Report to/Rapport au :

Council

Conseil

8 June 2009 / le 8 juin 2009

Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager/Directeur Municipal

Contact Person/Personne ressource : M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor/Greffier et Chef du contentieux

(613) 580-2424 x21215, rick.oconnor@ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0043

SUBJECT:	MID-TERM GOVERNANCE REVIEW
OBJET :	Examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That, at its meeting of June 10, 2009, Council receive and table the “Mid-term Governance Review” report and refer the report to the June 16, 2009 meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for the purpose of receiving public delegations.

2. That, at it its meeting of June 24, 2009, Council consider and approve the following recommendations related to the Council and Committee structure and procedures:

Part I – Standing Committees

1) The principles and process for delegation to Standing Committees, Ward Councillors and staff outlined in the report.

2) The process for Standing Committee strategic planning as outlined in the report.

3) The ability of Standing Committees to identify ‘policy sponsors’ to work directly with staff on specific Committee initiatives.

4) The following Standing Committee structure for the remainder of the 2006-2010 Council term as outlined in the report:

a. Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

b. Audit, Budget and Finance Committee

c. Planning and Environment Committee

d. Community and Protective Services Committee

e. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

f. Transportation Committee

g. Transit Committee

5) The Council and Standing Committee Meeting Calendar as outlined in the report.

6) The Council and Standing Committee process improvements outlined in the report related to:

a. Items that Cross Committee Mandates

b. Motions Arising from ‘Open Mike’ Sessions

c. Advisory Committee Extra-Mandate Recommendations

d. Meeting Times and Location

7) That Standing Committees proceed with confirming the Chairs at the first Standing Committee meeting following the adoption of this report, notwithstanding the Rules of Procedure.

Part II – City Council

1) The implementation of a Bulk Consent Agenda and the procedures for lifting an item from the Bulk Consent Agenda as outlined in this report.

2) That the Mayor and Standing Committee Chairs be authorized to place related items together on the relevant agenda.

3) The process for listing responses to Council Inquiries with Standing Committee Inquiries at the relevant Standing Committee and then Council.

4) That boilerplate information be included on the Council Agenda listing as outlined in the report.

5) That Committee Chairs, or their designate, present Committee recommendations to Council as outlined in the report.

Part III – Local Boards

1) That the Library Board report directly to Council and that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board sit on the Selection Panel to appoint new Members.

2) The establishment of a separate Board of Health and direct staff to take the necessary steps to effect change.

Part IV – Citizen Engagement

1) Direction to City Clerk staff and City staff to work with Advisory Committees to identify processes and procedures to help Advisory Committees more effectively fulfill their individual mandates.

2) The Advisory Committee processes as outlined in the report.

3) That the Procedure By-law be amended to permit Advisory Committee representatives to address Standing Committees for ten minutes on any item within the Advisory Committee’s mandate.

4) Direction to City Clerk staff to develop a Petition Policy as outlined in the report.

Part V – Governance – Other Matters

1) That the Procedure By-law be amended so that the Ward Councillor(s) have the opportunity to open and close debate, on matters that directly affect identifiable wards, subject to the overarching right of the Chair.

2) That the City’s report template and processes be amended to provide the Ward Councillor(s) with the opportunity to provide formal comments on staff reports related to an identifiable ward(s).

3) That Councillors be provided with a global budget with which to run their offices, modelled after the Mayor’s budget.

4) Increasing the office budgets of Standing Committee Chairs to approximately .5 of an FTE in order to assist the Chair in managing the additional workload.

5) The amendments to the Procedure By-law as outlined in the report related to the following:

a. Suspension of the Rules

b. Recommendations Rejected by Standing Committees

c. Reconsideration

d. Directions to Staff

e. Meetings Investigator Recommendations Regarding In Camera Process

f. Voting in Council

6) Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as outlined in the report.

7) That the Procedure By-law, the Delegation of Authority By-law and other related By-laws, as amended by this report, be included in the by-law listing of the July 8, 2009 Council meeting.

8) That the current Meetings Investigator’s contract be extended until formal consideration of the 2010-2014 Governance Review and that future reports to Council from the Meeting Investigator include a staff comment.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

1. Que le Conseil, à sa réunion du 10 juin 2009, reçoive et dépose le rapport d’« Examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance » et renvoie le rapport au comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique pour examen devant les délégations publiques à sa réunion du 16 juin 2009.

2. Que le Conseil, à sa réunion du 24 juin 2009, étudie et approuve les recommandations suivantes relatives à la structure et aux procédures du Conseil et des comités :

Partie I – Comités permanents

1) Les principes et le processus de délégation aux comités permanents, aux conseillers municipaux et au personnel, tels que présentés dans le rapport.

2) Le processus de planification stratégique des comités permanents, tel que présenté dans le rapport.

3) Le pouvoir des comités permanents de nommer des « parrains de politique » pour travailler directement avec le personnel à des projets particuliers des comités.

4) Le maintien de la structure suivante des comités permanents pour le reste du mandat du Conseil de 2006 à 2010, telle que présentée dans le rapport.

a. Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

b. Comité de la vérification, du budget et des finances

c. Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

d. Comité des services communautaires et de protection

e. Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales

f. Comité des transports

g. Comité du transport en commun

5) Le calendrier des réunions du Conseil et des comités permanents, tel que présenté dans le rapport.

6) Les améliorations des procédures du Conseil et des comités permanents, telles que présentées dans le rapport.

a. Points qui correspondent aux attributions de plusieurs comités permanents

b. Propositions soulevées aux tribunes libres

c. Recommandations hors attributions des comités consultatifs

d. Heures et lieu des réunions

7) Que les comités permanents puissent confirmer les présidents dans leurs fonctions à la première réunion du comité permanent qui suit l’adoption du présent rapport, nonobstant les règles de procédure.

Partie II – Conseil municipal

1) La mise en place d’une série de points convenus et des procédures de retrait d’un point de la série, tels que présentés dans le rapport.

2) Que le maire et les présidents des comités permanents aient le pouvoir de regrouper des points à l’ordre du jour approprié.

3) Le processus d’inscription des réponses aux demandes du Conseil avec les demandes des comités permanents au comité permanent approprié et ensuite au Conseil.

4) Que les renseignements types fassent partie des documents de réunion du Conseil, tel que présenté dans le rapport.

5) Que les présidents de comités ou leur représentant présentent les recommandations du comité au Conseil, tel que présenté dans le rapport.

Partie III – Conseils d’administration locaux

1) Que le conseil d’administration de la Bibliothèque fasse rapport directement au Conseil et que le président et le vice-président du conseil siègent au comité de sélection qui nomme les nouveaux membres.

2) La création d’un conseil de la santé indépendant et demande au personnel de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour effectuer le changement.

Partie IV – Participation des citoyens

1) Demande adressée au personnel du greffe et de la Ville pour qu’ils travaillent avec les comités consultatifs afin de dégager des processus et des procédures susceptibles de les aider à devenir plus efficaces dans l’accomplissement de leurs mandats respectifs.

2) Les processus du comité consultatif, tels que présentés dans le rapport.

3) Que le Règlement sur les procédures soit modifié pour permettre aux représentants des comités consultatifs de s’adresser aux comités permanents pendant dix minutes sur tout point qui s’inscrit dans le mandat du comité consultatif.

4) Demande adressée au personnel du greffe pour préparer une politique relative aux pétitions, telle que présenté dans le rapport.

Partie V – Gouvernance – Divers

1) Que le Règlement sur les procédures soit modifié pour donner la possibilité aux conseillers municipaux d’ouvrir et de clore le débat sur les points qui touchent directement leur quartier, possibilité sujette au droit prédominant du président.

2) Que le modèle et les processus de rapport de la Ville soient modifiés pour donner aux conseillers la possibilité de commenter formellement les rapports du personnel sur les points qui touchent leur quartier.

3) Que les conseillers disposent d’un budget global pour gérer leurs bureaux, tout comme le budget du maire.

4) Accroître les budgets des bureaux des présidents des comités permanents à environ ½ d’un équivalent à temps plein, afin d’aider les présidents à gérer les charges de travail supplémentaires.

5) Les modifications au Règlement sur les procédures, telles que présentées dans le rapport, relatives aux points suivants :

a. Suspension des règles

b. Recommandations rejetées par les comités permanents

c. Reconsidération

d. Demandes au personnel

e. Les recommandations de l’enquêteur chargé d’examiner les réunions municipales sur le processus In camera

f. Le vote au Conseil

6) Modifications au Règlement sur la délégation de pouvoir, telles que présentées dans le rapport.

7) Que le Règlement sur les procédures, le Règlement sur la délégation de pouvoir et les autres règlements connexes, tels que modifiés dans le présent rapport, fassent partie de la liste des règlements à l’ordre du jour de la réunion du Conseil du 8 juillet 2009.

8) Que le mandat du présent l’enquêteur chargé d’examiner les réunions municipales soit reconduit jusqu’à ce qu’il soit revu formellement dans l’examen sur la gouvernance pour la période de 2010 à 2014 et que les rapports à venir de l’enquêteur au Conseil comprennent un commentaire du personnel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Since amalgamation, the City of Ottawa has undertaken governance reviews twice over each term of Council. The first review takes place at the beginning of a term of Council. Traditionally, this is when major changes are made to the governance structure. The Mid-Term Governance Review traditionally ‘tweaks’ the governance structure to address any issues that have arisen in the interim.

This is the Mid-Term Governance Review report, and it is more substantive than the norm, largely because the 2006-2010 Governance Review, approved in December 2006, was adopted before the Bill 130 changes to the Municipal Act, 2001 were in force. The 2006-2010 Governance Review anticipated the Mid-Term Governance Review might introduce major changes to the City’s governance structure, as new delegation and accountability and transparency tools would be available.

The preparation and tabling of the Mid-Term Governance Report was delayed due to a very heavy legislative agenda in the fall, with the result that any changes adopted as part of this process are anticipated to be in place from July 2009 until the new Council addresses the 2010-2014 Governance Review in December 2010.

This Mid-Term Governance Review, as in each previous review, was guided by the principles that any change must ensure that:

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

In addition, this Council identified the need to improve governance as part of its Transformation Agenda in its 2007-2010 Strategic Plan. Specifically, the six Governance Objectives in the City Strategic Plan are:

1. Increase the appropriate delegation of authority to Standing Committees, ward Councillors and staff to improve Council’s ability to provide strategic direction and reduce transactional approvals.

2. Enhance the ability of Council to set the strategic direction of the City, including working through Standing Committees to set Term of Council priorities for departmental initiatives and on-going activities.

3. Commit to and develop a democratic, engaging and visible process to maximize input from residents in the work of Council and in policy development, while ensuring that seniors, new Canadians, women and the economically disadvantaged are included.

4. Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of ward Councillors with respect to City undertakings in their wards.

5. Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of members of Council on city-wide initiatives.

6. Establish clarity around conflict of interest and code of conduct policies for elected representatives.

Ten White Papers were prepared on the major areas of potential change being examined as part of the Mid-Term Governance Review: They have been used as a pilot project for the City’s new on-line consultation tool. They were the basis for a facilitated session with the Mayor and Councillors, held on April 24, 2009 at the Pineview Municipal Golf Course, which further identified consensus items for this report.

Council has referred the matter of a Code of Conduct for Members of Council to the Member Services Committee. As this is the subject of an ongoing, separate process, the Mid-Term Governance Report does not address Objective 6.

In addition to the White Papers, the Mayor’s Taskforce on Governance was struck in May 2008 to examine the current governance model and provide recommendations based on best practices, lessons learned from other municipal governance models and within the framework of changes to the Municipal Act, 2001 through Bill 130. In its final report, the Taskforce identified three pillars for good governance: strategic leadership and planning; city-wide focus; and citizen engagement. Each pillar included a set of specific recommendations intended to deliver good governance. Some of the recommendations of the Taskforce overlap those of staff including: the establishment of an Audit, Budget and Finance Committee; the importance of strategic planning; increased awareness and participation of Ward Councillors in ward matters; and engaging citizens at all levels of policy decision-making.

The Mid-Term Governance Review report contains a series of inter-connected recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure that will meet Council’s first five Governance Objectives, and provide for the associated procedures and policies required for Council, its Standing Committees and Advisory Committees.

Where there was general consensus for a change in mandate, structure or process identified during the consultation process, a recommendation has been included. Where there was a general direction given, but no consensus, the recommendation is simply that Council ‘consider’ the item. Where there was a general sense that a suggestion not be pursued at this time, the issue or suggestion raised during the consultations is identified in the body of the report but no recommendation has been made.

In addition, there are a number of ‘housekeeping’ amendments (changes where existing processes need to be ‘cleaned up’, or where new direction or updates are suggested) being recommended, as is normal practice.

Highlights of the recommendations are provided below:

Changes to the Standing Committee structure are being recommended that could streamline the mandates of Standing Committees in ways that may improve the legislative process as a whole, better balance the workload between Committees and among members, enhance accountability and oversight, facilitate more holistic discussions on issues at the Committee level, with public input, and improve the budget process. These include establishing a new Audit, Budget and Finance Standing Committee, refining the mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and adjusting the meeting schedules for Transportation Committee, Transit Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

It is recommended that Standing Committees, Ward Councillors and staff be given expanded delegation of authority over transactional items. This expanded authority should provide greater autonomy for the Ward Councillor in ward matters, greater authority to Standing Committees to be the final decision-maker on items within their mandate, and reduce the number of transactional items at City Council.

In addition, there is an increased role being proposed for Standing Committees on policy development, with Council making the final decision. Specific recommendations include the introduction of strategic planning exercises at the start of the term of Council and again at mid-term, and the use of Committee ‘policy sponsors’. Other tools, such as the increased use of Sub-Committees, would be used at the Standing Committee’s discretion.

There are a number of general recommendations identified that relate to Standing Committee operations. These range from numbers of Committee members to clarifying the selection and terms for Chairs and Vice-Chairs to providing more flexibility for Standing Committees to manage their own work within their mandates to clarifying procedures with respect to Advisory Committees’ reports to Standing Committees and the “Open Mike” session for the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

Once policy work has been completed at the Committee level, it is recommended that Committee Chairs or their designates present the Committee recommendations to Council, in recognition of the work that Committee has done with staff and with the input from the public in shaping those recommendations. Given the increased workload for Committee Chairs that is expected to result from the adoption of many of the recommendations in the Governance Report, staff are recommending an additional .5 FTE for each Committee Chair.

There are changes to the reporting relationship between the Ottawa Public Library Board and City Council being recommended in this report. As with the Police Services Board, the Library Board operates under its own legislation (the Public Libraries Act) and has a separate governance structure under that legislation. This report recommends making the Library Board reporting consistent with that of the other arm’s-length Boards, such that it reports directly to Council. It is also recommended that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board should sit on the Selection Panel to appoint new members.

On October 22, 2008, Council approved in principal a new Board of Health governance model. Final approval of this governance model was referred to the Mid-Term Governance Review, and this formal approval is recommended in this report.

The City’s primary mechanisms for public input on policy development are Advisory Committees. To improve their effectiveness, it is recommended that the current ‘one size fits all’ model for Advisory Committees be reviewed, and alternative methods, approaches or structures should be explored with each Advisory Committee. In addition, Clerk’s staff will work with Advisory Committees to facilitate more meetings among Chairs and Vice-Chairs, and training will be provided for Committee members. It also recommends processes that connect the work of Advisory Committees to the work of the Standing Committees and to Council’s Strategic Plan and priorities; and that Advisory Committee representatives be permitted to address Standing Committees for ten minutes on any item within the Advisory Committee’s mandate.

Recommendations have also been provided to recognize the role of the Ward Councillor. It is recommended that opportunities exist for the Ward Councillor to be consulted on matters that affect his/her ward (including the opportunity to provide separate comments on staff reports) and to open and close the debate, save and except for the Chair, on a ward-related item. In addition, it is recommended that their office and salary budgets become a global budget, modelled after the Mayor’s budget.

Options for new procedural tools include, placing related items together on Committee and Council agendas, the adoption of a bulk consent agenda at Council consisting of all items carried on consent at Standing Committee, and providing ‘boilerplate’ information on the Agenda listing that provides Council with a snapshot of how the discussion at Committee proceeded (i.e. the number of public delegations for and against; the time spent in debate; the final vote for and against; and the vote of the ward councillor for ward-related matters).

Finally, Council established the Meetings Investigator position in November 2007. The Meetings Investigator is authorized to investigate complaints regarding the propriety of closed meetings held by City Council, a local board, or a committee of either. As part of his mandate, the Meetings Investigator acknowledges receipt of requests for an investigation, conducts the investigation and reports his findings and any recommendations to an open meeting of Council. When the Meetings Investigator position was initially established, it was intended that the position would undergo a one-year review as part of the Mid-term Governance Review. It is recommended that the position of Meetings Investigator be continued, with the incumbent retaining his position until the adoption of the 2010-2014 Governance Report. As well, it is being recommended that the Meetings Investigator’s reports include a staff comment, similar to the Management Response in the Auditor General’s reports.

As part of the preparation for report, the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk consulted with elected representatives, Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Advisory Committees, the Executive Management Committee and members of the Senior Management Committee, as well as staff in the City Clerk’s Branch, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office who work most closely with the legislative process.

RÉSUMÉ

La structure de gouvernance de la Ville d’Ottawa, comme celle d’autres villes de l’Ontario, facilite le processus législatif. Elle est en effet composée de plusieurs organes de délibération différents, quoique liés, soit le Conseil municipal, les comités permanents et consultatifs et les agences, offices, commissions et conseils indépendants, ainsi que d’outils de réglementation qui régissent le Conseil et ses comités, dont le Règlement de procédure, le Règlement municipal sur la délégation de pouvoir et le Règlement sur l’affichage public. La structure de gouvernance est conçue pour permettre une rétroaction directe et officielle de la collectivité dans le processus décisionnel par le biais de présentations des citoyens qui siègent aux comités consultatifs et aux comités permanents devant les élus. Il favorise aussi le travail législatif et gouvernemental des élus aux réunions des comités permanents et du Conseil municipal.

Depuis la fusion, la Ville d’Ottawa a entrepris deux examens sur la gouvernance par mandat du Conseil. Le premier a lieu au début d’un nouveau mandat; c’est habituellement à ce moment qu’on apporte des changements majeurs à la structure de gouvernance. L’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance sert traditionnellement à apporter de légères modifications à la structure de gouvernance afin de remédier aux problèmes survenus en cours de mandat.

Voici le rapport d’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance. Il est plus imposant que d’habitude en grande partie parce que l’examen sur la gouvernance pour la période de 2006 à 2010, approuvé en décembre 2006, a été adopté avant l’entrée en vigueur des modifications apportées par le projet de loi 130 à la Loi sur les municipalités, 2001. L’examen sur la gouvernance de 2006-2010 laissait prévoir que l’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance propose des changements majeurs à la structure de gouvernance de la Ville, puisque de nouveaux outils de délégation de pouvoir et de reddition de comptes et de transparence sont désormais disponibles.

La préparation et le dépôt du rapport de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance ont été retardés en raison d’une feuille de route législative très chargée au cours de l’automne, avec comme conséquence que tous les changements adoptés dans le cadre du présent processus devraient être en place à partir de juin 2009 jusqu’à ce que l’analyse complète de la gouvernance passe sous la loupe du nouveau Conseil en décembre 2010.

Cet examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance, comme tous les examens antérieurs, a été réalisé en suivant le principe selon lequel tout changement doit s’assurer :

· Que la structure de gouvernance et les processus afférents demeurent transparents et soumis à la reddition de compte face au public en général;

· Qu’il contribue à rendre le processus de prise de décision plus efficace et efficient;

· Que la structure et le processus de gouvernance sont centrés et alignés sur les priorités de la Ville.

De plus, le Conseil a reconnu le besoin d’améliorer la gouvernance dans le cadre de son projet de transformation dans son Plan stratégique de 2007-2010. Particulièrement, les six objectifs de gouvernance du plan stratégique de la Ville sont :

1. Augmenter la délégation de pouvoir des comités permanents, des conseillers et du personnel afin d’améliorer la capacité du Conseil municipal à présenter des orientations stratégiques et réduire l’approbation des transactions.

2. Augmenter la capacité du Conseil municipal à établir des orientations stratégiques pour la Ville, notamment par le travail auprès des comités permanents dans l’établissement des priorités du mandat du Conseil sur les activités en cours et les initiatives des services.

3. Concevoir un processus tangible, démocratique et attrayant puis s’y consacrer afin de maximaliser la participation des citoyens – y compris les aînés, les Canadiens de fraîche date, les femmes et les personnes économiquement défavorisées – au travail du Conseil et à la conception des politiques.

4. Élaborer des procédures en appui au rôle de représentation des élus en ce qui concerne les engagements de la Ville envers leur quartier et les améliorer.

5. Élaborer des procédures qui appuient et respectent le rôle de représentation des membres du Conseil municipal quant aux engagements dans l’ensemble de la Ville et les améliorer.

6. Clarifier les situations de conflits d’intérêts et les politiques de déontologie pour les élus.

Dix livres blancs ont été préparés sur les principaux domaines de changement qui seront examinés dans le cadre de l’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance. Ils ont servi de projet pilote pour le nouvel outil de consultation en ligne de la Ville. Ils ont aussi été le point de départ de la séance tenue avec le maire et les conseillers en présence d’un animateur le 24 avril 2009 au club de golf municipal Pineview, où ont été relevés les points de consensus utiles à la rédaction du présent rapport.

Le Conseil a confié l’étude du Code de conduite des membres du Conseil au comité des services aux membres. Puisque cette affaire suit son cours séparément, le rapport de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance n’abordera pas l’objectif 6.

En plus de produire les livres blancs, le groupe de travail du maire sur la gouvernance a été formé en mai 2008 pour examiner le modèle de gouvernance en place et faire des recommandations en se fondant sur les pratiques exemplaires, les leçons tirées des autres modèles de gouvernance, le tout dans le cadre des changements apportés à la Loi sur les Municipalités, 2001 par le projet de loi 130. Dans son rapport final, le groupe de travail a mentionné trois piliers de la bonne gouvernance : le leadership et la planification stratégique, la prise en compte de la ville tout entière et la participation des citoyens. Chaque pilier comprend un ensemble de recommandations favorisant la bonne gouvernance. Certaines des recommandations du groupe de travail chevauchent celles du personnel, entre autres la création d’un comité des finances et de la vérification, l’importance de la planification stratégique, la prise de conscience et la participation des conseillers municipaux aux affaires de leur district, et finalement l’engagement des citoyens à toutes les étapes de la prise de décision dans l’élaboration des politiques.

Le rapport de l’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance comprend une série de propositions et de recommandations inter-reliées en vue d’améliorer la structure de gouvernance dans le cadre des cinq premiers objectifs de gouvernance du Conseil. Il propose aussi les procédures et les politiques associées nécessaires au Conseil, à ses comités permanents et à ses comités consultatifs.

Là où un consensus se dégageait au cours de la consultation pour apporter un changement au mandat, à la structure ou au processus, une recommandation était formulée. Lorsqu’une orientation générale était donnée, sans toutefois atteindre le consensus, la recommandation propose que le Conseil « étudie » le point. Lorsque le sentiment général était de ne pas donner suite à une suggestion à ce moment-ci, la question ou la suggestion soulevée au cours des consultations est mentionnée dans le corps du rapport, mais n’est assortie d’aucune recommandation.

De plus, un certain nombre de recommandations concernent des modifications d’« ordre administratif » (modifications où les processus existants ont besoin d’un « ménage » ou encore là où de nouvelles orientations ou mises à jour sont suggérées). Cela est pratique courante.

Points saillants des recommandations

On recommande des modifications à la structure des comités permanents dans le but de rationaliser les attributions des comités permanents de façon à améliorer le processus législatif dans son ensemble, à rééquilibrer la charge de travail des différents comités et de leurs membres, à accroître la reddition de comptes et la supervision, à favoriser des discussions plus générales sur des questions qui relèvent des comités, avec la rétroaction de la population, et enfin à améliorer le processus budgétaire. Cela comprend l’établissement d’un nouveau comité permanent des finances ou de la supervision et des vérifications, la précision du mandat du CSODE et de revoir l’horaire des réunions du comité des transports, du comité du transport en commun et du comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales

On recommande que les comités permanents et les conseillers municipaux puissent bénéficier d’une délégation de pouvoir élargie sur les points transactionnels. Ce pouvoir élargi devrait laisser plus d’autonomie aux conseillers quand il s’agit des affaires de leur quartier, plus d’autonomie aux comités permanents pour prendre les décisions sur des points qui s’inscrivent dans leur mandat et réduire le nombre de points transactionnels au Conseil municipal.

De plus, on propose un rôle accru des comités permanents dans la préparation des politiques, toutefois la décision finale reviendra toujours au Conseil. Parmi les recommandations particulières, on trouve la tenue d’exercices de planification stratégique au début de chaque mandat du Conseil municipal et à nouveau à mi-mandat ainsi que le recours à des « parrains de politique ». D’autres outils, comme la formation plus fréquente de sous-comités, sont laissés à la discrétion des comités permanents.

On a cerné un certain nombre de questions générales qui ont trait aux activités générales des comités permanents. Celles-ci vont du nombre de membres, de l’amélioration de leur sélection et de la répartition de la charge de travail à la clarification du choix des présidents et vice-présidents et à la durée de leur mandat, en passant par l’octroi d’une souplesse accrue aux comités permanents quant à la gestion de leur travail dans les limites de leurs attributions et la clarification des procédures du point de vue des rapports des comités consultatifs et des tribunes libres du Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales.

Une fois le travail d’élaboration des politiques terminé par le comité, on propose que les présidents des comités ou leurs délégués présentent les recommandations du comité au Conseil en reconnaissance du travail que le comité a fait avec le personnel et la rétroaction de la population pour les formuler. Étant donné la charge de travail accrue des présidents de comités en raison de l’adoption des nombreuses recommandations du rapport sur la gouvernance, le personnel recommande d’ajouter à chacun d’eux la demie d’un équivalent à temps plein.

Le rapport recommande d’apporter des changements aux rapports entre le conseil d’administration de la Bibliothèque publique d’Ottawa et le Conseil municipal. Tout comme le conseil d’administration des Services de police, celui de la bibliothèque fonctionne selon une législation qui lui est propre (Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques) et dispose d’une structure de gouvernance distincte en vertu de celle-ci. Le présent rapport recommande d’harmoniser la reddition de comptes du conseil d’administration de la bibliothèque avec celle des autres organes indépendants de sorte qu’elle fasse rapport directement au Conseil. On a aussi proposé que le président et le vice-président du conseil d’administration fassent partie du groupe de sélection des nouveaux membres.

Le 22 octobre 2008, le Conseil a donné son accord de principe à un nouveau modèle de gouvernance par l’intermédiaire d’un conseil de la santé. L’approbation finale de ce modèle a été repoussée à l’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance.

Les principaux mécanismes dont dispose la Ville pour s’assurer d’une participation directe de la population à l’élaboration des politiques sont les comités consultatifs. Pour améliorer leur efficacité, on recommande de revoir le modèle unique actuel des comités consultatifs et d’explorer des méthodes, des approches ou des structures différentes avec eux. De plus, le personnel du greffe travaillera avec les comités consultatifs pour favoriser les rencontres des présidents et des vice-présidents, et une formation sera offerte aux membres des comités. On recommande aussi des processus pour rapprocher le travail des comités consultatifs de celui des comités permanents ainsi qu’au plan stratégique et aux priorités du Conseil. On recommande enfin que les représentants des comités consultatifs puissent s’adresser aux comités permanents pendant dix minutes sur tout point qui s’inscrit dans le mandat du comité consultatif.

Des recommandations ont été faites pour reconnaître le rôle du conseiller municipal. On recommande que le conseiller puisse être consulté sur des questions qui ont une incidence sur son quartier (y compris la possibilité de fournir des commentaires distincts dans les rapports du personnel) et qu’il puisse ouvrir et clore le débat sur les points qui ont trait à son quartier, exception faite des interventions du président. De plus, on recommande que le budget affecté à leur bureau et à leur salaire devienne un budget global, sur le modèle du budget du maire.

Parmi les nouveaux outils procéduraux proposés, mentionnons ceux qui permettent de regrouper les points connexes à l’ordre du jour des comités et du Conseil, l’adoption d’une série de points convenus par le Conseil, soit de tous les points convenus par consentement au sein des comités permanents, et de fournir des renseignements types dans l’ordre du jour de sorte à donner au Conseil un aperçu du déroulement des discussions du comité (p. ex. le nombre de délégations publiques en faveur et contre, le temps consacré à débattre, le vote final, puis le vote du conseiller concerné pour les questions touchant son quartier).

Pour terminer, le Conseil a créé, en novembre 2007, le poste d’enquêteur chargé d’examiner les réunions municipales. L’enquêteur a l’autorisation de mener enquête sur les plaintes concernant le bien-fondé des réunions à huis clos du Conseil, d’un conseil local ou d’un de leurs comités. Dans le cadre de son mandat, l’enquêteur accuse réception de demandes d’enquête, mène l’enquête et rend compte de ses constatations et recommandations, le cas échéant, pendant les réunions publiques du Conseil. Au moment de la création du poste d’enquêteur, il devait être évalué après une année, dans le cadre de l’examen de mi-mandat sur la gouvernance. On recommande de reconduire le poste d’enquêteur, en gardant le titulaire en poste, jusqu’à l’adoption du rapport sur la gouvernance pour la période de 2010 à 2014. De même, on recommande que les rapports de l’enquêteur comprennent un commentaire du personnel, à l’instar de la réponse du l’administration dans les rapports du vérificateur général.

Au cours de la préparation du rapport, le greffier municipal et chef du contentieux et le greffier adjoint ont consulté les élus, les présidents et des vice-présidents des comités consultatifs, le comité de la haute direction et les membres de ce comité ainsi que le personnel à la direction du greffe, des services juridiques et au bureau du directeur de la ville qui travaillent dans la proximité immédiate du processus législatif.

BACKGROUND

“Governance concerns the values, policies and procedures a Council and its staff adopt, to provide ethical, transparent and accountable local governance.”

Local Government Association of South Australia

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

Since amalgamation, the City of Ottawa has undertaken governance reviews twice over each term of Council. The first review takes place at the beginning of a term of Council. Traditionally, this is when major changes are made to the governance structure. The Mid-Term Governance Review traditionally ‘tweaks’ the governance structure to address any issues that have arisen in the interim.

This is the Mid-Term Governance Review report, and it is more substantive than the norm, largely because the 2006-2010 Governance Review, approved in December 2006, was adopted before the Bill 130 changes to the Municipal Act, 2001 were in force. The 2006-2010 Governance Review anticipated the Mid-Term Governance Review might introduce major changes to the City’s governance structure, as new delegation and accountability and transparency tools would be available.

City Council did not wait until this report to move forward on some governance initiatives. A number of new accountability and transparency tools have already been put in place by this Council, including:

· Creating the position of Meetings Investigator to address complaints related to closed meetings;

· Adopting the Bill 130 tool allowing for the creation of a statutory Auditor General;

· Adopting an Accountability and Transparency Policy; and

· Adopting a Delegation of Powers Policy.

This Mid-Term Governance Review, as in each previous review, was guided by the principles that any change must ensure that:

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

In addition, this Council identified the need to improve governance as part of its Transformation Agenda in its 2007-2010 Strategic Plan. Specifically, the six Governance Objectives in the City Strategic Plan are:

1. Increase the appropriate delegation of authority to Standing Committees, ward Councillors and staff to improve Council’s ability to provide strategic direction and reduce transactional approvals.
2. Enhance the ability of Council to set the strategic direction of the City, including working through Standing Committees to set Term of Council priorities for departmental initiatives and on-going activities.
3. Commit to and develop a democratic, engaging and visible process to maximize input from residents in the work of Council and in policy development, while ensuring that seniors, new Canadians, women and the economically disadvantaged are included.
4. Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of ward Councillors with respect to City undertakings in their wards.
5. Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of members of Council on city-wide initiatives.
6. Establish clarity around conflict of interest and code of conduct policies for elected representatives.

The first five Governance Objectives provided the starting point for this report (the Members Services Committee has been tasked with Objective 6, and this is in process). In addition, City Council referred a number of issues to this review over the course of the past two years, and these have been addressed as well.

As part of the preparation for report, the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk consulted with elected representatives, Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Advisory Committees, the Executive Management Committee and members of the Senior Management Committee, as well as staff in the City Clerk’s Branch, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office who work most closely with the legislative process.

Ten White Papers were prepared on the major areas of potential change being examined as part of the Mid-Term Governance Review:

Summary - Structural Issues and Potential Changes

1. Standing Committees - General

2. Standing Committees - Delegation of Powers

3. Standing Committees - Committee Structure

4. City Council Meetings - Improved Agenda Process

5. City Council Meetings - Improved Meeting Process

6. Standing Committees - Boards and Agencies

7. Public Engagement - Methods

8. City Council - Roles

9. Council - Other Procedure By-law Issues

These White Papers have been used as a pilot project for the City’s new on-line consultation tool. They were the basis for a facilitated session with the Mayor and Councillors, held on April 24, 2009, at the Pineview Municipal Golf Course, which further identified consensus items for this report.

The Mayor’s Taskforce on Governance was struck in May 2008 to examine the current governance model and provide recommendations based on best practices, lessons learned from other municipal governance models and within the framework of changes to the Municipal Act, 2001 through Bill 130. In its final report, the Taskforce identified three pillars for good governance: strategic leadership and planning; city-wide focus; and citizen engagement. Each pillar included a set of specific recommendations intended to deliver good governance. Some of the recommendations of the Taskforce overlap those of staff including: the establishment of a Audit, Budget and Finance Committee; the importance of strategic planning; increased awareness and participation of Ward Councillors in ward matters; and engaging citizens at all levels of policy decision-making.

The Mid-Term Governance Review report contains a series of inter-connected recommendations and proposals for an improved governance structure that will meet Council’s first five Governance Objectives, and provide for the associated procedures and policies required for Council, its Standing Committees and Advisory Committees.

Where there was general consensus for a change in mandate, structure or process identified during the consultation process, a recommendation has been included. Where there was a general direction given, but no consensus, the recommendation is simply that Council ‘consider’ the item. Where there was a general sense that a suggestion not be pursued at this time, the issue or suggestion raised during the consultations is identified in the body of the report but no recommendation has been made.

In addition, there are a number of ‘housekeeping’ amendments (changes where existing processes need to be ‘cleaned up’, or where new direction or updates are suggested) being recommended, as is normal practice.

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

The preparation and tabling of the Mid-Term Governance Report was delayed due to a very heavy legislative agenda in the fall, with the result that any changes adopted as part of this process are anticipated to be in place from July 2009 until the new Council addresses the full Governance Review in December 2010.

DISCUSSION

As indicated above, the substantive recommendations within this report result from consultations with elected representatives, City staff and the City’s Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs. There were a number of issues raised that staff did not include in the recommendations.

For ease of reference, the report has been separated into five parts:

Part I –Standing Committees

General Context

Section A) Delegation of Powers to Standing Committees and Ward Councillors

Section B) Taking a Lead in Policy Development

Section C) Committee Structure

Section D) Process Improvements

Section E) Committee Membership, Selection of Chairs and Related Items

Part II – City Council

General Context

Section A) Process Improvements

Section B) Strengthening the Connection Between the Standing Committees’ Work and Council Review

Part III– Local Boards

Section A) Ottawa Public Library Board

Section B) Board of Health

Section C) Other Local Boards, Agencies and Special Purpose Bodies

Part IV – Citizen Engagement

Part V – Governance-Other Matters

Section A) Roles

Section B) Procedure By-law Issues

Section C) Delegation of Authority By-law

Section D) Meetings Investigator

Part I – Standing Committees

General Context

Members of Council, in their consultations with the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk, emphasized the importance of the need to recognize Standing Committees as the working Committees of Council both structurally and procedurally. It is Standing Committees that develop expertise and make recommendations in the areas within their mandate in terms of what they learn from staff and what they hear directly from stakeholders and members of the public. It was generally agreed that increasing delegated authority to ward Councillors and Standing Committees was a necessary step. What should be delegated and identifying the balance among Standing Committee delegated authority, the rights of ward councillors and Council’s need to discuss items that it may believe have a city-wide impact are specifically addressed in Section A – Delegation of Powers to Standing Committees and Ward Councillors.

It was generally agreed that it is the role of Standing Committees to do the groundwork for policy development, with Council making the final decision. Councillors were clear that Standing Committees also need to become more involved with policy development much earlier on in the process. The recommendations in this section identify tools that could be incorporated to more fully engage Councillors and Committees at the outset, specifically through the introduction of strategic planning exercises at the start of the term of Council and again at mid-term, and the use of Committee ‘policy sponsors’. Other tools, such as the increased use of Sub-Committees, would be used at the Standing Committee’s discretion.

There were a number of general issues identified that relate to general Standing Committee operations. These range from numbers of Committee members to improving how members are chosen and balancing workloads to clarifying the selection and terms for Chairs and Vice-Chairs to providing more flexibility for Standing Committees to manage their own work within their mandates to clarifying procedures with respect to Advisory Committees’ reports to Standing Committees and the “Open Mike” session for the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

Governance Issues Identified:

· Standing Committees should be the working committees of Council, with more delegated authority to approve items of a more ‘transactional’ nature and with greater involvement in policy development.

· Processes should be put in place that provide more flexibility for Committees to determine how items that cross the mandates of more than one Standing Committee should be addressed, thereby reducing the need for Joint Meetings or incidences of multiple recommendations coming from multiple Standing Committees.

· Although the general principle that Standing Committees should deal with all items within their mandates was adopted in the 2006-2010 Governance Review, there are still some outliers that need to be addressed (i.e purchases of property related to a project, the Development Charge By-law).

· Council should review its established Term of Council priorities at mid-term, with Standing Committees conducting strategic planning exercises at mid-term for Council review.

· Departmental workplans should be developed around these priorities.

· Councillors should be more directly involved in policy development early on.

· Committees could choose to identify ‘policy sponsors’ to assist with policy development on areas entirely within a Committee mandate. These would be Committee members tasked to work directly with City staff to help develop policies being brought to Standing Committee.

· More time should be spent on the most important policy issues.

· Procedures need to be put into place regarding motions arising from the “Open Mike” portion of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

· Procedures need to be clarified regarding issues coming from Advisory Committees to Standing Committees and Council that are either outside of their mandate, outside of the City’s mandate and/or outside of City Council’s strategic plan.

· Standing Committees should have no minimum number of members, but consideration should be given to a maximum number.

· The new 2006-2010 Governance requirement to confirm Standing Committee Chairs after two years provides an opportunity to clarify the selection process for Chairs and Vice-Chairs and the length of their term.

Other Issues Raised:

· With the decision made as part of the 2006-2010 Governance Report that all matters related to a Standing Committee’s mandate be addressed by that Standing Committee, some outlying issues may need to be realigned to Standing Committees.

· Membership of Standing Committees should be selected through a more comprehensive Nominating Committee process.

· Targeted use of Sub-Committees and of Standing Committees for very specific areas could help ensure that some priority areas that are not able to receive more attention within a crowded Standing Committee agenda receive appropriate focus and oversight.

A. Delegation of Powers to Standing Committees and Ward Councillors

Governance Objective 1 of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan:

Increase the appropriate delegation of authority to Standing Committees, ward Councillors and staff to improve Council’s ability to provide strategic direction and reduce transactional approvals.

In this regard, the following issues were identified:

• Standing Committees should be the working committees of Council. They should recommend policy initiatives to City Council, and then be charged with overseeing their implementation.
• City Council should focus more on the most important policy and service issues and less on transactional items. More can and should be delegated to Standing Committees.

The City of Ottawa’s current governance structure provides that Standing Committees work with staff and the public to recommend policy and service adjustments to City Council. Until the Bill 130 amendments to the Municipal Act 2001 came into force, City Council had to approve the vast majority of Standing Committee decisions.

Bill 130 greatly expands City Council’s previous authority to delegate its powers and duties under the revised Municipal Act, 2001, or any other Act, “to a person or body” as set out in Section 23.1 of the statute. This discretionary authority permits City Council to delegate most of its various legislative and quasi-judicial powers and duties “subject to any limits … and to any procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals, and appeals”.

City Council cannot delegate the following core functions:

· The adoption or amendment of the budget;

· The setting of taxes, user fees, tax rates and ratios;

· The power to appoint or remove statutory officers;

· The power to incorporate municipal corporations;

· The power to adopt or amend its Official Plan; or

· The approval of Community Design Plans or a zoning by-law.

However, it can delegate nearly every other power. Delegating some of City Council’s traditional powers and duties to Standing Committees, Ward Councillors and staff could help streamline City Council’s decision-making process and enable it to focus on larger issues in a more strategic manner.

Principles of Delegation

On November 28, 2007, City Council adopted the following principles of delegation:

City Council supports the delegation of powers and duties to provide efficient management of municipal operations and respond to matters in a timely fashion according to the following principles:

1. All delegation of powers and duties shall be set out in the Delegation of Authority By-law and reviewed every term of Council.

2. Unless expressly delegated by Council through the Delegation of Authority By-law, all powers and duties of Council remain with Council.

3. All delegation of powers and duties may be revoked at any time without notice.

4. No delegation of powers and duties shall exceed the term of Council.

5. Every delegation of a power or duty of Council shall be accompanied by a corresponding accountability and transparency mechanism.

6. A delegation of a power or duty under any by-law to any member of staff is also a delegation to a person appointed as the City Manager to act in the capacity of the delegate in their absence.

In exercising any delegated authority, the delegate shall ensure the following:

· Any expenditure related to the matter shall have been provided for in the current year’s budget;

· The scope of the delegated authority shall not be exceeded by the delegate;

· The consistent and equitable application of Council policies and procedures; and

· Where required by the specific delegated authority, reports shall be submitted to Council advising of the exercise of a delegated authority and confirming compliance with the delegated authority and this policy.

It is recommended that Council apply the following additional principles when delegating authority to Standing Committees:

• Standing Committees should decide those items that are consistent with a policy that City Council has adopted.
• Standing Committees should decide matters that are consistent with the application of federal and/or provincial statutes and/or regulations.
• Standing Committees should be the body that makes recommendations on all aspects related to a policy or policy implementation issue (including property acquisitions, contracts, etc.).
• Standing Committees will have the authority to confirm by-laws for decisions under their delegated authority.

Process for Delegation

It is recommended that the process for the delegation of those transactional items that relate specifically to identifiable wards follow the current Site Plan approval policy.

This would result in the following:

• The general authority is delegated to staff, who will observe all established processes and procedures.
• Staff will work with the Ward Councillor(s), stakeholders and the public to resolve any identified issues.
• Staff will prepare a Delegated Authority Report, where all comments from the public and stakeholders are summarized and responded to in the reports.

• The Delegated Authority Report, including the conditions of approval, is sent electronically to the Ward Councillor(s) for concurrence.
• If the Ward Councillor(s) agree:
• The Report is then signed by the General Manager/Director or their delegate.
• Notice of decision is sent to the Ward Councillor(s) and those who submitted comments on the issue or who requested notification of the decision.

• If the Ward Councillor(s) do not agree with staff’s recommendation:
• Delegated authority is withdrawn, and the application is sent to the appropriate Standing Committee for a public meeting and decision.

Generally, the Ward Councillor lifts delegated authority from staff because they are not satisfied with the recommendations/conditions. In addition, if a Ward Councillor does not provide concurrence and does not lift delegated authority within the recommended timelines, staff would have the ability to move the report forward to Committee on their own accord.

It is further recommended that any member of Council would have the right to ask that an item that is delegated to Standing Committee be forwarded to Council for a decision, either at the meeting, or in writing to the Standing Committee Co-ordinator at any point up until the day after the Committee disposition is posted.

If Council adopts these recommendations, including the changes outlined below, specific processes for each delegation, including timelines, will be established by staff and brought to the appropriate Standing Committee for review and approval.

A specific issue was raised by Transportation Committee members at its meeting of May 20, 2009 regarding the appropriateness of a Site Plan being approved at the Standing Committee even though traffic provisions were amended and required to go to Transportation Committee for recommendation and approval.

To address this, staff are recommending that, where site plan conditions are being set and where transportation requirements recommended by Planning and Growth Management staff for development application matters before Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee are disputed by the Committee, then the disputed transportation conditions will need to be address by the Transportation Committee prior to final site plan approval being given at the PEC or ARAC Committee. Should the relevant Standing Committees disagree, the item would be forwarded to Council. Staff anticipates that this will be a relatively infrequent occurrence.

Changes that would occur if these principles were applied

A. Delegate to Standing Committee	B. Potential to Delegate to Standing Committee	C. Recommend to Council
· Sign Minor Variances · Real Estate Matters · Sale of Land · Disposal & Sale of Property · Property Acquisition · Land Exchange · Street Name Change/Dedication · Demolition Control applications · Municipal Road Access Agreements · Waiver of Private Approach by-law · Administrative reports	· BIA Matters · Creation of a BIA · Changes to boundaries · Projects · Appointments to ABCs, Advisory Committees, and Citizen Members to Library Board & Police Services Board, Committee of Adjustment · Crime Prevention Ottawa · Heritage Community Recognition Program · Commemorative Naming Applications · Terms of Reference and Annual Reports for ABCs	· Corporate-wide or City-wide Plans or Strategies · New policies and services · Financial reports · Official Plan, related amendments and required zoning · Audit Reports · Delegated Authority reports · Licensing By-laws & Amendments · Interim Control By-law applications

Accountability and Transparency Report for Increased Delegation

In accordance with the City’s Delegation of Authority Policy, every delegation must have a corresponding accountability and transparency mechanism. To this end, it is recommended that the Dispositions from Standing Committees form a bulk information item on the Council agenda.

Recommendation Part I - #1

The principles and process for delegation to Standing Committees and Ward Councillors outlined in this report.

B. Taking a Lead in Policy Development

Governance Objective 2 of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan:

Enhance the ability of Council to set the strategic direction of the City, including working through Standing Committees to set Term of Council priorities for departmental initiatives and on-going activities.

Governance Objective 5:

Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of members of Council on city-wide initiatives.

This report recommends that Standing Committees play a more direct role in setting the strategic direction of the City and implementing the Term of Council priorities within their mandates by developing their own Strategic Plans. In addition, it provides options for other tools that Council can consider to further enhance elected representatives’ up-front involvement in policy development both as a Council and as individual Councillors.

Strategic Planning for Standing Committees

In 2004, City Council adopted the “It’s About Accountability” framework, which included the development of a Strategic Plan as a best practice to help City Council and citizens identify the City’s longer-term priorities and goals and determine the work that will be done to achieve those goals.

The adoption of a Term of Council Strategic Plan in 2007 was an important initiative of this Council, and it was thought that the model used for the development of that plan was a good one – informal briefings by staff followed by a facilitated session among Councillors, which lead into the development of a report for discussion by Committee of the Whole, then Council. However, it was felt that it was not enough to simply have a Term of Council plan, and that adopting a similar process for Standing Committees could strengthen both the Term of Council plan and Standing Committee work.

Originally, the City Strategic Plan was to be updated annually. However, it was observed that an annual refresh might not provide the best balance of time spent on planning versus implementing, and that a mid-term refresh would better facilitate the focus on implementation.

To develop its Strategic Plan, each Standing Committee could follow essentially the same process that was used for the Term of Council plan. It is recommended that the Term of Council Strategic Plan be used as a base, and, through a facilitated session, enable Committee to identify the major issues they would like to be working on for the upcoming two years, and identify how they might get there. The Plan should also leave room for individual Councillors and Advisory Committees to bring forward new, innovative ideas that had not yet been contemplated. The results of the facilitated session would be brought forward to Standing Committee in the form of a report so that the Committees could, with public input, determine their legislative priorities and outcomes for the next two years, be able to identify key areas of effort and concentration, and identify any White Paper topics or other public engagement strategies, as well as any policy sponsors interested in working with staff on initiatives on behalf of the Committee. Committees’ Strategic Plans would be brought forward to Council at the same time, so that Council has the ability to view the Strategic Plans as a whole, and refine and refresh the Term of Council plan as needed.

This approach would enable Advisory Committees to build their work plans around Council’s stated priorities, and provide direct input into the development of the Strategic Plans. Further, stakeholders and the general public would have the opportunity to have input into a Standing Committee’s work plan as part of the normal process, and also provide input regarding the kind of consultation and engagement program that could accompany specific elements of the work plan. Advance knowledge of the legislative agenda for a Standing Committee could also increase the opportunity for citizen engagement.

As well, this approach provides for increased accountability by measuring each Committee’s accomplishments against their Plan.

The Planning and Environment Committee recently conducted a strategic planning session and developed its Strategic Plan for the next two years as a pilot. This plan was adopted by City Council on March 11, 2009.

It is recommended that the remaining Standing Committees develop their own Strategic Plan early in the fall, prior to the development of the 2010 Budget.

Recommendation Part I - #2

The process for Standing Committee strategic planning as outlined in the report.

Sub-Committees of Standing Committees/Legislative Committees/Policy Sponsors

The use of Sub-Committees is becoming more and more common in municipalities that use a Standing Committee system. Sub-Committees address very specific, high-priority on-going mandates of the Standing Committees they report to, and allow for regular monitoring and progress on those areas. The City of Toronto, for example, has Sub-Committees on Affordable Housing, the Budget, and Employee and Labour Relations.

Sub-Committees meet as needed on an on-going basis on defined areas of concern to City Council. Since amalgamation, Council has created several Sub-Committees of Standing Committees. These include the Long-Range Financial Plan Sub-Committee, which makes recommendations on the Long-Range Financial Plan and the Members Services Sub-Committee has some delegated authority and also makes recommendations on items directly related to the offices and budgets for Elected Representatives.

To focus efforts in a particular policy or service area, Council could choose to make greater use of Sub-Committees. For example, Council has expressed its desire for a more strategic approach to collective bargaining and for a comprehensive Human Resources Plan. As the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) already has delegated authority over collective bargaining, an Employee/Labour Relations Sub-Committee of CSEDC could enable interested members of Council to spend more time and focus on the mandates described above. As well, Council adopted a number of recommendations arising out of the Mayor’s Task Force on E-government, including the creation of a Committee of Council to address strategic Information Technology investments. Currently, this would lie within the mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee of Council, but this might also be an appropriate mandate for a Sub-Committee of CSEDC. These are discussed more in Section C – Committee Structure.

Although Sub-Committees report up through a specific Standing Committee, the members of the Sub-Committee do not necessarily have to also be a member of the related Standing Committee. Council has adopted the practice whereby a majority of the members of the Sub-Committee are members of the related Standing Committee, but the remaining membership is composed of elected representatives who have a specific interest or expertise in the mandate of the Sub-Committee.

In addition to Sub-Committees, the White Papers included a staff option of establishing special Legislative/Policy Committees as a pilot. These Legislative/Policy Committees would be ad-hoc Sub-Committees of Council tasked with developing recommendations on a major policy item that crosses the mandate of several different Standing Committees. Council could establish these Committees, provide them with a mandate and timelines and determine their membership. These Committees would be in existence only until such time as they deliver recommendations to City Council. They could allow individual Councillors to work directly on policy matters that they have specific interest and expertise in, regardless of the Standing Committees they sit on. Further, these Committees would allow for increased Committee review and public input at critical stages, as determined by the Committee. Finally, they would have a start date and an end date, and provide specific timelines for the final delivery of a product to Council.

In general, it was felt that the status quo was working, such that Standing Committees could establish Sub-Committees as needed. It was thought that, if Standing Committees were provided with the increased authority and tools recommended in this report, there would be no need for Legislative Committees.

Over the past number of years, Council has begun to participate in Council-staff working groups. These are not formal Committees of Council, but are Council-appointed working groups with a specific mandate. Examples of these include the Council Audit Working Group and the Budget Challenge Working Groups. Most Councillors participating in these working groups have commented on the value of working directly with staff in a less formal manner.

Council could choose to further this approach at Standing Committees by appointing ‘policy sponsors’ from among their membership. Specifically, a Standing Committee could identify a small number of Councillors to work directly with staff on a specific policy. These Policy Sponsors would participate in a staff working group throughout the development of the policy, and be knowledgeable “champions” of the policy presented to the public, Standing Committee and Council.

The Planning and Environment Committee has already assigned Policy Sponsors to participate in the preparation of the Development Charge By-law, as a governance pilot, and this report recommends a continuation of this pilot across all Standing Committees for the remainder of the Term, as a practice, without formal guidelines. As a go-forward for the full Governance Review for the 2010-2014 term, staff will include an evaluation of the need to formalize the role of Policy Sponsor in the Procedure By-law or in the Terms of Reference.

Recommendation Part I - #3

The ability of Standing Committees to identify ‘policy sponsors’ to work directly with staff on specific Committee initiatives.

C. Committee Structure

City Council’s current governance structure consists of six Standing Committees (Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Community and Protective Services, Corporate Services and Economic Development, Planning and Environment, Transportation, and Transit), several Sub-committees (Members’ Services Committee and License Committee), and a working group (Council Audit Working Group). There are also 15 Advisory Committees.

Traditionally, major changes to the Committee Structure are made only at the beginning of the Term of Council. However, since the Bill 130 revisions to the Municipal Act, 2001 had not yet come into force at the start of the present term of Council, no consideration could be given to the new powers given to Councils such as increased delegation of powers. This Mid-Term Governance Review is the first opportunity this Council has had to examine its whole governance structure, including the Committee Structure in light of the new Bill 130 powers.

Governance Issues Identified:

• Council should examine what changes could be made to the current committee structure to increase Council’s direct, up-front involvement in policy development, strengthen Council’s oversight function, and introduce more flexibility.
• The current committee structure review should be broad-based, and include an examination of the number and Terms of Reference of existing Standing Committees, the establishment of a Standing Committee on Audit, Budget and Finance, and the relative benefits and costs to merging Transportation and Transit Committees.
• The Budget process needs to be changed.
• The Nominating Committee process should be reviewed so that more factors are considered (including taking into account all other bodies that Councillors are members of on Council’s behalf).

Other Issues Identified:

• Suggestions were made to establish Standing Committees that mirror the City’s administrative structure, such that all of a Department’s responsibilities flow up through one Standing Committee.
• Suggestions were made to have a greater number of Standing Committees with more focused mandates (i.e. Parks and Recreation, Emergency and Protective Services, Environment Committee, Agriculture and Environment, Transportation and Public Works, Economic Development) and there was a suggestion for the creation of an Executive Committee.
• Suggestions were made to create 3 different Standing Committees for Planning (Urban, Sub-urban and Rural), and to have 3 Sub-Committees of Planning (Urban, Sub-urban and Rural) reporting up through Planning and Environment Committee.
• Council may wish to examine whether the quasi-judicial bodies established by Council and required under different Acts, such as the License Committee and Courts of Revision, should be comprised of elected officials, experts acting on behalf of Council, or staff as with the Animal Control Tribunal.

This report makes recommendations for changes to the current Standing Committee Structure that can facilitate Council’s focus on financial and management oversight, and improve decision-making overall. The recommendations and options below are the result of the consultations that took place with elected officials in the summer of 2008 and in April 2009, as well as other items that have been referred to the Mid-Term Governance Review by either Standing Committee or Council.

Specifically, it recommends the creation of a new Standing Committee for Audit, Budget and Finance, provides options related to the Budget process for Council to consider, and recommends refinements to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Standing Committee, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, Transit Committee and Transportation Committee. There are no changes being recommended for the Community and Protective Services Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee.

There was a suggestion to establish Standing Committees that align to City departments, but this suggestion was brought forward prior to the City’s restructuring in late 2008. With the reduction in Departments from five to three, staff has not examined this suggestion in any detail, as having only three Standing Committees would be complex to manage in terms of membership, workload and mandate.

As well, there was a suggestion that Council consider establishing an Executive Committee. This was a topic that was outlined in the Governance Structures that Support Council's Role (Efficient and Effective Council White Paper 3), which was prepared for the Term of Council priority planning session in June 2007, and a suggestion in the report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Governance.

Neither of these options are recommended.

Establishing an Audit, Budget and Finance Committee

Over the past two years, there has been considerable discussion about the need for a dedicated Standing Committee that focuses on high-level fiscal and management policy issues. Currently, these activities are spread out among several Committees: the Long-Range Financial Plan Sub-Committee (which has met on an ad-hoc basis to develop the Long-Range Financial Plans and the Fiscal Framework), the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (for the report from the External Auditor and the development of the financial reporting framework), and City Council directly (for the receipt of reports from the Auditor General and for Strategic Branch Reviews).

According to Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the role of Council is “(d) to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of Council; (d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality; and (e) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality’

There was general agreement that, with the improved financial and management oversight and reporting tools now in place, a dedicated Audit, Budget and Finance Committee with the exclusive focus on those high-level fiscal and management policy issues could further enhance the City’s accountability framework and Council’s financial oversight responsibilities under Section 224 This was preferred to simply adding these functions to the mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Standing Committee, as it was felt that having a more diffuse mandate would not provide enough focus to these policy areas or to management oversight.

The Audit, Budget and Finance Standing Committee would take over major financial reporting, policy and planning mandates, including the development of the Long-Range Financial Plans, oversight for the Fiscal Framework, operating and capital status reports, efficiency reports, major policy issues related to the financial sustainability of the organization (i.e. asset rationalization, user fee policies), and the external auditor’s report and management letter.

In addition, the Committee would also assume the role of an Audit Committee, either through taking over the mandate of the Council Audit Working Group (CAWG is empowered by Council to help resolve and make recommendations on those audit recommendations where Management and the Auditor disagree) or taking over Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee’s mandate to receive and discuss reports from CAWG. There was some concern voiced that moving CAWG’s mandate to a Standing Committee might add cost and complexity to a process that is currently working well.

It is further recommended that, if this Committee is struck, Council may also wish to change how the Auditor General currently reports to Council. Specifically, it is has been observed that only dealing with the Audits once or twice per year results in too long a delay between when the audits are complete and they are public and in too many audits for Council to deal with productively at one time. Instead, it is recommended that the Auditor General bring his audits forward regularly, on a timely basis, so that Committee and Council can focus on the recommendations and staff can implement them as soon as possible. It is also recommended that policy recommendations be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, while all financial and management recommendations be referred to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee. Council would continue to receive an Annual Report, the Auditor General’s overall observations on the financial and management framework of the City.

In addition to the core mandates described above, this Committee would also take on any further refinement of the City’s Performance Measurement and Reporting framework, as well as those performance measures that are not related to the specific mandate of any Standing Committee. This is consistent with a management oversight mandate.

In addition, this Committee would be tasked with the development of the City’s annual budget.

The Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report on the 2010 Proposed Budget Timetable and Process (ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0024) identifies a recommended process and roles for the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee and other Standing Committees for Budget development and approval. This report will be addressed by City Council at their June 10, 2009 meeting, which is the same meeting this report will be tabled at Council.

It is anticipated that, in general, the workload of this Standing Committee would likely be in the order of 8 to 10 meetings per year. It is recommended, then, that it meet monthly, on the third Tuesday of each month.

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Even if Council adopts an Audit, Budget and Finance Standing Committee, there will still be a need for a strong Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee. A change in mandate would allow this Committee to bring more focus to the important administrative, and day-to-day oversight in areas like purchasing, information technology, legal, Clerk’s, employee and labour relations and real estate matters.

It would also enable a greater focus on the Committee’s Economic Development mandate.

It is anticipated that the Members Services Committee would remain a Sub-Committee of Corporate Services, in its current form.

Council has indicated that it wants more attention paid to Labour Relations matters, and it has also indicated a desire to look at the recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on eGovernment related to strategic investments in technology. Both of these areas can be given increased focus within a renewed Corporate Services mandate. The Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee has traditionally made the most use of Sub-Committees and Working Groups (the Members Services Committee, the Long-Range Financial Plan Sub-Committee and the Council Audit Working Group). Given the importance of these two areas, and if the LRFP and CAWG mandates are given to an Audit, Budget and Finance Committee, Council may wish to consider establishing two new Corporate Services Sub-Committees, as follows:

An Employee and Labour Relations Sub-Committee

Over the past several years, Council has expressed a desire to move towards a more strategic approach to human resources and labour relations. A renewed Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee would have more capacity to focus on these issues, and the report on Strategic Collective Bargaining approved at the May 13, 2009 City Council meeting included the following recommendation:

That Council consider establishing an Employee and Labour Relations Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee as part of the Mid-term Governance Review.

The City of Toronto has an Employee/Labour Relations Sub-Committee.

It has the following mandate:

· Reviewing corporate human-resource policy issues related to achieving and maintaining excellence in the public service in keeping with the City's people strategy and its key goals. These include leadership, a healthy and safe workplace, managing people, recruiting and retention, building a productive workforce, and a learning organization;

· Providing strategic policy direction and receiving routine updates on collective bargaining relating to the City;

· Considering and making recommendations on reports on corporate human-resource policy matters affecting the City's workforce including compensation, performance management, training and development, recruitment, retention, retirement issues, labour relations, human rights, equity goals, wellness, and health and safety;

· Providing strategic direction to staff in negotiating City collective agreements;

· Considering updates on the progress of collective bargaining; and

· Reviewing matters related to the Employee and Labour Relations Committee's terms of reference that the Executive Committee refers to it.

Should City Council create an Employee and Labour Relations Sub-Committee, staff would bring a recommended Terms of Reference based on the Strategic Collective Bargaining report and the above mandate to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council for final approval.

An Information Technology Sub-Committee

The Mayor’s Taskforce on eGovernment recommended the establishment of a committee or subcommittee of Members of Council that “will advise Council on large-scale investment in information technology and ensure that appropriate consultation with stakeholders occurs.”

At its meeting of August 28, 2008, City Council approved the following motion:

Direct that the Mid-Term Governance Review include an option for the establishment of a committee or subcommittee of Council to review the potential for large-scale investments in information technology and make recommendations to City Council on those investments.

As the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee is responsible for information technology, the mandate envisioned by the Task Force fits within the CSEDC mandate. Council could task this to CSEDC as a whole, or create a Sub-Committee of Corporate Services to focus on these issues.

While sub-committees can provide the opportunity for more focus, it was observed that they can also increase the complexity of the structure for the public, thus reducing transparency.

It is anticipated that, in general, the workload of a revised Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee would likely be in the order of 8 to 10 meetings per year. It is recommended, then, that it meet monthly, on the first Tuesday of each month.

Transportation Committee and Transit Committee/ Transit Commission

The 2006-2010 Governance Review resulted in the division of the Transportation Standing Committee into two Standing Committees, one with a specific focus on transit issues. The separation was made as the former committee had a heavy workload of both transportation and transit issues, and it was felt that Transit was important enough from both a workload and a policy perspective to merit its own Standing Committee. Recognizing the close relationship between transportation and transit issues, it was determined that the membership of these committees should be the same.

After two years, most Councillors identified structural issues with this separation that they believed might be resolved by returning to a single Transportation and Transit Committee. At the same time, Committee and Council have asked staff to review the potential for establishing a Transit Commission.

Upon review, one of the specific concerns raised regarding having two Standing Committees involved those occasions when the Transportation Committee is not able to finish its meeting in the morning and must continue after the Transit Committee deliberates. This can leave many public delegations waiting for an opportunity to address the committee and unsure as to when the meeting will reconvene. While a merged committee could more effectively manage delegations and public hearings and not have to be concerned with the same time constraints or agenda deferral, the issue would be more resolved if Transit Committee met on a different day.

Another issue identified was that, in practice, it appears that a significant number of issues dealt with by the two Committees overlap and must be considered at a joint committee meeting. While consistent membership was intended to address this interconnectedness, the number of joint meetings and the number of meetings cancelled by either committee to accommodate a joint committee were identified as problematic.

Given the benefits of the focussed agendas for each of the Transportation and Transit Committees, and the workload of each, it is recommended that each Committee meet monthly, with the Transportation Committee meeting on the first Wednesday of the month and Transit Committee meeting on the third Wednesday of each month.

Further, it is recommended that there be no requirement for the membership of the two Committees to be identical, although it is recognized that overlapping membership is an advantage.

Finally, White Paper 6 provides a brief overview of some of the issues and options to consider if Council wishes to pursue establishing a Transit Commission. As this would be a significant change in governance, with a number of complexities, staff would recommend that, if Council wishes to pursue this option, a full report be brought forward prior to or as part of the Governance Review for the 2010-2014 term.

Planning and Environment Committee

Generally it was felt that this Committee was working well and had a large but manageable mandate.

There were some suggestions that, for specific, routine planning matters, either separate committees or sub-committees could be created to deal with Urban, Sub-urban and Rural Planning. As well, there were some suggestions that environmental matters were not given enough profile and focus, given the heavy workload of the Committee, although it was recognized that there were synergies between the two mandates. There were suggestions that Environment be a separate Standing Committee, but concern was expressed that separating out the Environment mandate might result in too many Joint Meetings. There was also a suggestion that the Environment mandate might also work as part of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs mandate.

Overall, there are no changes being recommended to this Standing Committees mandate, structure or meeting schedule.

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Generally it was felt that this Committee was working well. Questions were raised regarding the need for non-rural Councillors to be members of this Committee, although this was felt to be an important consideration when this Committee was first established. Specifically, it was expected that it was a value to Council as a whole to have non-rural members more familiar with rural issues and to ensure that urban and suburban perspectives were brought to bear as part of Committee decision-making. In addition, it was felt that a four-member Standing Committee was too small.

Given the overall workload of this Committee, it is recommended that it meet monthly, on the second Thursday of the month and that there be no fewer than 5 members of the Committee.

Community and Protective Services Committee

Generally, it was felt that this Committee was working well, and it had a large but manageable mandate. While there were some suggestions that Parks and Recreation and Emergency and Protective Services issues did not receive as much focus as they should, there are no changes being recommended to this Standing Committees mandate, structure or meeting schedule.

Considering Council’s Quasi-Judicial Bodies Be Composed of Citizen Members or Delegated to Staff

There are currently two quasi-judicial bodies established by Council, the Committee of Revision (“Court of Revision”) and the License Committee. These quasi-judicial bodies are composed entirely of Councillors, and are supported by Clerk’s staff, but they have an entirely different purpose and set of rules governing their operations.

Specifically, quasi-judicial bodies hear evidence and render impartial decisions. When members of quasi-judicial bodies are called upon formally to hear facts and make a decision, they are performing a quasi-judicial function which is similar to what judges do in court. The duty most commonly arises in relation to licensing matters (License Committee) or in the form of an appeals board (Court of Revision).

City Council members not only act as representatives on and to a wide-range of city-wide and local bodies (i.e. local boards including BIAs, conservation authorities, community associations, etc), they also balance an extremely large workload as municipal policy-makers. With changes to the Municipal Act, 2001 through Bill 130, there is potential for the role of quasi-judicial members to be fulfilled by citizen members appointed by Council. Section 23.2 related to the delegation of Council’s powers and duties provides that Council may delegate its quasi-judicial powers to a body of citizen members.

Court of Revision

City Council established the Committee of Revision to act as the Court of Revision for the purposes of hearing objections to local improvement special charges relative to regulations, policy, practice and the approach used by staff in determining the local improvement charges.

The composition of the Court of Revision, as defined by legislation, requires three to five members appointed by Council and who are qualified to be elected as a member of Council. Presently, the Committee consists of three Councillors representing the three applicable Standing Committees: Transportation, Planning and Environment, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Many Courts of Revision are comprised either entirely of citizen members or a majority including Toronto, where the committee is comprised of the Deputy Mayor and the four Community Council Chairs. The former City of Ottawa Court of Revision was comprised of three citizen members.

License Committee

The City’s License Committee is responsible for reviewing cases relating to license suspensions, revocations, refusals and renewals. The Committee has the power to place conditions on a license, and may suspend or revoke a license.

Presently, the License Committee is composed of six (6) members of Council, a minimum of three (3) of which are also members of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Panels of three members form the Committee for each hearing.

As part of the 2003 – 2006 Governance Review, City Council delegated the License Committee’s authority to act as the Animal Control Tribunal to the Director of By-law Services. In this role, the Director is responsible for hearing appeals and rendering decisions on the muzzling/leashing orders. City Council also petitioned the Province for the authority to appoint citizen members to the Licence Committee. This request was followed up with another recommendation as part of the City of Ottawa Act Review. The City of Toronto’s Licensing Tribunal is composed entirely of citizen members, a panel of which holds weekly hearings. Presently, all seven citizen members are either lawyers or have some legal background and all members are required to successfully complete the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators training within six months of being appointed.

While changes to the Municipal Act through Bill 130 include the authority to delegate quasi-judicial powers to a committee that could be solely comprised of citizen members, this report recommends retaining the status quo for these quasi-judicial bodies.

Recommendation Part I - #4

The following Standing Committee structure for the remainder of the 2006-2010 Council term as outlined in the report:

1. Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

2. Audit, Budget and Finance Committee

3. Planning and Environment Committee

4. Community and Protective Services Committee

5. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

6. Transportation Committee

7. Transit Committee

Recommendation Part I - #5

The Council and Standing Committee Calendar as outlined in the report.

Name	Time of Meeting	Day and Frequency of Meetings
City Council	10:00 a.m.	Meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month
Corporate Services and Economic Development	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the first Tuesday of the month
Planning and Environment	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month
Agriculture and Rural Affairs	10:00 a.m.	Meets on the second Thursday of the month
Community and Protective Services	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the first and third Thursday of the month
Audit, Budget and Finance	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the third Tuesday of the month
Transportation	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the first Wednesday of the month
Transit	9:30 a.m.	Meets on the third Wednesday of the month

D. Process Improvements

The Mid-term Governance Review generally makes recommendations for process improvements that will address the governance issues identified in the introduction to this section. These are ‘tweaks’ that are designed to improve processes to facilitate Committee work and reduce procedural complexity at Council.

Items that Cross Committee Mandates

There will also be reports that cross Committee mandates, making Joint Meetings a necessity or, where Joint Meetings are not possible, multiple Standing Committees address the same recommendations.

These can create some procedural complexity, particularly when each Standing Committee provides different sets of amendments on the same item and, further when the multiple amendments are conflicting.

To help address the procedural complexities, Council is making increased use of Special Meetings provisions to allow for a single focus on a major policy item. However, many of these

Special Meetings are also Joint Meetings of Standing Committees, which can result in a majority of Council sitting as a Joint Committee making recommendations to Council.

While it is unlikely that the City will be able to eliminate these issues entirely, there are some steps that can be taken to streamline how they are managed. The most obvious way to reduce complexity is to reduce the number of Committees addressing the same recommendations in the same reports.

In the last Governance Report, Council eliminated the requirement for the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to approve new spending approved by other Standing Committees. Establishing Legislative Committees for major projects that cross several Committee mandates is an option that is being considered as part of this Governance Review.

It is recommended that all legislative approvals for approved projects be aligned with the Standing Committee that has the mandate overseeing the project (for example, property purchases related to a snow removal facility would be approved by Transportation Committee rather than by Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee).

There are instances where an item is an obvious candidate for a Joint Meeting, but one of the Standing Committees that shares the mandate has primary carriage of most of the related policies and issues. The Development Charges By-law, for example, is explicitly part of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee mandate, but is directly related to the Official Plan and other Growth Management Plans.

As well, there are a number of times when a single report is required to go to multiple Standing Committees, which can lead to multiple and conflicting recommendations at Council. The Cash-in-lieu of Parkland By-law, for example, went to the Planning and Environment Committee, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and the Community and Protective Services Committee.

Council is beginning to try to simplify this process informally, where Chairs will informally agree that one or the other Standing Committee will be the sole Committee to address an issue that is going before Council. Given that this is beginning to happen informally, staff is recommending establishing a formal procedural mechanism that will simplify this process. Specifically it is recommended that, if there is general agreement by the Chairs of the related Standing Committees that one Committee or another may take carriage of making recommendations on the item to Council, that this be allowed to happen, as long as Council is notified which Standing Committee will have carriage, so that non-member Councillors can schedule their attendance.

Motions Arising From ‘Open Mike’ Sessions

The Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee has a standing ‘Open Mike’ item on its agendas, the result of recommendations arising out of the Rural Summit. On occasion, motions will arise as a result of the issues raised during this portion. Because staff with expertise in the area is sometimes not available at the meeting to provide comment and advice to the Committee, and although it has become the practice to treat these items as Notices of Motion to allow for staff comment, some issues have arisen when Committee waives a motion on to the Agenda in the ‘Open Mike’ session without staff comment, particularly given that many of the issues raised touch on legislative or regulatory matters.

Because the ‘Open Mike’ sessions can identify issues that have not been anticipated, it is recommended that a requirement for a Notice of Motion for all motions arising from these sessions be established in the Procedure By-law. Should an item be urgent, a motion could still be prepared for Council in the normal way, and staff would have sufficient notice to be able to provide comment and advice, particularly as they relate to any regulatory and legislative issues.

Advisory Committee Extra-Mandate Recommendations

As the City does not have unlimited resources at its disposal, Council has established a number of new processes to try to focus the City’s resources on its priority items. These initiatives include developing a Term of Council Plan to identify Council priorities over the term, and an Inquiry and Motions process that requires formal motions to proceed with a Councillor inquiry that requires additional resources, and a White Paper for motions adopted by Council that will adjust previously approved work plans.

Consultations have indicated that similar processes need to be established for issues coming from Advisory Committees that are either outside of the Advisory Committee’s mandate, outside of the City’s mandate and/or outside of City Council’s strategic plan and identified priorities.

To that end, staff is recommending a process that is in keeping with the Inquiries and Motions process adopted by Council. Specifically, staff is recommending that items coming from Advisory Committees that are outside of the Advisory Committee’s mandate, outside of the City’s mandate or outside of City Council’s strategic plan and identified priorities be sent as an information report to the relevant Standing Committee. A motion would be required to move the item to Council or to recommend any actions related to the item.

Meeting Times and Location

Regular Committee and Council meetings take place at regular times on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Most begin at 9:30 a.m. (The exception being the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council, which start at 10 a.m., and Transit Committee, which begins at 1:30 p.m.). While several suggestions were made to standardize Committee start times to 9:00 a.m., no major changes are being recommended.

Current practice is that, when meeting at City Hall, Standing Committee meetings take place in the Champlain Room and Council meetings take place in the Council Chambers. Both meeting rooms were designed for Standing Committee and Council meetings for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. These meetings were generally less well attended, of shorter duration and there were fewer members to accommodate.

Although some improvements have been made since amalgamation, both meetings rooms are reaching their capacity. Seating is not adequate in the Champlain Room for non-members that wish to attend and participate, and the room is also too small for the numbers of citizens that are beginning to attend meetings. Moreover, the microphone system needs to be upgraded and there is increased interference from the numbers of wireless devices that are now the norm rather than the exception. The cost to upgrade the sound system in the Champlain Room is significant.

The Council Chamber works better, as there is room around the table for all members of Council and more room for members of the public, but it, too, requires more working space.

To address the space and technology limitations of the Champlain Room, it is recommended that Council move all Standing Committee meetings to the Council Chamber, and that the Champlain Room be used for Sub-Committee meetings, as well as for items like technical briefings for Council and the media. On the direction of the Members Services Committee, staff will also be reviewing the lifecycle needs of the Council Chamber, as well as the opportunity to increase its functionality.

The issue of holding Committee and Council meetings away from City Hall was also raised. Specifically, there were questions raised regarding the increased costs of meeting off-site (on average, holding Standing Committee meetings away from City Hall costs an average of $2,850 or more per year). Originally, these meetings were held off-site to increase public attendance, but this increase has not generally been realized. Currently, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducts some of its meetings in the rural area. Staff recommend the status quo for this practice.

Recommendation Part I - #6

The Council and Standing Committee process improvements outlined in the report related to:

e. Items that Cross Committee Mandates

f. Motions Arising from ‘Open Mike’ Sessions

g. Advisory Committee Extra-Mandate Recommendations

h. Meeting Times and Location

E. Committee Membership, Selection of Chairs and Related Items

Prior to this term of Council, the administrative and logistical matters related to Standing Committee operations have not changed much from past practice. Specifically, Standing Committees were struck at the beginning of each term, each with 8-10 members, Chairs and Vice-Chairs were selected by the Committee for the term. A number of factors, including the requirement to confirm the Chairs at mid-term, and the increasing numbers of external bodies that members of Council sit on representing Council, provide the opportunity to review current practices.

Committee Membership

Most Standing Committees have between 8 and 10 members, and most elected officials sit on at least 2 Standing Committees, in addition to their membership on any number of boards and agencies on behalf of Council. The Mayor is an ex-officio member of all Standing Committees.

Committee members are selected by the Nominating Committee, and confirmed by City Council. The Nominating Committee process as outlined in the Procedure By-law has never really been followed, and the number of suggestions regarding how the Nominating Committee process might be improved is outlined in White Paper 3 – Committee Structure.

In terms of establishing a standard number for Committee membership, the current Nominating Committee process does not really account for all of the other bodies that elected officials participate in on behalf of Council (over 60 separate bodies), and the impact that has on the relative workload of individual councillors. While it does look at areas like BIAs, Conservation Authorities, the Public Library Board, Police Services Board, the Community Housing Corporation Board, and the Hydro Board, it does not account for areas like the Community Lands Development Corporation, the Manotick Mills Development Corporation, federal and provincial municipal organizations or requirements to attend local community association meetings. Council may also wish to accommodate this understanding in determining whether there should be a minimum membership requirement for Standing Committees.

It is expected that, by adopting some or all of the recommendations relating to streamlining decision-making, Councillors will have more flexibility to participate in areas of particular interest to them on any Standing Committee. This increased flexibility combined with a greater recognition of the other pressures and the creation of a new Standing Committee provides Councillors with the opportunity to review their own membership on Standing Committees and on external boards and make changes as part of the Mid-Term Governance Review. The Clerk’s office has conducted a preliminary circulation to members of Council on their interest in change to determine whether or not the Nominating Committee will need to sit to adjust the membership on Committees and external Boards at this time, or whether the change in membership will be minimal, and a motion at Council during the consideration of this report to change membership is all that will be required.

It was suggested that the Mid-Term Governance Review might always be an opportunity for Councillors to review their own membership on Standing Committees, and make any changes at that time. There are no recommendations made in that regard in this report, but staff would note that any significant movement in Standing Committee membership at mid-term might trigger a requirement for a Nominating Committee report to ensure Committees are able to continue to function.

While this report does not make any recommendations related to minimum or maximum numbers for Standing Committees, generally it was observed that nine or ten should be the maximum number of Committee members, and that it was permissible to have a Committee or Sub-Committee with as few as five members. It should be noted that achieving and/or retaining quorum can be more difficult with fewer members.

Selection of Committee Chairs/Vice-Chairs

The role of Standing Committee Chairs was raised often during discussions for the Governance Review, and is, therefore, discussed more thoroughly in the Roles section of this report. In summary, it was generally agreed that the role of a Committee Chair is not political per se. Rather, it is the role of the Chair to run the meeting well, to keep order and focus in the meeting, to call the vote, and facilitate the agenda. In addition, many elected representatives emphasized that Chairs must have confidence of their own Committee to be successful. There were some suggestions that formal training be offered for both Chairs and Vice-Chairs at the beginning of their term, and it was suggested that this training be mandatory.

As was indicated earlier, the long-standing practice has been that Standing Committee Chairs are elected to serve as Chair for the entire term of Council. For the 2006-2010 Governance Review, and with the advent of a 4-year term, Council established a requirement for Chairs to be reviewed at mid-term.

A number of options for the selection of Committee Chairs were raised. Generally, it was thought that Committees should continue to elect their own Chairs, as they are “the ones that have to live with them.”

Within the framework of the Committees selecting Chairs, several models were discussed. The first was the return to Chairs being selected for the 4-year term of Council. This would allow for stability and consistency within the Committee, but could make it challenging for Committees to move forward if Committee members felt the Chair was not working out.

The current option, that of a 2-year term, with the Chair re-elected or a new Chair elected at the mid-point of the 4-year term of Council, has the advantage of balancing stability and consistency with an option to review how the Committee is running at mid-term. It was also observed that a 2-year term offered a kind of performance review for the Chair and for the Committee, and was in keeping with the general move towards increased accountability.

In addition to the above, it was suggested that Committees should elect a new Chair every year, or rotate the position of Chair so that all members would have the opportunity to be Chair during a term. These suggestions would allow more Councillors to gain experience in the Chair, but it was observed that consistency could suffer. Should Council wish to provide more opportunities for elected officials to Chair while retaining consistency at Committee, they may wish to consider electing a new Vice-Chair annually, or rotating the position of Vice-Chair through the term.

There was also the suggestion that the Mayor be the one to select Committee Chairs, with Council confirming them. It was felt that this would enable the Mayor, who is elected City-wide, to help shape the work of Standing Committees towards the fulfillment of a City-wide mandate. Adopting this suggestion, which would bring the City of Ottawa more in line with the City of Toronto governance model, has the potential to change the current role of the Committee Chair.

The Procedure By-law provides for Standing Committees to select their own Chairs and Vice-Chairs, while Council is the final decision-maker should a Committee wish to choose a new Chair. It is a general principle that the bodies that elect should also be able to ‘unelect’, so staff propose that, whatever method Council adopts for the selection of Committee Chairs, the process for revisiting that decision be made consistent with the method for selection (i.e. if the Chairs are selected by the Standing Committee, then the Standing Committee would be the body that would remove them as well). With that said, it was generally felt that the process for removing Committee Chairs requiring more than a simple majority, as “everyone has a bad meeting”, and most Councillors felt that it can take some time for a Chair and the Committee to find equilibrium. As this is not an issue for the current Council, staff will be reviewing this item on a go-forward basis for the 2010-2014 Governance Review.

The general consensus is that a Chair be selected for either the full term, or reviewed at mid-term. The report does not make a specific recommendation, but notes that Council has a standing direction that the positions be reviewed at mid-term. Therefore, the recommendation reads “proceed with confirming the Chairs of the Standing Committees following the adoption of this report”. If Council wishes to return to the four-year term, it is suggested that a motion be brought forward to remove the current requirement for a mid-term review. As the Mid-Term Governance Review presumes a revisiting of Council’s governance structure, such a motion would require only a simple majority to succeed.

No recommendations are being made with respect to the position of Vice-Chair.

Recommendation Part I - #7

That Standing Committees proceed with confirming the Chairs at the first Standing Committee meeting following the adoption of this report, notwithstanding the Rules of Procedure.

Part II – City Council

General Context

Members of Council, in their consultations with the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk, emphasized that City Council should be able to focus more on the most important policy and service issues, setting the City’s strategic direction and less on transactional items.

Governance Issues Identified:

• City Council meetings should recognize the work done at Standing Committees and build on that work rather than replicating Committee debate at Council.
• The City Council agenda needs to be organized in such a way that it facilitates Council’s decision-making process while remaining transparent to the public.
• Rules regarding presentations and question and answer periods at Council need to be clarified.
• Clarity should also be established for formal inquiries raised at City Council where the inquiries relate directly to the work of Standing Committees.

Other Issues Raised:

• Consideration should be given to formalizing the notion of Members’ Statements at the beginning of each Council meeting.

While the recommendations to increase delegation to Ward Councillors and Standing Committees should reduce the numbers of transactional items coming to Council, there is a number of other process and procedural tools being recommended that staff believe will help City Council meetings be more transparent to the public, that will facilitate more holistic discussions on issues before Council, and enable Council to focus its attention on the most important items on any given agenda.

A. Process Improvements

Improved Agenda Process

Currently, City Council agendas are structured in much the same way as Standing Committee agendas, which is to say that most items are listed alphabetically by Standing Committee name and then by Branch rather than by topic or area. There is nothing to distinguish those routine, non-controversial items or largely transactional items where Council has limited discretion from those topics where Council is making or refining policy. While the Mayor can, with the consent of Council, adjust the order of consideration to better facilitate debate, there are other tools that can help members of Council and the public identify more routine items in any given agenda.

The principles guiding the recommended changes to the Agenda Process are:

• Recognize the work already done by Standing Committees.
• Clearly identify routine, transactional matters and items that were non-controversial at Committee from significant policy or service issues.
• Reduce procedural complexity by grouping related items on the agenda, regardless of which Standing Committee they rise from.

Adopting a Bulk Consent Agenda for Items Carried on Consent at Standing Committee

A consent agenda is a common tool used in local government to streamline required approvals for non-controversial items.

Currently, City Council spends time at the beginning of each meeting going through the agenda to determine which specific items Council will approve on consent. The consent process involves the Mayor reading out each item and the Clerk recording the consent of Council, setting aside those items that Council wishes to discuss.

Many of the items that now carry on consent are transactional and non-controversial, such that most also carried on consent at the Committee level and did not involve any questions or debate.

As indicated previously, although increased delegation of transactional matters to Standing Committees will help reduce some of the time spent on going through all of the Council agenda items, Council approval will still be required for a number of routine matters. It is recommended that the consent process for these items can be further streamlined by implementing a “Bulk Consent Agenda” for City Council meetings. The Bulk Consent Agenda would list all items that were carried on consent at Standing Committee and would be carried by Council as a single item.

In addition to clearly identifying routine items to streamline Council debate, a bulk consent agenda could also reduce the number of staff attending Council meetings. Should items pass on consent at Committee, staff should assume that these items will rise up through the Bulk Consent Agenda for general consent by Council and, therefore, are not required at Council for those items.

Implementing a Bulk Consent Agenda should not limit an individual Councillor’s right to discuss any item at Council. It is recommended that, should a Bulk Consent Agenda process be adopted, it should incorporate procedures that will allow elected officials to lift individual items from the Bulk Consent Agenda.

Staff recommends the following procedures for lifting an item from the Bulk Consent Agenda:

• In order to ensure that all Members of Council are aware of the items to be included, the Bulk Consent Agenda would be circulated electronically to Council on the Friday before the Council meeting, and posted on Ottawa.ca as part of the regular Council Agenda.

• Lifting an item from the Consent Agenda prior to the Council meeting would require notification to the City Clerk by noon of the Tuesday prior to the Council meeting. This would provide the City Clerk with the opportunity to include the item as part of the regular agenda and circulate an updated Bulk Consent Agenda, on a different colour of paper, along with the final Council agenda.

• Lifting an item from the Consent Agenda at the Council meeting could still be done by an individual member; however, it would then be the last item on the regular agenda, prior to the Adoption of Committee Reports, to allow the appropriate staff to be in attendance at the meeting.

Recommendation Part II - #1

The implementation of a Bulk Consent Agenda and the procedures for lifting an item from the Bulk Consent Agenda as outlined in this report.

Allowing Related Items to be Placed Together on the Agenda

Presently, City Council’s Agenda is organized alphabetically by Standing Committee, which are each separately organized by the branches submitting reports – also alphabetically. This agenda format reflects the structure of the administration rather than a holistic view of the issues at hand, and means that related issues on a single topic can often be found in several different parts of the agenda, not always sequenced in the logical order for decision-making.

It is recommended that the Mayor, with the Clerk’s advice, be allowed to place related items together on the Council Agenda, in the most logical order for decision-making, regardless of the order in which they appear by Standing Committee.

Recommendation Part II - #2

That the Mayor and Standing Committee Chairs be authorized to place related items together on the relevant agenda.

Meeting Procedures

One of the major governance issues identified by Councillors is whether or not there is a need to formalize practices that have become common at Council meetings, although they are outside the Procedure By-law. In particular, reference was made to the practice of having a question and answer period for major reports, and the emerging practice of individual elected representatives making a brief public comment on different items following the ceremonial presentations, in much the same way “Members’ Statements” function in the federal and provincial legislatures.

Establishing a Formal Question Period for Items of Major Significance

Currently, there is no accommodation in City Council’s Procedure By-law for a separate question period. The Procedure By-law allows each member to speak once on each motion for five minutes, including questions.

However, quite apart from the Procedure By-law, it has been the practice in the most recent two Terms of Council for the Mayor, at his discretion, to allow a separate question period on major policy items. In the absence of a formal protocol, the Mayor has used a number of different approaches to the ‘question period’, from following Committee practices whereby each member is allocated 5 minutes for questions, then drops to the bottom of the list for additional questions to allowing 1 or 2 questions per member, allowing them to go to the bottom of the list for additional questions to allowing each member an unlimited amount of time to ask questions.

Councillors have expressed the desire to establish consistency and predictability around when and if there will be a separate question period and, if there will be a question period, establish the rules and incorporate them into the Procedure By-law.

There are a number of options for Council to consider for a question period at City Council:

§ Question period at Council permitted at the Mayor’s discretion. As Head of Council, it is the Mayor’s responsibility to “preside over council meetings so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively.” Providing the Mayor with the discretion in the Procedure By-law is consistent with his role as presiding officer. Council may wish to determine if the question period should be noted in the Council Agenda.

§ Separate time limits for questions and debate could be established. Based on the notion that Standing Committees are the working Committees of Council, and that technical questions and clarification are most appropriately aired and answered at Committee, the following options could be considered:

§ A time limit for questions could be established. The time limit for questions could be limited (i.e. three minutes). This option is based on the notion that technical questions and clarifications should be dealt with at Standing Committee or with staff in advance of the Council meeting.

§ Debate times on items of major significance could be increased to 7 minutes to allow for questions.

§ A limit to the number of questions asked could be established. Rather than limiting the time for questions, a limit to the number of questions that can be asked by one member could be limited, to allow for all Councillors to ask their questions while reducing the potential for ‘repeat’ questions and questions that are more directed towards debate than straight information.

§ Question Period to occur in Committee of the Whole. Committee of the Whole is a procedural tool that allows a municipal council to have an informal discussion on a particular subject. When in Committee of the Whole, the rules governing procedure and the conduct of Members are not limited with the exception that “no member shall speak more than once until every member who desires to speak shall have spoken.” As such, Council could move into Committee of the Whole for the question period for large policy items, which would allow Members to ask questions on a policy matter without the same time constraints. A simpler option, adopting Standing Committee procedures for a question period at Council, would accomplish the same thing.

While many members of Council expressed a desire to adopt Committee procedures for questions on items of major significance, such that the Mayor identifies at the start of the item whether he believes a question period over and above the 5 minutes of speaking time allotted is in order and where any member of Council can have 5 minutes of questions and then drop to the bottom of the list until the list is exhausted, there was no consensus. Therefore, staff has made no recommendation in this regard, and a motion would be required to adopt this approach.

In addition, the Mayor indicated that he would like a tool that would allow him to end a question period if he feels questions are getting repetitive. As there was no consensus, there are no recommendations in this regard.

Inquiries at Council

Currently, Members of Council can table a formal Inquiry at the end of the Council meeting, in the same way that Inquiries are submitted at Standing Committee. These Inquiries request a formal staff response to questions individual Councillors have related to City business. While Council has adopted a new process for Inquiries, including listing the responses as correspondence on the Council agendas, any motion or request for further information that could arise out of the response to the Council Inquiry might be most fulsomely addressed at Standing Committee, and there is no process to specifically ensure that the response appears on a Standing Committee agenda.

There are several options Council could use to establish a connection between responses to Council Inquiries and Standing Committees:

• Council could limit Inquiries at Council to those topics not related to a Standing Committee Terms of Reference, and direct that all other formal Inquiries be made at relevant Standing Committees.
• Council could direct that all responses to Council Inquiries be listed with the responses to Standing Committee Inquiries at the relevant Standing Committee, and then at Council.

It is recommended that responses to Council Inquiries be listed with the responses to Standing Committees Inquiries at the relevant Standing Committee, then at Council. The Inquiry response will clearly indicate the Committee and Council meeting agenda it will be listed on, and the Councillor who submitted the Inquiry would be specifically notified.

Recommendation Part II - #3

The process for listing responses to Council Inquiries with Standing Committee Inquiries at the relevant Standing Committee and then Council.

Members’ Statements

City Council opens its meetings with a ceremonial portion during which proclamations are made, commemorations are presented and moments of silence are held. From time to time, specific Members of Council seek permission from the Mayor to make an announcement at Council for such things as an achievement of a member of their community or recapping a trip abroad for official city business. Similar statements are incorporated into the meeting at other levels of government in the form of Members’ Statements. This process offers Members of Council an opportunity to make announcements of public interest but not part of the formal meeting process in a public forum.

Some Councillors have expressed an interest in establishing a formal opportunity for Members’ Statements at City Council meetings. However, the general consensus is that the current, informal practice is working well, and there are no recommendations in this report to changed the status quo.

B. Strengthening the Connection Between the Standing Committees’ Work and Council Review

Currently, Standing Committees review a staff, Advisory Committee or individual Councillor report, hear any public delegations on the matter, question the report authors, discuss and amend the recommendations and then make final recommendations to Council. It is the Committee’s recommendations that Council bases its deliberations on, with the original report and minute extracts as background.

When the item comes forward to Council, however, the item is largely addressed at Council in the same way it was presented at Committee. Although a minute extract is provided along with the staff report, It is generally staff that makes the presentation on major items, usually a truncated version of the presentation that was made at Standing Committee, and no summary is provided regarding work done at Committee or the rationale for any amendments.

In addition, where Standing Committees have significantly altered the original recommendations, no mechanism currently exists for questions to be directed to the Standing Committee, so staff has sometimes been put in the position of having to explain Committee’s recommendations rather than their own.

A number of Councillors have expressed concern that, too often, Council repeats the Committee process, save and except for hearing public delegations. There are a number of tools that Council could consider to more directly recognize and incorporate the work of Standing Committees at Council, namely:

§ Providing a snapshot of how the Committee discussion proceeded (i.e. number of delegations for and against) on the Agenda listing; and

§ Having Committee Chairs or designates present Committee recommendations to Council when an item is held for discussion.

Providing Boilerplate Information Regarding Standing Committee’s Work on Agenda Items

Currently, when items from Standing Committees are listed on the Council Agenda, the only indication of the work done by the Standing Committee is the underlining of the amendments made to staff recommendations. There is no other information regarding Committee work provided in the agenda, although minute extracts are provided along with the staff report.

As indicated above, many Councillors expressed the need to have more of the Standing Committee’s work on an issue understood by Council as a whole, to reduce the need to ‘rehash’ what was done at Committee and enable Council to focus more on the significant policy decisions that need to be made.

To that end, it is recommended that ‘boilerplate’ information be included on the Agenda listing to reflect the work done at Committee. Further, it is recommended that this information provide Council with a snapshot of how the discussion at Committee proceeded rather than a summary of the content of the debate. The substance of the debate would continue to be reflected in the minute extract.

Specifically, it is recommended that every item that generated significant discussion at Standing Committee be annotated on the Council Agenda listing with some or all of the following information:

· The number of public delegations for and against;

· The time spent in debate;

· The final vote for and against; and

· The position of the ward councillor for ward-related matters.

It is believed that including these elements will provide more context to assist Members of Council and the public’s understanding of the Committee debate on any given issue before Council.

Recommendation Part II - #4

That boilerplate information be included on the Council Agenda listing as outlined in the report.

Presenting Committee Recommendations to Council

One of the major governance issues identified is the need for City Council discussions on items to reflect the work done at Standing Committee rather than repeating the debate at Council.

Currently, the practice is for a staff presentation on a major issue to occur at Committee, and then a truncated version of the staff presentation, if necessary, is brought to Council.

The current practice does not reflect the fact that it is Committee’s recommendations rather than staff’s recommendations that go to Council for debate. The staff presentation at Council does not generally take into account the input from public delegations at Committee or the rationale for any changes Committee made to the original staff recommendations. This is particularly challenging when the Committee’s recommendation is not consistent with the original staff recommendation and when Committee forwards a report without recommendation.

Further, the current Procedure By-law does not allow for a Committee to explain the rationale for its recommendations, and staff is, at times, put in the position of having to respond to questions about a particular Committee recommendation that is not consistent with the staff approach.

To better reflect the work done at Committee, it is recommended that Committee Chairs or their designate present the Committee recommendations to Council where an item has been held, and be able to respond to questions regarding Committee recommendations as appropriate.

This presentation could be as simple as providing a brief (5 minute) verbal overview of the Committee recommendations (or lack of a Committee recommendation) for normal business where Committee has significantly amended staff recommendations, or as comprehensive as a Powerpoint presentation, jointly presented by staff and a Committee representative, for a major item, with the Committee representative summarizing the nature of the delegations and debate and the rationale behind the recommendations, and staff providing technical information. This presentation would be prepared by the relevant City staff under the Committee Chair’s (or designate’s) direction. Questions related to the Committee amendments could be posed to the Committee Chair (or designate) by members of Council.

Staff believes that this approach will provide Council with an overview of the work done at Committee, including an understanding of the public input, and facilitate Council’s deliberations.

Recommendation Part II - #5

That Committee Chairs, or their designate, present Committee recommendations to Council as outlined in the report.

PART III – Local Boards

Over the course of this term of Council, a number of governance changes have been recommended related local boards.

First, the City’s Auditor General conducted a Governance Review for the Library Board. Arising from that, there are changes to the reporting relationship between the Library Board and City Council being recommended in this report.

In addition, Council has approved, in principle, the structure for an arms-length Board of Health, which would require a change to provincial legislation, and referred this structure to the Mid-Term Governance Review. Until the required provincial legislation is enacted, Council may wish to review other procedural or legislative tools that might further Council’s governance objectives with respect to its duties as the City of Ottawa’s Board of Health.

Council also directed staff to look at the potential for establishing a Parking Commission. Staff worked with stakeholders and developed a governance model that does not involve a separate Commission at this time. This is referenced in this report because the item was referred to the Mid-Term Review; however, Council has already established a Stakeholder Consultation Group as part of its adoption of the Parking Management Strategy, so there is no additional comment in this report

.

Council also directed staff to look at the potential for establishing a Transit Commission. This is discussed in Part I, Section C of this report

A. Ottawa Public Library Board

The Community and Protective Services Committee (CPS) currently has the mandate to receive reports from the Ottawa Public Library. Over the past number of years, Council has changed the reporting relationships between Council and their arms’ length Boards (Hydro Ottawa and the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC)) from Standing Committee and Council to Council directly. The Ottawa Public Library (OPL) Governance Review, conducted by the Auditor General, has recommended that the Ottawa Public Library Board report directly to City Council, in keeping with how Hydro Ottawa, OCHC, and the Ottawa Police Services Board report. As with the Police, the Library operates under its own legislation (the Public Libraries Act) and has a separate governance structure under that legislation. This report recommends making the Library reporting consistent with that of the other arm’s-length Boards, such that it reports directly to Council. It is also recommended that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board should sit on the Selection Panel to appoint new members.

It has also been suggested that City Council consider changing how it deals with the budget for the Ottawa Public Library, such that Council provides the Library with a specific budget allocation, and the Library Board decides how the allocation will be spent. There are no recommendations related to this in the report, so a motion would be required to change the budget relationship between Council and the OPL.

Recommendation Part III - #1

That the Library Board report directly to Council and that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board sit on the Selection Panel to appoint new Members.

B. Board of Health

Currently, Ottawa Public Health reports to Council through the Community and Protective Services Committee.

On October 22, 2008, Council approved in principal a new Board of Health governance model. Final approval of this governance model was referred to the Mid-term Governance Review, and this formal approval is recommended in this report. Under this new model, Council will still have membership on the Board, and Public Health staff will remain City staff, subject to City policies (such as the Bilingualism Policy). In addition to Council’s approval, the model for a stand-alone, separate Board of Health will require a change to provincial legislation to be adopted.

Although the October 22, 2008 Council resolution refers to an application to amend “special legislation,” the City is actually requesting an amendment to “public legislation,” the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. The City Clerk and Solicitor has informally established contact with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) for coordinating the petition process. Should Council formally approve the new model, Legal Services will enter into formal negotiations with MMAH for an amendment to the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. Staff also understand that a Private Member’s Bill for the establishment of the Council-approved model may be forthcoming (attached at Document 1) has received First Reading in the Legislature.

The time required for the proposed amendment hinges on the negotiations with MMAH, approval of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), and the schedule of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Subject to the negotiations between the City and the Province, it is expected that the actual amendments will be limited to s. 12 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. As with the City of Toronto model, it is possible to set out specific governance details—such as board size and composition—in a city by-law and policy rather than the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. Section 405 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 could be used as a relevant benchmark.

In the months ahead, the City Clerk and Solicitor will monitor the progress of this process, participate in it as necessary, and notify Council accordingly.

In the interim, Council may wish to consider that Community and Protective Services Committee meet as a Sub-Committee of the Board of Health to address public health issues, receive public delegations and make recommendations to Council as the Board of Health. Further, Council may wish to consider recommendations from CPS or CPS sitting as a Sub-Committee of the Board of Health as the Board of Health. This might provide the public with a better understanding of which items will be addressed by the new Board of Health once it is established rather than by City Council.

This change could be as simple as adjusted recommendations to read, “That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommended to City Council, as the Board of Health....”

Recommendation Part III - #2

The establishment of a separate Board of Health and direct staff to take the necessary steps to effect change.

C. Other Local Boards, Agencies and Special Purpose Bodies

In addition to City Council and Standing Committees, elected officials also represent City Council on over 60 other entities (see Document 2). This list seems to grow each term (with the Community Lands Development Corporation and the Manotick Mills Corporation added this term). Given the increasing workload for elected officials, it can be a challenge to fill vacancies on such bodies when they occur within a term. To date, staff addresses these vacancies as they arise and, when an elected representative is not available, other options have been explored. Staff are recommending the status quo for the remainder of this term, but have begun a review of these bodies and the numbers of elected officials on each body to be presented as part of the 2010-2014 Governance Review.

PART IV – Citizen Engagement

Governance Objective 3 of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan:

Commit to and develop a democratic, engaging and visible process to maximize input from residents in the work of Council and in policy development, while ensuring that seniors, new Canadians, women and the economically disadvantaged are included.

Public engagement is an integral part of City Council’s policymaking process. With every term of Council, the City’s current public engagement structure is reviewed and to this point, only minor changes and modifications have been made. It appears that the current structure, which focuses on the use of citizen Advisory Committees, works well in some cases but could work better in others.

Civic engagement involves encouraging a dynamic relationship between governments and citizens. The principles for enhancing civic engagement are:

• Make use of a wide range of civic engagement methods to maximize the level of public input and to provide opportunities for ongoing participation.
• Enhance opportunities to engage all residents of the City including seniors, the disabled, new Canadians, women and the economically disadvantaged.
• Incorporate public input at all stages of policy development

White Paper 7: Public Engagement provides an overview of public engagement tools that can be used to increase public consultation. By expanding the various methods of undertaking public consultation, interested members of the public have a wider range of opportunities to become involved and to be part of the policy-making process. It allows the City to tap into individuals who may not be able to devote the time required for an advisory committee but who are interested and have much to offer. Greater use of alternative methods of public consultation foster increased interest in participating.

While the City of Ottawa has an extensive system of Advisory Committees as its primary mechanism for direct citizen input on policy development, many other municipalities use Advisory Committees along with a combination of the following tools to maximize input from citizens at large and to ensure that volunteers’ time is focused on specific outcomes to encourage broader participation:

Web-based consultations and the use of social networking sites, in particular, are being regularly used a primary method for engaging youth.

In addition to the Advisory Committees, a departmental working group is another way for the public to have direct input into how the City delivers programs and services. Departmental working groups have a direct relationship with staff, a flexible structure that is reflective of the needs of the group, as well as momentum, commitment and continuity. While they do not specifically report to Council, they do have input into staff reports going to Council, and they can appear at Standing Committee as a delegation.

The departmental working groups currently in existence vary in their formality and structure to accommodate both the needs of the department and the external organization(s). In some instances the relationship is focused more on assisting the external organization and helping it to build capacity such as the Aboriginal Working Committee. In other cases, the external group is already well established but seeks to have influence on municipal policy making and may participate in a concentrated project to change the way in which decisions are made at the city such as the City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) and its involvement in the Gender Equality Lens. Finally, other relationships are established by providing funding to the external organization and a direct link to the city bureaucracy as in the department’s relationship with CAYFO and its Commission de la Jeunesse d’Ottawa Youth Commission.

The Mid-Term Governance Review is primarily a review of the practices and procedures that govern Council in its legislative and representative role. The issue of public engagement is broader than this review, but ensuring that legislative processes will allow for and improve citizen engagement as a whole is one of the goals of governance improvements.

Many of the recommendations in the Mid-term Governance Review have the potential to enhance public engagement at all levels of the policy-making process. Strategic decision-making lets the public know where Council is going and provides more opportunity for them to be part of the process from beginning to end if they choose. Along with identifying the issues of most importance, Committees and Policy Sponsors will also have the opportunity to determine the combination of public engagement tools that might best suit a specific initiative (i.e. summits, task forces, opinion surveys, web-based).

While improving all public engagement tools is a governance objective for the City as a whole, the Mid-Term Governance Review is primarily focused on improving Advisory Committees as a component of the legislative function. In addition, there were suggestions that Council conduct a pilot for Ward Advisory Councils, and that the City consider instituting a Petition Policy.

Citizen Advisory Committees

The City’s primary mechanisms for public input on policy development are Advisory Committees. The committees are formed by a collection of dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers who are passionate about shaping policy and providing a forum for the public to be heard.

As Standing Committees are the working groups of Council, so too are Advisory Committees the working groups of Standing Committees. The mandate of every Advisory Committee is to provide advice to Committee and Council on matters within their jurisdiction. Advisory Committees are supported by Co-ordinators from the Clerk’s office, they operate under a formal Procedure By-law, have their own Code of Conduct and are governed under a number of other policies (i.e. the Expense Policy).

There are currently 15 Advisory Committees, two of which are required by statute. The City is required to have an advisory body under two specific pieces of legislation. However, neither piece of legislation requires that the advisory body take a specific form:

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 requires that the City have an accessibility advisory committee which shall advise council with respect to accessibility standards and site plans and drawings under section 41 of the Planning Act. The only conditions provided in the Act are that the majority of the membership shall be persons with disabilities.

The Ontario Heritage Act requires that the City have a municipal heritage committee to advise and assist Council on matters relating to heritage matters. The only condition on the committee’s composition is that the committee must be comprised of no fewer than five members appointed by Council.

Both Advisory Committee members and members of Council have identified a number of governance challenges over the past several terms. The Mid-Term Review has identified the following issues:

• Previous governance changes made to Advisory Committees have not resolved some of the fundamental governance problems identified by members of Council and members of Advisory Committees over the past three terms of Council;
• Advisory Committees should be better connected to the work of the Standing Committees and to Council’s Strategic Plan and priorities; and
• The current ‘one size fits all’ model for Advisory Committees should be reviewed, and alternative methods, approaches or structures should be explored with each Advisory Committee.

As part of the review, the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk met with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Committees. All but one Advisory Committee and two local boards (supported by City Clerks) were represented. No representative of the Environmental Advisory Committee was in attendance; however, the Committee has submitted a formal comment (attached at Document 3). The results of the session as well as submissions from a few Advisory Committees and a joint submission from the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are reflected in the following staff recommendations. The submissions are attached at Document 3.

Advisory Committee Mandates, Structures and Processes

The Clerk’s staff and the Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs discussed the merits of breaking out of the one-size-fits-all approach. Where all Advisory Committees at the City of Ottawa meet monthly and have the same basic structure, other municipalities have different schedules and structures for different citizen advisory bodies. Along these lines, some Advisory Committees expressed an interest in modifying their meeting schedule in order to hold less frequent but more substantive meetings. Further, some indicated a desire to investigate whether using the Departmental Working Group model for a portion of its work might be effective.

Clerk’s staff indicated that they would be willing to work with each individual Committee, if that Committee wishes, and their City staff liaisons to identify any new practices that might help facilitate each Committee to fulfill its mandate.

In addition, it was generally agreed that more frequent, informal meetings would be beneficial, and Chairs and Vice-Chairs have indicated their interest in having a meeting to discuss best-practices among them.

Finally, it was also agreed that Clerk’s staff should conduct a training session for Advisory Committee members to complement the orientation session.

It is anticipated that staff will be working with Advisory Committees over the next year, and an assessment of any changes that are made will be provided in the 2010-2014 Governance Review report.

Recommendation Part IV - #1

Direction to City Clerk staff and City staff to work with Advisory Committees to identify processes and procedures to help Advisory Committees more effectively fulfill their individual mandates.

Aligning the Work of Advisory Committees to Council’s Priorities

The City’s primary mechanisms for public input on policy development are Advisory Committees. The committees are formed by a collection of dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers who are passionate about shaping policy and providing a forum for the public to be heard.

The general governance frustration for both Advisory Committees and among elected officials occurs when Advisory Committee input is outside either the Advisory Committee’s mandate or Council’s mandate, or does not fit within Council’s identified priorities or budget capacity.

This term, City Council has established its Term of Council priorities. This Governance Review also recommends Standing Committees’ conduct a mid-term strategic planning exercise to determine their own workplans. If Advisory Committee workplans were more directly linked to the Term of Council Plan and to the workplans of Standing Committees and departments, the current frustrations might be reduced and the work of both Advisory Committees and Standing Committees enhanced.

This report is recommending the following:

· That Advisory Committee workplans are established following a Strategic Planning session of the respective Standing Committees.

As Standing Committees move towards setting workplans for City staff based on City Council’s priorities, it makes sense that the workplans of Advisory Committees reflect these same priorities. As it is the role of Advisory Committees to provide advice to Standing Committees and Council, focussing the advice on those Council priority areas would make the work of the Advisory Committees more productive.

• Standing Committee refers specific projects or policy areas for Advisory Committee input

In setting its own strategic plan for the year, Standing Committees have the opportunity to specify or recommend specific projects or policy areas that they would like specific Advisory Committee input on.

• Advisory Committees seek approval of Standing Committee to add any significant projects to their workplan in the course of the year

Once its annual workplan has been set, it is expected that Advisory Committees will then focus on the priorities that have been established. In the same way that establishing a Strategic Plan does not prohibit an individual member of Council, or a Committee or Council from addressing new, emerging issues, Advisory Committees would maintain the option of investigating matters beyond these plans. However, in keeping with Council’s Inquiry and Motion process (where inquiries or motions that require significant, unanticipated resources require Council approval), any significant new projects requiring additional staff resources added to the workplan should be reviewed and approved by the respective Standing Committee.

Given these recommendations, it is further recommended that those Advisory Committees that the requirement for workplans for 2009 be suspended while the new strategic planning process is put in place.

Recommendation Part IV - #2

The Advisory Committee processes as outlined in the report.

Enhancing Advisory Committees’ Role at Standing Committee

Currently, Advisory Committees are attached to specific Standing Committees, and their reports are received by that Standing Committee, even when the recommendations do not neatly align with the assigned Standing Committee’s mandate.

It is recommended that Advisory Committee reports (on items within the Advisory Committee’s mandate) be directed to the Standing Committee that has the mandate to address them.

Further, Advisory Committees expressed their desire to have more opportunity to address Standing Committee on items that are not specifically raised by the Advisory Committee. The current provision in the Council Procedure By-law provides Advisory Committee representatives with 10 minutes to address the Standing Committee on an item brought forward by the Advisory Committee. However, when addressing the Standing Committee on those items not raised by the Advisory Committee, but of interest to its membership, the representative only has 5 minutes to speak, unless extended by the Chair. Given that these Advisory Committees have often had preliminary input into the staff report, it is felt that they should have the opportunity to provide their advice to Council in a fulsome way when necessary. To address this issue, staff is recommending that the Procedure By-law be reflected to allow Advisory Committee representatives to address Standing Committees for ten minutes on any item within the Advisory Committee’s mandate.

Recommendation Part IV - #3

That the Procedure By-law be amended to permit Advisory Committee representatives to address Standing Committees for ten minutes on any item within the Advisory Committee’s mandate.

Ward Advisory Councils

Community Councils have been long standing mechanisms of local decision making in various municipalities such as Toronto and Edmonton. The range of responsibilities and authority differs based on applicable legislation, but the overarching principle is that of participation at the community level in local decision-making. In Toronto, community councils have been heavily involved in an advisory capacity in relation to the City's business of a local nature at the community level. With the introduction of the new City of Toronto Act, 2006, Toronto City Council went the next step further to provide final decision making authority to community councils for local matters that were minor in nature (i.e. parking issues, traffic signal installations, noise exemptions, etc.)

As part of the discussion around the potential delegation of Council’s powers, the suggestion was made that some powers could be delegated down to the local level in the form of ward councils. Presently, some form of ward council exists in a number of wards, but these entities operate in an advisory role to the ward councillor. Establishing ward councils would provide members of the community with the final decision-making authority for some matters that directly affect their community.

The general consensus was that any pilot project for a few councillors might lead to bumping or queue-jumping, and that there was no requirement for staff to assist a member of Council in receiving advice from their community.

Petition Policy

Requests for a formal petition policy have arisen in various forms. Most recently, recommendations for a formal petition policy have been raised during the Rural Settlement Strategy and the Official Plan Review. Several petitions have been presented to Council this term, highlighting the need to review the City’s current, limited policy regarding the listing of petitions on the Council agenda.

There are some basic parameters set out in the Procedure By-law as well as some informal processes of distribution through the Councillors’ and Mayor’s Reception. Presently, these parameters and processes do not include mechanisms to verify the information included in the petition nor the source of such information. Further, no requirements are placed on providing contact information of any of the signatories.

It is recommended that staff develop a formal process for submitting petitions, and develop templates that citizens can use if they so choose.

Recommendation Part IV - #4

Direction to City Clerk staff to develop a Petition Policy as outlined in the report.

PART V – Governance – Other Matters

Given the City Strategic Plan’s governance objectives related to the role of ward Councillors, the Bill 130 changes to the role of the Mayor, and the broader scope of changes in this review, including increasing the authority of the Standing Committees, a number of issues were raised related to further clarifying the roles of the Mayor, ward Councillors and Standing Committee Chairs.

In addition, The Mid-Term Governance Review typically recommends refinements to Council’s Procedure By-law and the Delegation of Authority By-law. Following the approval of the recommendations in this report, staff will make the appropriate changes to both documents. The amended by-laws would be circulated in advance, then listed with the standard by-laws at the July Council meeting (not for debate).

Finally, when City Council adopted the Meetings Investigator model for addressing complaints related to closed meetings (rather than allowing the Ontario Ombudsman to undertake investigations in this regard), it was directed that an assessment of this model be provided to Council, along with any recommendations, after a year. Staff is incorporating that review in this report.

A. Roles

The Role of the Mayor

Bill 130 enhanced not only the role of Council as a whole but also the individual role of the Mayor. Council’s enhanced role as defined in Section 224 of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 is “to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council” as well as “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.” To complement this enhanced role, the Mayor, as head of Council, now has the added role of providing “information and recommendations to the council” with respect to it’s expanded role. This additional role emphasizes the importance of the Head of Council’s leadership role.

Section 225 of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 gives the Head of Council the responsibility of providing information and recommendations to Council with respect to its expanded role relating to controllership and accountability and transparency. In addition, the Head of Council is also responsible for ensuring that business can be carried out “efficiently and effectively”.

In order to help the Mayor balance the roles of providing information and recommendations to Council and running an effective meeting, the City of Toronto has appointed a Presiding Officer to Chair council meetings.

Currently, the Mayor chairs both City Council and the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, meaning that he Chairs a meeting once a week, which is a significant drain on his time, limiting his ability to participate in major issues on other Standing Committees.

The Mayor’s Task Force on Governance suggested that Ottawa consider adopting a Presiding Officer to chair Council meetings as part of the next Governance Review. As well, the creation of the new Audit, Budget and Finance Committee relates directly to the revised role of the Head of Council, and it was suggested that the Mayor chair the new Committee rather than Corporate Services and Economic Development. Finally, given the Mayor’s overarching role related to providing leadership to Council, it was recommended that the Mayor be given the right to choose the Standing Committee s/he wishes to chair. Depending on whether Council decides to select Chairs for the full four-year term or review Chairs every two years, Council may wish to make any recommendation on the latter suggestion a go-forward item for the next Governance Review.

As there was no consensus on the options discussed regarding the role of the Mayor, there are no recommendations in this report. Any change, therefore, would require a motion.

Role of the Ward Councillor

Governance Objective 4 of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan:

Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of ward Councillors with respect to City undertakings in their wards.

Governance Objective 5 of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan:

Enhance and develop processes that support the representative role of members of Council on city-wide initiatives.

The role of the Ward Councillor was raised by a number of Councillors, and the two Governance Objectives related to that role underscore its importance.

This report makes several recommendations related to strengthening the role of the Ward Councillor. Specifically, a Ward Councillor would be provided the opportunity to open and close debate on those matters directly affecting their ward when the item is held for debate, though the overarching right of the Chair to open and close all debates would be retained.

In addition, there was a general feeling among members of Council that Ward Councillors should have more input and involvement in matters that affect their ward. Councillors appreciate staff providing them with advanced notice of information, policy or activities, both good and bad that could impact their residents. To further strengthen this, it is recommended that Councillors have an opportunity to provide a formal comment on staff reports related to their wards, to be included in the staff report under the heading “Comments by the Ward Councillor/s”.

Finally, the offices of City Councillors are administered under two budgets: an operating budget and a salary budget. In order to provide Councillors with more flexibility to run their offices, it is recommended that Councillors use a global budget, similar to that of the Mayor.

Recommendation Part V - #1:

That the Procedure By-law be amended so that the Ward Councillor(s) have the opportunity to open and close debate, on matters that directly affect identifiable wards, subject to the overarching right of the Chair.

Recommendation Part V - #2

That the City’s report template and processes be amended to provide the Ward Councillor(s) with the opportunity to provide formal comments on staff reports related to an identifiable ward(s).

Recommendation Part V - #3

That Councillors be provided with a global budget with which to run their offices, modelled after the Mayor’s budget.

Role of the Chair and Vice-Chair

Generally speaking, Standing Committees each develop their own working culture within the parameters of their Terms of Reference and the Procedure By-law. The role of Committee Chair has become gradually more important as the legislative workload of Standing Committees has increased. While the issue of the role of the Chair is not generally a topic for the Governance Report, many councillors raised it during the consultations with the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy Clerk.

There was general agreement that the role of Chair was primarily to run an efficient and effective meeting and to help move the legislative agenda forward. Further, it was noted that the role of the Standing Committee Chair is not intended to be political but rather the Chair is expected to keep order and focus during the meeting, call the votes and move through the agenda as efficiently as possible. It was also generally agreed that Chairs have the opportunity and responsibility to play a role in improving Council/staff relations.

Suggestions were raised regarding the importance of implementing some best practices with respect to the role of Chair. The best practices mentioned included:

• Providing a greater role for Vice-Chairs and allowing them to run some Committee meetings to obtain experience;
• Including Vice-Chairs in agenda reviews;
• Letting Ward Councillors know about upcoming Agenda items relating to their wards; and
• Letting Members of Council know when a major item is about to be discussed (via the Committee Co-ordinator)

Should Council adopt the recommendations in this report, staff note that the workload of the Chairs will likely increase. In 2004, the Citizen’s Task Force on Council Remuneration noted that the workload of Committee Chairs was already significant, and recommended that each Committee Chair be provided with a .5 FTE to assist. Although Council rejected that recommendation in the 2006-2010 Governance Report, staff believes that these FTE’s will be beneficial to the process with the expanded workload that will likely result if this report’s recommendations are adopted. Therefore, staff is recommending an additional .5 FTE for Committee Chair’s offices, save and except for the Mayor.

Recommendation Part V - #4

Increasing the office budgets of Standing Committee Chairs to approximately .5 of an FTE in order to assist the Chair in managing the additional workload.

B. Procedure By-law Issues

The City’s Procedure By-law is a governance tool that regulates the manner in which City Council carries out its policy analysis and decision-making. Municipalities are required to have a procedure by-law under Section 238. Each governance report includes a review of past experience and best practices to make amendments to the City’s Procedure By-law.

The following address specific topics raised through consultations with Councillors, at Standing Committees or at Council.

Suspension of the Rules

The Rules of Procedure found in the Procedure By-law may be suspended by a vote of three-quarters of the members present and voting at City Council, and by a vote of two-thirds at Standing Committee.

The use of this procedural tool has been raised as part of previous governance reviews, and is meant for instances where an item needs to be considered immediately. However, as motions to suspend the rules take away the opportunity for public participation and fast-track a matter through the decision-making process, there was a general consensus that such motions should include an explanation detailing the need for suspension of the rules, similar to the current practice regarding in camera motions. Staff is recommending that the Procedure By-law be amended to reflect this consensus.

Recommendations Rejected by Standing Committee

Following on the notion that Standing Committees are the working groups of Council and responsible for an in-depth analysis of a policy issue including receiving public delegations and questions to staff, the decisions of the Standing Committee should determine the progress of a matter to Council. Specifically, when a staff recommendation is turned down by a Standing Committee, and no substitute recommendation is made, it is not currently clear how should the matter rise to Council or whether it should take the form of an information report.

Staff is recommending the following for recommendations rising to Council:

§ When a Standing Committee decides only to receive a report or a communication that contains recommendations for action, the recommendation would be that Council receive the information;

§ When Committee does not make a decision on a matter or decides against the matter on a tie-vote, the recommendation would be that Council consider the report;

Additionally, the suggestion was made that when a recommendation fails at Standing Committee, any member wishing to have that item considered by Council would have to move a motion accordingly. Staff recommends that this change be reflected in amendments to the Procedure By-law.

Reconsideration

Council has indicated that the current Procedure By-law sections related to Reconsideration need to be simplified and clarified. In addition, it has been requested that staff also look into simplifying the issue of competing reconsiderations on the same item. Staff are in the process of recasting and simplifying this section of the Procedure By-law, and will be providing a draft in advance of Council’s consideration of this report.

Holding Agenda Items in Council

Many Councillors expressed frustration that items were being held in Council solely for the purpose of asking questions of clarification rather than for discussion or debate.  The general consensus appeared to be that items should only be held to amend the recommendations, as questions of clarification could be asked at Committee, or of staff in advance.  Staff would caution that such an amendment to the Procedure By-law might be viewed as unduly interfering with an elected official’s oversight role.

Staff has not provided a recommendation, and a motion would be required to make that change.

Action versus Verbatim Minutes for Standing Committees

The issue of action versus verbatim minutes at Standing Committees was raised during the 2009 Budget deliberations and referred to the Mid-Term Governance Review. The current practice regarding minutes involves the City Clerk’s Office providing summarized, verbatim minutes for Standing Committee meetings and action minutes for Council meetings. Verbatim minutes provide a high level of detail regarding the presentations and debate that occur at Committee and are a valuable resource to elected officials, staff and the public to help provide context and justification for the recommendations that emanate from Standing Committee. Verbatim minutes do, however, require more time to prepare and it should be noted that there is no legal requirement to produce verbatim minutes of Standing Committee or Council meetings.

Subsection 239 (7) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that: A municipality or local board or a committee of either of them shall record without note or comment all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings at a meeting of the body, whether it is closed to the public or not.

The length of time it takes to complete Standing Committee minutes can vary from committee to committee and depends largely on the importance of the issue, the number of delegations and the length of the debate. It has been indicated that the status quo is satisfactory; therefore, no recommendations are being made with respect to changing the format of Standing Committee minutes.

Directions to Staff

On many occasions, directions to staff are made during Committee and Council meetings, both formally and informally. In the case of the latter, there is the possibility that the direction is not interpreted as intended. Further, it is more difficult to track informal directions to staff.

Section 31 of the Procedure By-law requires that any inquiry made at a meeting of Committee or Council shall be in writing and referred to the appropriate staff member. The Clerk then tracks the inquiries and Council is advised on a quarterly basis on the status of inquiries.

If directions to staff were received in writing, Committee and Council Members and staff would be clear on the direction. Staff will also have the ability to formally track Committee and Council directions to ensure that action is taken and that progress is communicated to Council.

Finally, it was suggested that timeframes be incorporated into directions to staff, so that both members of Council and staff are aware of the expectations. Staff is recommending that these changes be reflected in amendments to the Procedure By-law.

Meetings Investigator Recommendations Regarding In Camera Process

Council established the Meetings Investigator position in November 2007. The Meetings Investigator is authorized to investigate complaints regarding the propriety of closed meetings held by City Council, a local board, or a committee of either. As part of his mandate, the Meetings Investigator acknowledges receipt of requests for an investigation, conducts the investigation and reports his findings and any recommendations to an open meeting of Council.

The Meetings Investigator has investigated six (6) separate in camera sessions of Council and on all occasions found that City Council had followed the legislative requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City’s Procedure By-law, which goes beyond the requirements of the Act.

While the Meetings Investigator confirmed City Council’s compliance with the legislation, he also provided recommendations to further improve transparency and accountability of closed meetings, including enhancements to minutes of the meetings, motions to resolve in camera, and rising and reporting after a closed session. It is important to note that the City of Ottawa is already a leader with respect to open meetings and goes beyond the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 by revealing the specific nature of in camera discussions as part of the motion to move in camera.

Staff has already begun to implement some of these recommendations, which was noted by the Meetings Investigator when presenting his most recent report to Council. Specifically, staff has ensured that start and end times of closed sessions are reflected in both the open and closed minutes of the meeting as well as a more descriptive summary of what took place during the closed session.

As a practice, staff will develop a specific minute standard for each exemption outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001. For instance, when City Council goes in camera for the purposes of receiving “advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege”, a synopsis of the legal opinion will be included in the in camera minutes.

Moreover, staff recommends that the Procedure By-law be amended to reflect an enhanced process of rising and reporting following the closed session. This process would involve the Chair of the meeting reporting in open session the following: the fact that Council has met in camera; the matters which were considered; and, that no votes were taken other than to give direction to staff or to deal with procedural matters. As highlighted in the reports of the Meetings Investigator, this practice will provide an additional level of transparency and openness and may provide the public with a better understanding of what occurred in closed session.

Voting in Council

Presently, all Members of Council sitting in a seat reserved for Council in Council Chambers must vote. The suggestion was raised that Councillors must turn on their microphones when voting so that all those in the Chambers can hear the vote. This will also assist Clerk’s staff in recording the votes when requested. Staff is recommending that this change be reflected in amendments to the Procedure By-law.

Recommendation Part V - #5

The amendments to the Council and Standing Committee Procedure By-law as outlined in the report related to the following:

a. Suspension of the Rules

b. Recommendations Rejected by Standing Committee

c. Reconsideration

d. Directions to Staff

e. Meetings Investigator Recommendations Regarding In Camera Process

f. Voting in Council

C. Delegation of Authority By-law

The City’s Delegation of Authority By-law is being revised to reflect the organizational changes made during the City’s recent realignments. In addition, the By-law will be amended as required to reflect any changes made by this governance report. As indicated above, the amended By-law will be circulated and included in the by-law listing for the July Council meeting.

It should be noted that various by-laws of the City contain delegated authority to issue permits, licences or work orders, for example the Licensing By-law and the Drainage By-law. These by-laws will also be updated to reflect the current functional alignments. As well, in addition to the changes to reflect organizational realignment and administrative practice, there are some instances where responsibilities are being delegated to additional staff at the managerial level in order to streamline service delivery.

Recommendation Part V - #6

Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as outlined in the report.

Recommendation Part V - #7

That the Procedure By-law and the Delegation of Authority By-law and any other related By-laws, as amended by this report, be included in the by-law listing of the July 8, 2009 Council meeting.

D. Meetings Investigator

Council established the Meetings Investigator position in November 2007. The Meetings Investigator is authorized to investigate complaints regarding the propriety of closed meetings held by City Council, a local board, or a committee of either. As part of his mandate, the Meetings Investigator acknowledges receipt of requests for an investigation, conducts the investigation and reports his findings and any recommendations to an open meeting of Council. When the Meetings Investigator position was initially established, it was intended that the position would undergo a one-year review as part of the Mid-term Governance Review.

During the first year of his appointment, Meetings Investigator Mr. Doug Wallace received only one request for an investigation, which he deemed outside his jurisdiction. No other requests were submitted in 2008. Thus far in 2009, eleven requests have been submitted and City Council has now received three reports from the Meetings Investigator.

After more than a year, it would appear that the position and the established process have been successful in fulfilling the requirements of the legislation and enhancing City Council’s closed meeting procedures (reflected in the Procedure By-law section of this report). As such, staff recommends that the current Meetings Investigator’s contract be extended extended until formal consideration of the 2010-2014 Governance Review.

At this point, the process for tabling the Meetings Investigator reports with Council is modelled after the process for the Auditor General. Specifically, the Meetings Investigator provides Notice of Intent to table his report at the preceding Council meeting. The report is distributed to Members of Council on the morning of the Council meeting and made available to the public at the meeting. The Meetings Investigator is present to answer any questions from Council.

Unlike the Auditor General’s report, City staff are not provided the reports in advance, and do not comment on the recommendations. Discussions with members of Council and the Meetings Investigator have indicated that staff comment, similar to the Management Response in the Auditor General’s reports, would be a positive addition to the process, and that is being recommended in this report.

Recommendation Part V - #8

That the current Meetings Investigator’s contract be extended until formal consideration of the 2010-2014 Governance Review and that future reports to Council from the Meeting Investigator include a staff comment.

CONSULTATION

As part of the preparation for report, the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk consulted with elected representatives, Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Advisory Committees, the Executive Management Committee and members of the Senior Management Committee, as well as staff in the City Clerk’s Branch, Legal Services and the City Manager’s Office who work most closely with the legislative process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The additional 3 FTEs (.5 for each Standing Committee) are estimated to cost approximately $250,000 annually. Funding will be provided by the Elected Representatives Provision For Surplus budget.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Private Member’s Bill 194

Document 2 – List of Special Purpose Bodies

Document 3 – Advisory Committee and Departmental Working Group Feedback

Document 4 – Mid-term Governance Review White Papers (on file with the City Clerk)

DISPOSITION

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