|
1. RESULTS
OF 2006 BOARD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PILOT PROCESS
RÉSULTATS DU PROJET PILOTE DE 2006 D’ÉVALUATION DU RENDEMENT DE LA
COMMISSION
|
BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DE LA COMMISSION
Que le Conseil prenne
connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Executive Director’s report dated 14 March 2007.
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 26 March 2007 is attached.
OTTAWA
POLICE SERVICE REPORT
SERVICE DE POLICE D’OTTAWA RAPPORT
Our File/N/Réf. 07-06-0040
Your File/V/Réf.
DATE 14 March 2007
TO/DEST. Chair and Members of the
Ottawa Police Services Board
FROM/EXP. Executive Director, Ottawa
Police Services Board
SUBJECT/OBJET RESULTS OF 2006 BOARD PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION PILOT PROCESS
RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board:
1.
Use
the lessons learned from its 2006 Board Performance Evaluation Pilot Process to
develop future board performance evaluation processes with due consideration
for the steps recommended in this report.
2.
Request
the Board’s Policy Committee to work with the Board’s Executive Director and
the consultant to develop a work plan based on the next steps and lessons
learned from this pilot process.
3.
Forward
a copy of this report to City Council for information.
BACKGROUND
At a meeting on 27 March 2006
the Ottawa Police Services Board approved a performance self-evaluation pilot
process and the retention of a consultant, B. Hume-Wright, Herne Company Ltd.,
to assist the Board in this innovative endeavour. These actions were taken in response to a recommendation
contained in a report by the City of Ottawa’s Auditor General on the Police
Services Board’s governance practices, submitted to the Board in December
2005.
Members of the Board completed
an evaluation tool (questionnaire) in November 2006 and in January 2007, held a
half-day workshop with the consultant to review the findings of her analysis of
the Board members’ responses. Please
find attached a report prepared by the consultant on the results of the Board’s
first ever performance evaluation process.
The report also contains suggestions for moving forward.
Wendy Fedec
Attach. (1)
2 March 2007
Ms. Wendy Fedec
Executive Director
Ottawa Police Services Board
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
Dear Ms. Fedec:
It
is my pleasure to provide to you this report on the 2006 Ottawa Police Services
Board Evaluation Pilot Process. I
submit the following recommendations for the Board’s consideration:
Recommendations
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board:
4.
Use
the lessons learned from its 2006 Board Performance Evaluation Pilot Process to
develop future board performance evaluation processes with due consideration
for the steps recommended in this report.
5.
Request
the Board’s Policy Committee to work with the Board’s Executive Director and
the consultant to develop a work plan based on the next steps and lessons
learned from this pilot process.
6.
Forward a copy of this report
to City Council for information.
BACKGROUND
In January 2006, the Ottawa
Police Services Board (OPSB) approved a comprehensive plan for implementing the
recommendations contained in the Auditor General’s December 2005 Governance
Audit of the Board. The Audit Report
contained 27 recommendations for improvement in the governance practices of the
Board. Recommendation 7.1 dealt with a
reference to the Board Policy Manual,
which outlined a requirement for the Board to determine performance evaluation
measures and conduct a formal Board evaluation annually.
The rationale in support of
the Board carrying out regular evaluations was reinforced by the Auditor
General and the consultant working with the Board on this project. The criteria included: ensuring the Board is accountable and
meeting its key responsibilities; the adequacy and timeliness of information before
the Board; appropriateness of agendas and time utilization; the Board’s
effectiveness when working together and consensus achieved on key decision
points; ensuring the Board is meeting its substantial legal and governance
responsibilities; and testing the effectiveness of its governance practices.
In response to the
recommendations of the Auditor General the OPSB decided to move forward with
the development of a board governance evaluation process and set a number of
key objectives to achieve, including:
1.
To
ensure the Board’s governance practices are fulfilling its legal
responsibilities.
2.
To
ensure that all Board members fully understand what is expected of them.
3.
To
continuously improve the overall effectiveness of the Board.
4.
To
enhance communication and a sense of team among Board members.
The Board carefully
considered the recommendations of the Auditor General and conducted research into other organizations’ performance evaluation processes. At
the time of the review no other large police services board in the country was
conducting a formal process of board evaluation. Literature and examples of
performance evaluations in use by other types of organizations were considered
and shared with the Board’s Policy Committee.
All of this information assisted the Policy Committee in its work to
draft a board evaluation instrument for use by the Board late in the fall of
2006. The Policy Committee sought the input of all Board members, the Chief of
Police, the consultant and the Executive Director in finalizing the board
evaluation instrument.
Because this initiative was
ground breaking, the Board decided to take a measured approach; therefore the
2006 evaluation process was implemented as a pilot project to assist the Board
in fine-tuning both the performance evaluation instrument to be used and the
overall process, including reporting.
With the evaluation instrument developed, the Board agreed to the
following pilot process for its 2006 Board evaluation:
1.
Completion
of the evaluation tool (questionnaire) by each Board member in November
2006.
2.
Compilation
and analysis by the consultant of the questionnaires completed by each
member.
3.
A
half-day governance workshop in January 2007 to discuss the findings of the
analysis and identify areas for improvement the Board may wish to address.
4.
Preparation
of a summary report to the Board on the process and findings of the evaluation,
with the report to be submitted to City Council for information.
5.
Preparation
of a action plan to address areas identified for improvement, including the
continuous improvement of the survey instrument for future use.
The Board retained an external
consultant with experience in board governance and performance evaluation
processes to assist it in conducting the pilot process outlined above and
assessing its success. The Board
retained the services of Barbara Hume-Wright, a principal of the Herne Company
Limited, a public sector management consulting company with 25 years experience
working with the public and not for profit sectors.
DISCUSSION
In order to provide an
objective analysis of the OPSB performance it was important to not only
consider the Board’s own evaluation of itself and the review by the Auditor
General, but to also measure the Board against recognized best practices in
board governance within the police sector.
The Canadian Association of
Police Services Boards carried out an extensive study of best practices in
board governance in 2004 and reported on its results in 2005. The following points paraphrase the key findings
of that study, which are relevant benchmarks against which to consider board
performance:
·
Determine
composite skill set and inform appointing bodies of gaps
·
Ensure
tenure and rotation of members is appropriate and advise appointing bodies of
requirements
·
Ensure
potential members understand the requirements/expectations of board members
(workload, timing of meetings, remuneration, etc)
·
Review
systems and tools of governance that the board uses at least once every three
years to be sure they are working effectively
·
Carry
out a board self assessment at least once every three years
·
Ensure
an up to date orientation program and materials for new members
·
Continuously
improve through education and training of board members
·
Nurture
the board’s relationship with the Chief of Police by ensuring clear division of
responsibilities; clear and open communication; well articulated expectations;
and agreed upon measures for performance on an annual basis
·
Ensure
adequate succession planning takes place
·
Approve
and monitor the process and implementation of a strategic plan and ensure
strategic alignment of key planning tools
·
Include
risk management as an integral part of strategic planning and implementation
·
Enhance
oversight with an audit policy for policy, program and financial audits
·
Ensure
accountability with stakeholders and with employees
·
Procedural
by-laws, minutes, agenda, report formats and other governance tools including
regular review cycles for policies are key to success.
As noted earlier, the Office of the
Auditor General carried out the governance audit in 2005 with a report to the
OPSB in December 2005. The Board moved
quickly to develop an implementation plan in order to act upon the
recommendations in the audit. The
Auditor General has subsequently been back to the OPSB to carry out a follow up
review on the status of the implementation plan, and at the 26 February 2007
Board meeting he reported very favourably on the Board’s response to the
Governance Audit. The Auditor
General’s follow up report indicated that, “the
Board has been committed to building and sustaining a framework of good
governance. The Board’s Executive
Director has also been instrumental in the development and execution of the
implementation plan. The Board has
accomplished a lot over the last year and has made significant progress in
implementing the audit report recommendations.”
FINDINGS
The Board’s evaluation survey
reviewed nine areas and posed some general questions. Generally, the Board found it performed well in the following
areas: vision and stewardship; board
meetings and process; board relations; and board education and
development. The Board, when asked
about its overall performance, felt it was performing very well. As part of the Board evaluation, members were
asked to identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Board. The Board noted among its strengths the fact
that it was well balanced in terms of experience, skills, gender and diversity. With this positive mix it reported that the
Board worked well together in an open and respectful manner.
The weaknesses identified by
the Board were similar to issues raised by most volunteer based boards. There were concerns with members having the
necessary time to devote to the considerable work load that board members must
manage, as well as concern about the challenges of setting meeting dates and
times that accommodate the schedules of very busy board members. Concerns were expressed about the ability of
the Board to influence its appointing bodies in order to maintain a proper
balance of skills and experience as expressed in the Board’s competency
profile. The Board also felt there was
room for improvement in achieving greater public participation in the work of
the Board. One further area mentioned
was the fiscal capacity of the Board to access independent third party advice
on matters of interest or concern to the Board.
There were many recurrent themes in members’ comments in the
evaluation, including the fact that the Board, at the time of the performance
evaluation, was in a state of significant transition as it worked to put
into practice the recommendations from the Auditor General’s report; it
was also in transition in terms of its own make-up, its leadership, and the
most senior leadership of the Police Service.
There was also a strong belief that the Board needed to set aside more
time for strategic workshops where the Board can learn, continuously improve
and explore future directions and priorities for the Police Service.
Through
the evaluation process, the Board identified several areas where it felt there
were opportunities to improve. Some of
the areas were seen to have a higher priority than others and should be part of
the earliest stage of implementation in a work plan. It is important to reiterate that the Board is in fact in a state
of transition and is well on its way to addressing many of the areas identified
through the survey. This fact was
reinforced in the follow-up review by the Auditor General.
The
following are areas the Board identified as priority areas to address in its
work plan:
Board Structure and Roles
•
ensure
Board committees’ purposes are clearly defined and well understood, and that
the committees perform effectively and report regularly to the Board.
Board Meetings and Process
•
ensure
strategic alignment of key planning documents (strategic plan, business plan,
budgets, performance objectives of Chief of Police).
Board Relations
•
ensure
a succession plan for Police Service leadership is in place.
Community Relations
•
enhance
the link between the OPSB and the community
•
actively
engage in building relationships with the public, community groups, businesses,
City Council and other police boards provincially and nationally.
Strategic/Business
Planning
•
devote
sufficient time to considering strategic and planning opportunities.
NEXT STEPS
There were several lessons
learned through this pilot Board evaluation process that should be taken into
consideration as the Board moves forward with this initiative, through its work
plan.
Timing and frequency of the
Board evaluation process are two key considerations, which are impacted by the
new four-year municipal term of office.
It was clear from this process that carrying out a Board evaluation in
the fall of an election year is not the most advantageous timing due to the
potential for significant changes in Board membership. When planning the timing to carry out the
Board evaluation process, consideration should be given to the potential for
significant change triggered by either appointing body. The OPSB policy manual, which is currently
undergoing a comprehensive review, suggests carrying out a Board evaluation
once a year and the Auditor General supports that concept. Best practices suggest carrying out a process
at a minimum of once every three years.
Based on this pilot experience and considering the potential for change
in board membership due to provincial and municipal elections, it is
recommended that the OPSB consider an evaluation cycle that includes a full
board evaluation similar to the one carried out in this pilot once every four
years, and once every two years it carry out a higher level board evaluation
that tests for progress in priority areas and congruence with key board
policies and service priorities.
Other options the OPSB should
consider is building into a four-year evaluation cycle different types of
evaluations, such as self evaluations of individual members, which would be
very useful annually after the first full year of each board cycle. Similarly, an evaluation of the Board Chair
would be most appropriate in the third year of a four-year board term. The Board should take the same open and
continuous learning approach in developing these evaluation processes by
piloting the instruments and the process.
The board evaluation
instrument worked very well for the members of the Board and it is therefore
recommended that it should form the basis for future evaluation instruments.
The OPSB may wish to task its Policy Committee with fine tuning the evaluation
instrument with input from its members and police leadership, but as it stands
it forms a very strong foundation on a go forward basis.
Due to the very innovative
nature of this initiative the OPSB should give consideration to developing
articles for publication by the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards
and the Canadian Association of Police Boards in an effort to introduce and
help guide other boards that might wish to conduct their own board evaluations. The OPSB is in a unique position to assist
fellow boards through articles or workshops on this very new and innovative
board governance continuous improvement process.
Finally it is recommended that
the Board, through its Policy Committee and Executive Director, work with the
Board’s consultant to develop an implementation work plan for the Board that
considers the results and lessons learned from this pilot process; the Auditor
General’s recommendations; best practices in board governance; and the OPSB’s
and committee’s annual work plans. In developing the Board evaluation process
work plan, due regard should also be given to the fact that the OPSB has seen
considerable member turnover and two of its key priorities for 2007 will be
building relationships with its new police leadership and its new City Council.
CONCLUSION
The Board is to be
congratulated for so openly and proactively embracing this opportunity to
improve its governance practices and effectiveness through a formal board
performance evaluation process. It wisely
decided to take a continuous learning approach through a pilot process in
2006. It is now very well positioned to
fine-tune the process, the evaluation instrument and its reporting framework
for future years, through a multi-year work plan.
original
signed by:
Barbara Hume-Wright
Herne Company Ltd.
|
2. 2006 POLICE
SERVICES BOARD ACTIVITY AND TRAINING REPORT
RAPPORT
D’ACTIVITÉ ET DE FORMATION DE 2006 DE LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES POLICIERS
|
BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DE LA COMMISSION
Que le Conseil prenne
connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Executive Director’s report dated 8 March 2007.
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 26 March 2007 is attached.
OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD REPORT
COMMISSION
DE SERVICES POLICIERS RAPPORT
Our
File/N/Réf.
Your
File/V/Réf.
DATE 8
March 2007
TO/DEST. Chair and Members,
Ottawa Police Services Board
FROM/EXP. Executive Director, Ottawa
Police Services Board
SUBJECT/OBJET 2006 POLICE SERVICES BOARD
ACTIVITY AND TRAINING REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board receive this report and forward it to City Council for
information.
BACKGROUND
At the 19 December 2005 meeting, the
Ottawa Police Services Board received a report from the City of Ottawa Auditor
General on his Governance Audit of the Board.
The Audit Report contained 27 recommendations for improving the
governance practices of the Board. In
January 2006 the Police Services Board approved a comprehensive plan for
implementing the Auditor’s recommendations.
One of the Auditor General’s
recommendations was: That the Board
report the results of the performance evaluation* in a board activity report …
(including) information on such things as:
-
number
of board meetings held
-
number
of community meetings held
-
ceremonial
events attended
-
number
of Council presentations
-
hours
of commitment
-
board
training.
(*The results of the Board’s
2006 performance evaluation pilot project will be addressed in a separate
report at the March 26th Board meeting.)
This report addresses the
above-noted Audit recommendation and comprises the first annual Report on the
Police Services Board’s Activity and Training, covering the period from January
1 to December 31, 2006.
BOARD ACTIVITY INDICATORS
At a meeting in February 2006, the Board
approved the activity indicators that would be tracked throughout the year and
that would be reported on in the annual report. The data for 2006 is captured in Attachment 1 and consists of the
following:
1. Board
and Committee Meetings
·
The volume of work associated with
board and committee meetings on a monthly basis demonstrated by:
·
Number
of meetings, including all board meetings (public and in camera), meetings of
board’s standing committees (Complaints Committee, Finance & Audit
Committee, Human Resources Committee, and Policy Committee), and other
committees on which board members serve (Citizens Advisory Committee on
Performance Measurement, Community Awards Selection Committee, Police
Scholarship & Charitable Fund Board of Trustees, Task Force on Homelessness
& the Safe Streets Act).
·
Hours
spent at meetings
·
Number
of items on agendas (public and in camera)
·
Number
of pages of agenda material reviewed.
2. Community Meetings
·
In accordance with the Auditor’s
recommendations, the number of community meetings is identified separately from
other board meetings and includes statistics on:
·
Number
of meetings
·
Hours
spent at meetings.
3. Other Functions & Events
Members of the Police Services
Board attend a wide variety of other business functions and ceremonial events
outside of board and committee meetings each year, such as: business meetings (OAPSB Board of Directors,
Big 12 boards, meetings with city or provincial officials); collective
bargaining and other meetings related to labour relations; Ottawa Police
Association functions; Senior Officers’ Association functions; media
conferences; briefings; Police awards ceremonies; recruit swearing-in
ceremonies; community association meetings and events; and meetings with other
City stakeholders. This category
records the following statistical information related to these other functions:
·
Number
of events
·
Hours
spent at them.
4. Board
Training
The
Auditor General’s report emphasized the importance of board member orientation
and training as essential elements of good governance. To assist the Ottawa Police Board in
ensuring its members make the commitment to ongoing learning, the Auditor
General recommended that the Board specify training requirements for its
members, and report annually and publicly on training for the board as a whole
and for individual members. In February
2006 the Board adopted a Training Policy that is captured at Attachment 2.
Of particular note is that if the Ministry
of Community Safety and Correctional Services offered no training in the year
being reported on, the Activity Report will indicate that. Similarly, if there were no members serving
their first year on the board in the year being reported on, the report will
indicate that the required orientation training for new members was not applicable
for that year. In 2006, both situations
apply and are indicated in Attachment 1.
Indicators pertaining to board
training include:
·
Ministry
training attended by board members either individually or as a group
·
Other
training/education sessions attended by the Board as a whole
·
Other
training/education sessions attended by each individual board member
·
Hours
spent in training by the Board as a whole and by individual board members.
CONSULTATION
Consultation was not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
While there are financial implications
associated with Board members fulfilling their educational requirements, there
are no costs associated with this report.
CONCLUSION
This report addresses the City of Ottawa
Auditor General’s recommendation to report annually and publicly on the
activities and training of the Ottawa Police Services Board. Statistical information was collected
throughout 2006 on the number of meetings and other functions attended by Board
members and the hours spent at them, as well as training opportunities in which
Board members participated. In
accordance with the Auditor General’s recommendation, this report will be
forwarded to City Council for information.
Wendy Fedec
Attach.
(2)
ATTACHMENT 2
|
Policy Subject:
BOARD TRAINING
|
Policy Number:
GA-3
|
|
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE / AUTHORITY
|
Police Services Act, section 31(5)
|
|
DATE APPROVED
|
27 February 2006
|
|
DATE TO BE REVIEWED
|
2009
|
|
DATE AMENDED
|
|
|
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
|
Annual Report to Board
|
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE / AUTHORITY
Section 31(5) of the Police Services Act requires the Police Services Board to ensure
that its members undergo any training that the Solicitor General may provide or
require.
The Ottawa Police Services Board recognizes the
importance of pursuing excellence in governance through
an ongoing commitment to training, education and development, and has adopted
this policy to formalize training and ongoing learning requirements for its
members.
BOARD POLICY
REQUIRED TRAINING
1. Each member of the Ottawa Police Services
Board during his or her first year of appointment is required to attend:
b)
Any
training sessions provided or required by the Ontario Ministry of Community
Safety & Correctional Services.
c)
Any
orientation sessions for new members provided by the Chief of Police and Board
Executive Director
2. Within the first three years of being
appointed to the Board, each member is required to attend the annual
conferences of both of the following organizations at least once:
a)
Ontario
Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB)
b)
Canadian
Association of Police Boards (CAPB).
OTHER
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
3. Having satisfied the requirements set out in 1 and 2 above,
and provided sufficient funds remain in the annual budget, board members are
encouraged to attend other learning opportunities related to governance or
policing such as those offered by (but not limited to):
a)
the
Canadian Police College
b)
the
Police Association of Ontario
c)
the
Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
d)
the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
e)
the
Canadian Professional Police Association
f)
the
Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.
4. The
Board shall be represented by at least one member at each of the
following:
a)
meetings
of OAPSB Zone 2 boards
b)
annual
CAPB conferences
c)
annual
OAPSB conferences
d)
meetings
of Ontario large boards (“Big 12”).
BOARD TRAINING AS A
WHOLE
5. Board training
as a whole will take place through inviting guest speakers to make
presentations or deliver workshops on issues pertinent to board governance,
board responsibilities or emerging trends in policing, with an emphasis placed
on issues of a strategic nature.
ANNUAL REPORTING
6. Individual Board
member training and Board training as a whole will be reported on as part of an
annual report on Board Activity and Performance in the first quarter of each
year.
