Board Policy Manual,
which now completes the Manual.
Most
Board members stated that they did not refer to the Board Policy Manual on a
regular basis, and mostly used it during the Chief’s annual review. As a result, many of the elements that
promote strong governance and oversight are not being adhered to. Specifically:
·
Section 1.2 Governing Style – states that the Board will monitor and discuss the
Board’s processes and performance at least annually.
·
Section 1.6 Annual Board Planning Cycle – states that to accomplish its job outputs with a
governance style consistent with Board policies, the Board will follow an
annual agenda. This section of the
Board Policy Manual goes on to outline a sequence of planned discussions
occurring in June, September, October, and January of each year.
·
Section 1.9 Cost of Governance – states
the Board’s commitment to investing in its governance capacity which includes
ongoing training of Board members and outside monitoring assistance so the
Board can exercise confident control over organizational performance.
The Board
does not have a formal process for reviewing and updating its policies on a
regular basis, even though the Board Policy Manual states that the Board will
compare Board activity and its adherence to policies at least annually (Section
1.2 Governing Style).
A
memorandum from the Executive Director to the Board (17 October 2005) provided
a description of the Policy Committee which stated that the “Board’s policies
should ideally by reviewed by the Committee on a yearly basis”. However, it was confirmed through interviews
with Board members and a review of the Board minutes that a regular review of
Board policies does not take place.
Until recently, the Policy Committee had been inactive since it met in
facilitated sessions with OPS management to develop the 2004-2006 Business
Plan.
Recommendation
2.
That the Board:
-
as per the Board Policy Manual, develop a process to review
and update (if required) all Board policies annually.
In addition to policies, procedures, and
by-laws, the Board also has four committees that are to meet on an as required
basis to assist the Board in conducting its business. The four committees include:
·
Human Resources
Committee
·
Complaints
Committee
·
Policy Committee
·
Budget Committee.
The Human Resources and Complaints Committees were created in order for
the Board to meet its legislated responsibilities under the Police Services Act. The Budget Committee was just recently
established in October 2005 in response to recommendations made by the Auditor
General in the Audit of the Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police
Service (July 2005). The Policy Committee
was established in September 1998 to develop a governance framework for the
Board, which resulted in the Board Policy Manual.
There is a brief
description of the first three Committees in the Board Policy Manual (Section
1.5 Board Committee Principles).
However, the Board Policy Manual does not include a terms of reference
for each of the committees. The
memorandum regarding Membership on Board Committees from the Executive Director
to the Board on 17 October 2005 included a brief description of each of the
committees that is not contained it the Board Policy Manual, but is not a
detailed terms of reference.
Recommendations
3.
That the Board:
-
develop a detailed terms of reference for
each of the committees to be included in the Board Policy Manual.
-
review
the committee structure on a regular basis to assess its appropriateness.
The success of any Board relies heavily on the success of its
relationships, both internally and externally.
The Ottawa Police Services Board has achieved success in both
areas. The Board has developed a strong
and professional relationship among its members and with the OPS senior
management. These relationships have
become well established over time and are built on mutual trust and
respect. This was evident during the
interviews by comments made by both Board members and OPS senior
management. This is a key strength of
the Board as positive working relationships provide a strong foundation for
Board effectiveness.
There is also good communication between both parties. Most Board members stated that they feel
like they can approach OPS senior management for more detailed information when
necessary, and that OPS senior management works hard at keeping the Board
informed of all relevant issues that arise between Board meetings. However, caution needs to be exercised that
the relationship between the Board and OPS senior management does not become
too familiar. This type of relationship
can be counterproductive when difficult and contentious issues need to be dealt
with.
The Board Policy Manual states that the Chief’s communication with the
Board should be with “the Board as a whole except when (a) fulfilling
individual requests for information, or (b) responding to officers or
committees duly charged by the Board”.
Most Board members and OPS senior management felt there was good role
clarity between the Board’s responsibilities and the Chief’s responsibilities. However, some Board members raised concerns
that, in the past, the Chair and the Chief’s relationship had evolved into a
closer than necessary working relationship, and that the Chair and Chief
“discussed issues one-on-one too often”.
It was noted during the interviews that some felt the Board does not
like to ask tough questions and challenge the Chief, especially in public
meetings, and that the Board often looks to the Chief to determine priorities.
Recommendations
4.
That the Board:
-
maintain
a sufficiently independent voice from OPS senior management.
-
as
per the Board Policy Manual, adhere to its protocol for communications with the
Chief.
There are essentially two appointing bodies of the Board – municipal
Council and the Province of Ontario. As
outlined in section 2.1 of this report, the Board is comprised of seven
members. Four members are selected by
Council – three Councillors and one citizen appointee (who is neither a member
of Council nor an employee of the municipality), and three members are
appointed by the Province of Ontario.
As a result, the Board does not have control over who gets appointed and
for how long. Because of this, Police
Services Boards are susceptible to high turnover and loss of corporate
memory.
The collective skill set of a Board is made up of the individual skill
sets that each member brings to the Board.
The Ottawa Police Services Board has developed a rigorous process for
the City to use in selecting the citizen appointee which specifies the skill
set being sought for that position. The
Provincial appointment process, however, remains beyond the direct control of
the Board. When asked how the Board
attempts to ensure Provincial appointments result in the required collective
skill set, most Board members indicated that no regular attempts have been made
to liaise with the Province or Council as they felt the Board has no role in
the selection process. A recent written
request was made to the Province for an extension of Board members tenure but
the request was denied.
Once appointed, many Board members indicated that the workload was more
than they anticipated. This did not
diminish their dedication or time commitment to the job but some Board members
said it would have been useful for the appointing body to have provided more
detailed information about the job requirements and commitments necessary to
fulfill the position.
Recommendations
5. That
the Board:
-
determine the collective skill set required for the Board to
successfully achieve its mandate of providing sound governance and oversight to
the Ottawa Police Services.
-
develop a detailed job description for Board
members that outlines expected workload, time commitment, and remuneration,
including all activities that Board members may be required to participate in
such as training, conferences, committee work, ceremonial events, and other
relevant activities.
-
determine, each time a vacancy is about to
occur, the required skill set that is necessary to achieve the collective skill
set of the Board, and provide that information to the appointing body, along
with the Board member job description.
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, as well as
national and provincial policing associations, all recognize that Board member
orientation and training are essential elements of good governance. The Police
Services Act states in Section 31(5) “the board shall ensure that its members undergo
any training that the Solicitor General may provide or require”. The Board reinforces this in the Board Policy
Manual in Section 1.9 Cost of Governance, which states that “all Board members
will undergo any training that the Solicitor General may provide or require”.
For the Ottawa Police Services Board, new Board members receive
orientation from the Executive Director, which includes a comprehensive
orientation package. New Board members
also attend an orientation session given by OPS senior management. All Board members stated that the
orientation was excellent and provided the necessary information on the Board’s
responsibilities and operations.
In addition to
orientation, various formats of on-going training are offered by the Ontario
Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB), the Canadian Association of
Police Boards (CAPB) and the Ministry to Board members and the Board has
funding allocated each year for training.
The Board Policy Manual states that training (including attendance at
conferences and workshops) is essential to governing well and that the Board
will invest in training and retraining of Board members. When questioned about training during the
interviews, the Board members were divided on the issue. Some indicated that training was essential
to fully understanding governance and oversight responsibilities, and that
members who did not attend training courses could not fully function in their
role as a Board member. Others felt
that the initial orientation was adequate.
Frederick Biro, Executive Director of the Peel Regional Police Services
Board and Chair of the OMERS Board, has conducted two research studies on
governance in the Canadian policing industry.
Findings in both studies concluded that on-going training of Board
members is paramount and that “each Board mandate continuous education and/or
training for its members”. These findings
are supported by the OAPSB and the CAPB.
As previously stated, the Board members are all accomplished individuals
who bring bring valuable skills to the Board.
However, policing is a complex industry with complex issues. In their role, Board members must deal with
police staff and Police Association members who have years of policing
experience. The training that is
offered by the Ministry and OAPSB is designed to provide Board members with the
information necessary to deal in this environment.
The Ontario Association of Police Services Board (OAPSB) has recently
developed governance-training modules and is lobbying the provincial government
to make this training mandatory. It
should be noted that the OAPSB resolution on mandatory Board training was
drafted by the current Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board, who strongly
supports mandatory Board training.
Recommendations
6.
That the Board:
-
specify Board member training requirements.
-
report annually (and publicly) on individual
member training, and training of the Board as a whole.
The Board Policy Manual indicates that
the Board will “monitor and discuss the Board’s process and performance at
least annually” and that “self-monitoring will include comparison of Board
activity and its adherence to policies…” (section 1.2 Governing Style). The Manual also states that “funds will be
allocated each year for third-party monitoring of organizational performance”
(section 1.9 Cost of Governance). The
Board meeting minutes reflect that this is not being done and this was
confirmed by the Board members during the interviews.
As
previously stated, the Board is comprised of seven highly accomplished and
successful individuals from various professional backgrounds. During the interviews, it was clear that the
contributions of individual Board members were well regarded and received by
their Board colleagues and OPS senior management. However, most Board members acknowledged that regular Board
evaluation and reporting would be beneficial to the Board.
Annual Board evaluation would allow the Board to determine:
·
whether
key responsibilities in the Board Policy Manual are being carried out,
·
the
adequacy and timeliness of information being received,
·
the
appropriateness of meeting agendas and meeting time allotted,
·
how
well Board members are working together, appropriateness of communication and
discussion, degree of consensus achieved on key issues, etc., and
·
overall
level of Board’s effectiveness.
Recommendations
7.
That the Board:
-
as per the Board Policy Manual, determine
performance evaluation measures and conduct a formal Board evaluation annually.
-
report the results of the performance
evaluation in a Board Activity Report in its public agenda. In addition to the performance evaluation
results, the report should include information on such things as:
-
Board activities (e.g., number of Board
meetings held, number of community meetings held, ceremonial events attended,
number of Council presentations, etc.)
-
Hours of commitment
-
Board training (see recommendation # 6)
In reviewing the Board minutes and attending a
number of Board meetings, it was observed that Board meetings are well attended
and meetings always have quorum. As
well, it is evident that the meetings are conducted in an atmosphere of
openness where issues can be pursued to conclusion, with the full participation
by Board members.
However, the minutes for the public
meetings indicate that agendas do not follow what is outlined in the Board
Policy Manual. Specifically:
·
Section 1.6 – Annual Planning Cycle which outlines the Board’s planning cycle that
is to include a “review of the past year, contemplations of improvement areas,
debate on how much and what improvements to focus on for the coming year”.
·
Section 3.8 – Communication and Counsel to the
Board (Chief’s Requirements)
which covers the schedule for required reporting to the Board.
As stated in the Board Policy Manual, it is the responsibility of the
Executive Director to organize and maintain an annual calendar of monitoring
and other reports to be received by the Board (section 1.8 – Role of the
Executive Director). However, it is our
observation that reports are frequently delayed or not submitted with no
explanation from OPS senior management and no requests by the Board for
clarification on status.
As an example, the 2004-2006 Business Plan was approved in June
2004. The Board requires status
reporting every six months on the Business Plan to assess how the OPS is tracking
against the Plan’s goals and objectives.
Since the Business Plan was approved in June 2004 (18 months ago) there
has been no status reporting and no requests made by the Board as to the
reasons for delayed reporting. As a
result, the Board does not currently have a formal process to monitor the
achievement of goals and objectives set out in the Business Plan. The Chief’s annual performance review does
to some extent demonstrate the degree to which goals and objectives are being
met, as the Chief’s performance is synonymous with the performance of the
OPS. However, the Chief’s annual
performance review is an in-camera session between the Chief and the Board and
therefore, is not the venue to monitor achievement of the Business Plan. These reports should be presented in the
public meetings with relevant OPS staff present. Another reporting mechanism is the annual Activity Report
produced by the OPS, as required by the Police
Services Act. The Activity Report
provides an overview of police activities as well as crime statistics for the
year. However, this report is not
directly tied to the Business Plan and does not report on the status of how the
OPS is tracking against the Business Plan.
Overall, it is our observation that the meeting minutes reflect that the
Board’s time and attention is mostly devoted to operational-type or
micro-business issues (i.e., renewal of towing contracts, procurement approval,
lease extensions, etc.), which for the most part, do require input from the
Board. However, the meeting minutes
reflect a lack of planned agenda items and discussions on substantive strategic
issues. Some interviewees indicated
that strategic discussions often arose as a result of a specific agenda item
but that strategic discussions were not often planned. During the interviews, most Board members
agreed that more emphasis on strategic discussions would benefit the
Board.
As requested by
a previous Board member, one of the first agenda items at each Board meeting is
the Chief’s verbal report. The verbal
report provides an opportunity to present information on positive OPS
activities, ceremonial happenings, and is an opportunity to recognize the
service of OPS members. It is our
observation that placing the Chief’s verbal report at the beginning of the
meeting may take the focus away from more strategic issues and may set a tone
contrary to the objectives of the Board meeting. Best practice literature in this area states that, for Board
meetings to be effective, challenging or contentious issues requiring debate
should be placed first on the agenda, presentations should be limited to allow
for more dialogue, and more attention should be given to the future issues than
the past.
Recommendations
8.
That the Board:
-
as per the Board Policy Manual, adhere to the
Annual Board Planning Cycle (section 1.6).
-
review the agenda, taking into consideration
the need to include more strategic agenda discussions.
-
as per the Board Policy Manual, exercise more
aggressive oversight of reporting to the Board by ensuring that the Executive
Director organize and maintain an annual calendar of monitoring and other
reports to be received by the Board.
Furthermore, that the Board require reports to appear as an agenda item
on the date they are scheduled to appear, and require OPS senior management to
formally respond if a report is not going to meet a scheduled deadline.
-
review
the format of the Chief’s verbal report, taking into consideration the
principles of meeting effectiveness.
The Executive Director is responsible for
ensuring that minutes are taken at Board meetings, and presented at subsequent
Board meetings for review and approval.
The Board members agreed that meeting minutes are sufficiently detailed
to reflect the Board meetings and presented in a timely manner and format for
approval. It is also the responsibility
of the Executive Director, as stated in the Board Policy Manual, to maintain a
record of Board resolutions and inquiries requiring further or future actions
and to keep the Board informed of these matters. Most Board members felt that resolution and inquiries brought
forward at meetings were also sufficiently tracked and recorded. However, in reviewing the Board minutes it
was noted that not all inquiries by Board members had been followed up on and
reported back to the Board. A review of
the log of all inquires and resolutions indicates the following inquiries from
the Board are outstanding:
·
Number of Senior Officer Reductions
and Re-Deployments to the Front-Line (February 2002)
·
Pathway Patrol (October 2003)
·
Follow-up to Inquiry #80 on Noise
Pollution from Motorcycles & Straight Pipe Exhaust Systems (December 2003)
·
Clearance Rates & Other Measures
of Performance (interim reports received)
·
Status Report on Neighbourhood Network
technology (January 2004)
·
Status Report on New Bay Ward Public
Safety Organization (January 2004)
·
Comparison Analysis of Complaints
& Quantifying Compliments (January 2004)
·
Report on False Alarm Program (March
2004)
A review of these outstanding items should be undertaken to determine
which still require action and which could be eliminated.
Recommendations
9. That
the Board:
-
direct the Executive Director to present a report at
each Board meeting that lists all the outstanding inquiries and resolutions, as
a regular agenda item.
-
review the current list of outstanding inquiries and
resolution and determine which ones require action.
Council is the funding body of the OPS and has
the authority to establish the overall budget, however, it does not have the
authority to approve or disapprove of specific items in the budget. Therefore, Council relies on the Board to do
its job to challenge and scrutinize the budget.
It was identified in the July 2005 Audit of the
Budget Development Process at the Ottawa Police Service that overall, the
processes used to develop the annual budget are effective. However, the audit did identify
recommendations for immediate implementation so they could be incorporated into
the development of the 2006 budget, specifically:
·
the Board
establish a Budget Advisory Committee which would be in a better position to
provide more frequent and substantive input into budget development and
financial performance monitoring.
·
the OPS prepare a
number of funding scenarios for the Board to review, including a 3% increase
scenario up to the 9% increase scenario originally forecasted in the 2005
budget.
·
the Board
continuing to play a key role in scrutinizing draft budgets including questions
to reconfirm the need for, and value of, specific services and programs.
It was not until the October 2005 Board meeting that the Budget
Committee was established. As such, the
2006 budget was tabled on 9 November 2005 with no input from this
Committee. The next step in the 2006
budget process was a 21 November 2005 meeting for public delegations, followed
by the formal submission of the budget to the Board on 28 November 2005. It is the Board’s role to ensure the budget
is rigorously challenged and debated, and the current process does not allow
for this type of Board input. As a
result, the budget is largely determined by the Chief.
If the Board is not satisfied with the budget established by Council,
the Board can request that the Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing Services
(OCCPS) review and determine the budget.
It should be noted that the Board has never taken this step, however, in
our opinion, the risk of this occurring in the future would be significantly
mitigated if the Board played a more substantive role in the budget development
and review process.
Recommendation
10. That
the Board review the July 2005 Audit of the Budget Development Process at the
Ottawa Police Service and ensure timely implementation of the recommendations.
The strategic planning process for the OPS is essentially the
development of the Business Plan. As
legislated in the Police Services Act,
the Board must prepare a business plan at least once every three years. The 2004-2006 Business Plan was approved by
the Board in June 2004. The Board’s
Policy Committee, which is made up of three Board members, participated in two
facilitated planning sessions with OPS senior management in developing the
Plan. The resulting draft document from
the planning sessions was presented to the Policy Committee for approval. Once approved by the Policy Committee, the
Business Plan was present to the Board for approval. The minutes of the 28 June 2004 Board meeting indicate that one
question was asked by a Board member about the Business Plan before it was
approved by the Board.
As stated in Section 3.9 of this report, once the Business Plan is
approved, the Board policy requires status reporting every six months to
monitor and evaluate how the OPS is tracking against the Plan. Since the Plan was approved in June 2004,
there has been no status reporting.
Best practice indicates that the role of any Board in the strategic
planning process is to:
·
bring insight,
knowledge, judgment and analytical skill to the process
·
ensure strategic
planning discussions occur in appropriate venues, with the atmosphere, format
and allotted time to do the right job
·
aggressively and
constructively debate proposed strategy and considers critical issues
·
obtain internal
and external information needed to evaluate strategy
·
ensure strategy
planning process is sufficiently robust and considers a range of strategic
alternatives
·
evaluate past
strategy success or failure
·
assess best,
worst and most-likely case scenarios
·
reach agreement
with management on performance measurements to be used in assessing the success
of the strategy’s implementation.
Clearly, some of these criteria have been met by the Policy Committee in
developing the Business Plan. However,
the Business Plan is a critical governing document and the majority of Board
members were not involved in the development, challenge, or debate of it. In addition, it was observed during the
interviews that although the presentation of the Business Plan is part of the
orientation to new Board members, all Board members are not fully aware of the
contents of the Business Plan. One
Board member thought it was a 5-year plan.
As well, one of the interviewees indicated that the presentation of the
Business Plan is part of the orientation to new Board members but it “just
doesn’t seem to stick”.
The importance of the Business Plan needs to be recognized by the
Board. Once the Business Plan is
approved, OPS senior management develops detailed operational plans for each
branch of the organization based on what is approved in the Business Plan, and
the detailed operational plans have a significant impact on the day-to-day
operations of the OPS.
Recommendations
11. That
the Board:
-
clarify its
role in developing, challenging, and debating the Business Plan.
-
ensure that
status reporting against the Business Plan is included in the agenda at the
scheduled time.
-
require OPS senior management to link reports that
are brought before the Board to the Business Plan, where appropriate.
The
meeting minutes indicate that performance measurement became an issue for the
Board in December 2003 when, as a part of the Chief’s verbal report, the Chief
discussed clearance rate statistics reported by Statistics Canada, which
reflected negatively on the Ottawa Police Service. A discussion regarding clearance rates as an insufficient way to
measure performance ensued. It was
concluded that the OPS needed to determine performance measures that are
relevant and meaningful to the community.
As
a result of the December 2003 discussion, three interim reports on performance
measurement were presented to the Board in January, February, and March
2004. The reports outlined a summary of
research on measuring police performance and other related initiatives that
were being pursued. The reports did not
provide a work plan on how measuring police performance was going to be
accomplished or a timeline for reporting back to the Board.
In June 2004, the Board approved the 2004-2006 Business
Plan. The Business Plan stated that one
of the objectives of the OPS was to establish a Performance Measurement
Framework. Specifically, to:
·
conduct broad-based research into
police performance measurement
·
enlist a panel of local experts to
assist in identifying relevant measures
·
develop a “dashboard” of
community-supported indicators to monitor/measure organizational performance.
A Performance
Measurement Ad Hoc Committee comprised of OPS senior management, two Board
representatives, and community representatives was established and met for the
first time in May 2005 and then again in June 2005. The mandate of the Committee is for committee members to work
with Executive Command and a Citizen’s Advisory Panel to create a dashboard of
community-based performance indicators that are relevant, measurable and
realistic. To date, there has been no
reporting (status or otherwise) back to the Board on performance measurement
since March 2004, nor has there been any requests made by the Board for
reporting. Also, since the resignation
of the past Chair, the number of Board representatives on the Performance
Measurement Ad Hoc Committee has been reduced from two representatives to one.
As stated in the
OAPSB governance training material and as reinforced in the current governance
literature, performance measurement is one of the key tools used by Boards to
satisfy itself that adequate and effective police services are being
provided. Without these types of
monitoring and evaluation tools, it is difficult to assess progress and
success. The Chief also stated in his
January 2004 report to the Board that “it is evident that what is lacking is a
single, comprehensive suite of performance measures that answer the question – how are we doing?”
Work has been
done and continues to be done by the OPS on developing a performance
measurement framework. However, it has
been over a year and a half since the Board has discussed it or questioned OPS
senior management about the status of it.
Recommendations
12.
That the Board
-
work
with OPS senior management to determine an appropriate timeframe for developing
the Performance Measurement Framework and the reporting of it.
-
add
one more representative to the Performance Measurement Ad Hoc Committee.
Overall, the
governance structure and practices of the Ottawa Police Services Board have a
good foundation due to the strong, professional working relationship built on
trust and mutual respect that has been established with the Chief and OPS
senior management. However, an organization
cannot rely solely on the strength of good working relationships to achieve
good governance. There also needs to be
a strong framework of policies and procedures that is regularly monitored and
reviewed to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the Board and the
organization. This is the area where
the Ottawa Police Services Board needs to focus their attention. There are several procedures and processes that
the Board needs to consider in order to strengthen its oversight and governance
function. As well, a strong policy
framework will address the issue of continuity, as member turnover will
continue to be a challenge for the Board.
For the
recommendations in this report to be successfully implemented, the Chair with
the support of the Executive Director needs to invest the time and energy to
see these recommendations through. It
is our opinion that any costs associated with implementing these
recommendations can be absorbed within the existing budget for the Ottawa
Police Services Board.
Preliminary Board response – letter from Board Chair dated 15
December 2005.
