DOCUMENT 3
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
ToDeputy City Clerk Leslie Donnelly
and City Council
|
File/N° de
fichier: |
|
From / Expéditeur |
Joint FromAdvisory Committees:
· Pedestrian and Transit (PTAC) · Business (BAC) · Arts, Heritage and Culture (ACHAC) · Local Architecture Conservation (LACAC) · French Language Services (FLSAC) · Environmental (EAC) · Forests and Greenspace (FGAC) · Health and Social Services (HSSAC) |
|
|
Subject / Objet |
SubjectAdvisory Committee Feedback to Governance Mid-Term Review White Papers |
Date: 4 June 2009 |
***Please Note: This memo arises from shared discussion and collaboration amongst the majority of Advisory Committees, represented by chairs, vice chairs and general members in the City of Ottawa.
Dear Councillors and Staff,
We, the Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Members of several Advisory Committees, appreciate the opportunity to respond to recent suggestions on changes in governance in the City of Ottawa. This submission is the result of collaboration amongst the Chairs and/or Vice-Chairs of the City Advisory Committees listed above. These suggestions specifically address White Paper #7, but also contain general comments which we see as integral to the governance function we play.
We note with appreciation that the City has now recognized the fact that “the primary mechanisms for public input on policy development are Advisory Committees” and we look forward to the increased recognition of Advisory Committee submissions and the expert opinion that constitutes AC membership.
In this, the 30th anniversary of the creation of Advisory Committees (under the late Marion Dewar), we feel it is important to note that there is some disconnect between the description of the importance of Advisory Committees and some of the practical implications represented in White Paper #7.
There are many issues that exist outside of governance that need to be explored, and so the following list is certainly not exhaustive, but it highlights some of our shared concerns:
1) Communication and Liaison – We feel that in many cases there is a lack of communication and liaison between the Standing Committees and the Advisory Committees. Consultation and the meaningful implementation of the resulting public opinion are of utmost importance. Some of the issues and solutions include:
-Receiving feedback on recommendations going to Standing Committees
-Timely distribution of Standing Committee minutes to better align and position our work
-Allowing input into Standing Committee work-plans
-Representatives of Advisory Committees should always receive a 10 minute window to speak on issues important to their AC
-Providing appropriate amount of time to consult and receive responses as well as review policy and attitudinal issues associated with consultative best practices
-Further liaison with City Councillors and Staff
2) Having a work-plan and strategic direction for each Standing Committee would be a welcome addition with Advisory Committees being able to focus on those priorities as well. However, in accordance with their mandates, the AC reserves the right to diverge from that specific work-plan with issues that may arise, and these concerns should be given as much respect as work-plan issues. We are representatives of the public and we should be heard based on bottom-up, community-oriented issue generation and identification.
3) The City of Ottawa should make efforts to enhance and recognize its own bilingualism policy and acknowledge that these efforts are very important in meetings, services and certainly Advisory Committee governance issues.
4) Departmental Working Groups can be very effective and should be encouraged within certain contexts. The AC itself plays an important role in policy functions and it should be up to the AC to decide their effectiveness with regard to DWG status. In many cases ACs should be encouraged to form sub-committees which can emulate a DWG function while maintaining the policy function of the larger AC.
5) We reviewed
the section on Web 2.0 with great interest and encourage more effective use of
the best available technology. In conjunction with this we strongly recommend
providing public web space and development to each of the ACs. We further urge
the city to consider changes in the rules of procedure governing ACs to allow
for e-voting where a quorum number of votes are received by a certain date and
only in exceptional circumstances, as determined by the individual ACs.
6) We were
encouraged by the suggestion of Standing Committees using a delegated function
and referral of issues to ACs. This is a way of increasing liaison between
these bodies. However, it is essential to ensure that proper time and resources
are afforded to ACs to best enable this function.
Thank you
sincerely for your time in reviewing this joint submission. We feel it is
representative of most opinions resonating from Advisory Committees in the
City. It should be noted that there is a feeling of powerlessness amongst Advisory
Committees and that a sincere and diligent review of the issues highlighted
would go a long way in beginning to alleviate those feelings.
Kind Regards,
Joint Advisory
Committees
Recommandations du
CCSF/ FLSAC Recommendations
Il est proposé que la position du CCSF
concernant l’évaluation de la structure de gouvernance de la Ville repose sur
les quatre grands principes suivants :
·
que,
conformément au Plan stratégique (2007-2010) et aux grandes orientations de la
Ville, le modèle de gouvernance choisi permette de constamment reconnaître le
fait qu’Ottawa s’est doté d’une Politique de bilinguisme et qu’elle doit
activement offrir ses services aux résidents et à ses employés dans les deux
langues officielles du pays;
·
que
malgré leur autonomie accrue, les comités permanents et les comités
consultatifs adoptent et mettent en œuvre des pratiques garantissant que les
processus de planification stratégique et opérationnelle assurent l’offre
active de service dans les deux langues officielles et la reddition de comptes
à cet égard.
·
que toutes les
entités décisionnelles de la Ville, incluant celles créées comme suite à la
revue de la gouvernance :
o
soient assujetties
à la Politique de bilinguisme de la Ville,
o
soient tenues de
maintenir la désignation de postes bilingues telle qu'approuvée par le Conseil
municipal en 2008,
o
soient tenues de
poursuivre la désignation continue de postes bilingues lors de la création de
nouveaux postes;
·
que le CCSF et les
autres comités consultatifs de la Ville continuent de poursuivre les dossiers
qu’ils jugent pertinents en fonction de leur mandat, en plus de ceux découlant
des priorités fixées par le Conseil et que le CCSF et les autres comités
consultatifs continuent de conseiller les comités permanents et les cadres de
la Ville.
It is proposed that the FLSAC position on the
evaluation of the City’s governance structure be based on the following four
major principles:
·
That,
in accordance with the Strategic Plan (2007-2010) and the major orientations of
the City, the governance model selected constantly reflect the fact that Ottawa
did establish a Bilingualism Policy and that it must actively offer its
services to residents and its employees in the country’s two official
languages;
·
That,
in spite of their increased autonomy, the standing committees and the advisory
committees adopt and implement practices guaranteeing that the strategic and
operational planning processes ensure an active offer of service in both
official languages and accountability to this effect;
·
That all of the City’s
decision-making entities, including those created as a result of the governance
review:
o
Be subject to the
City’s Bilingualism Policy;
o
Be required to
maintain the designation of bilingual positions, as approved by City Council in
2008;
o
Be required to pursue
the continued designation of bilingual positions when creating new positions.
·
That the FLSAC and
the City’s other advisory committees continue to work on cases they believe are
relevant based on their mandate, in addition to those arising from priorities
set by Council; and that the FLSAC and the other advisory committees continue
to advise the City’s standing committees and managers.
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
ToDeputy City Clerk Leslie Donnelly
|
File/N° de
fichier: |
|
From / Expéditeur |
FromPatrick Quealey, Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee |
|
|
Subject /
Objet |
SubjectEAC Feedback to Governance Mid-Term Review White Papers |
Date: 2 June 2009 |
The Environmental
Advisory Committee would like to thank you and the City for providing us the
opportunity to comment on the City's Mid-Term Governance Review white
papers. We would like to focus our comments on the paper
dealing with public engagement, specifically, issues related to
advisory committees.
The white
papers seem focused on enhancing citizen engagement in the policy process,
which is generally a good thing. However, there are a few aspects
of what the white papers propose which raise broader concerns regarding
the governance of the advisory committees.
The proposal
to harmonize the work plans of advisory committees with their relevant standing
committee in order to make them more productive raises some distinct concerns.
Such a harmonization would limit the flexibility of the advisory
committees to provide advice across the full spectrum of their mandate and may
drive away highly motivated and qualified individuals resulting in less, and
poorer quality, public input. In the case of the EAC our mandate is very clear
that we are to assist in the recommendation and development of new
policy areas as well as comment on existing ones. Further, while the EAC and
other committees will continue to be intrinsically linked to the
priorities of Council and standing committees, limiting our
official work plans to the same priorities as those of the relevant
standing committee would remove a key aspect of public input, and dilutes the
purpose of the advisory committees. Moreover, the ability of citizen
volunteer advisors to develop work plans that they believe are best suited
to deliver on the approved mandate of the advisory
committee. While advisory committees do, and will continue
to, comment on staff/council priorities, being limited strictly to these
issues also means council/staff are deprived of needed advice on issues which
are not, but perhaps should be, included in City priorities and work
plans. As such we do not support this proposal and will argue vigorously
against it.
Linked to this
is the proposal for advisory committees to seek the approval of standing
committees to add to their work plans during the course of the year. It is
our view that adding or removing items from a work plan developed and approved
by an advisory committee and its members would remain a decision for
that committee, and not a standing committee. The proposal would also
add to the burdens of the relevant standing committee, as the mandate of many
advisory committees encompasses a wide field of issues, which then lead to
the emergence of numerous topical priorities, which can be
in addition to the work plan. We do not support this proposal.
The proposal
in paper 1 suggesting that advisory committees’ recommendations
which are outside the mandate of the Advisory Committee and Council and not in
line with Council's priorities be received as information is troubling.
This proposal is unhelpful to both the advisory committees
and councillors. First and foremost is the concern regarding
how any given issue will be defined or considered beyond the
mandate of the advisory committee, Council or city priorities. For advisory
committees with broad mandates such as the EAC, such 'triage' raises the
concern of having council or staff scope a given issue as being 'outside the
mandate' for political expediency and ' within the mandate' and worthy of
consideration only when convenient. Further, automatically considering any
recommendation by advisory committees as 'information' by committees (if deemed
beyond the mandate or outside the priorities) deprives councillors of
valuable advice and the opportunity to take action on that advice. We
oppose this proposal as recommendations or action items from advisory
committees should be dealt with on their merits by the relevant standing
committees and council. It is up to those bodies, having duly considered
the recommendations, to decide what course of action to take. It is also up to
advisory committees themselves to decide if issues are within or are outside
their mandate.
We do however
strongly support the proposal for standing committee
to refer specific projects or policy areas for advisory committee input
provided this is done in a timely way and that input sought is honestly,
seriously, and regularly considered. One of the reasons why the EAC
made the request to temporarily stop vetting development applications was due
to the short turnaround times and high levels of effort required with
little result when the advice was provided.
Regarding the
option of requiring more extensive qualifications for AC members, we believe
the current system has worked well for the EAC; however, we are open
to learning more about what type of pre-requisites or qualifications might be
useful to consider.
One of the more significant changes proposed is the transformation of advisory committees into departmental working groups. We believe that any governance model which may enhance the work of the advisory committees should be considered. However, the decision to pursue a significant transformation into a different entity, such as a departmental working group, should rest with advisory committee itself. This will ensure that any such change has the support of advisory committee members and that they have deemed it an effective change to enhance their work. At present, the EAC has no interest in transforming into a 'departmental working group' given the importance of directly advising both elected officials and staff on the wide variety of environment and sustainable development issues facing the city. We would also not want to limit our interactions with the public.
We read the
section on Web 2.0 with great interest and encourage more effective use of best
available technology. In conjunction with this the EAC strongly recommends
providing public web space and development to each of the ACs. We further urge
the city to consider changes in the rules of procedure governing ACs to allow
for e-voting where a quorum number of votes is received by a certain date and
only in exceptional circumstances where timing does not allow for issues to be
considered at regular advisory committee meetings.
In paper 2,
changes are proposed to delegate the selection of advisory committees members
to standing committees. Currently Council appoints advisory committee members
on the recommendation of standing committees. Is this process expected to
change? If so why and would there be any change to the recruitment/selection
process?
Once again we
thank the city for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the comprehensive
governance white papers and hope that our comments may be useful in deciding
how best to move forward.
Sincerely,
Patrick
Quealey
Chair,
Environmental Advisory Committee
Attach.
cc: Melanie
Murdock
Tyler Cox
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
ToLeslie Donnelly, Deputy City
Clerk
|
File/N° de
fichier: |
|
From / Expéditeur |
FromJohn Reid, Chair, AHCAC |
|
|
Subject /
Objet |
SubjectAHCAC Mid-Term Governance Review Feedback |
Date: 5 June 2009 |
The Arts Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
(AHCAC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the governance papers. While
our remarks are mainly about White Paper 7, we would like to be on record as
supporting the changes proposed to the budget process, at least for a trial.
Advisory committees are a creature of the City. They
should only continue if those receiving the advice, Councillors, find value in
them and the communication enabled by the committee's work.
AHCAC is comprised of citizens specifically interested
in arts and heritage. While committees should, and would want to deal with
Council priorities, they must also be free to address more wide-ranging issues.
It's important for democracy that interest groups, as embodied in advisory
committees, bring the "outside City Hall" perspective, including emerging
issues that may become future priorities.
AHCAC members have participated in various specialist
committees and working groups. We have worked on issues, such as the official
plan, which are beyond the mandate of the parent committee (CPSC) but of
significance for culture and the City. AHCAC is interested in exploring ways of
becoming even more useful.
AHCAC would also like to explore alternative ways to
do its work including meeting less frequently but for more substantive
meetings. The development of an Arts and Heritage Master Plan, if that happens,
would be such an opportunity. One challenge is that
some committee members are unable to meet during regular business hours, a
reality of a broadly representative membership.
AHCAC also favours establishing mechanisms, including
electronic interactions, that would permit the advisory committees or
sub-committees to provide input in a more timely manner than is possible when
meeting once a month, or even less frequently. However, that should not be
treated as an invitation to short-circuit the necessary deliberation on major
issues.
A specific concern for Arts and Heritage is that both
have a large presence in Ottawa at the federal level. Federal national cultural
institutions are our neighbours and a dynamic influence on the culture in our
City. It would be highly desirable to open a more substantive dialogue,
something that a new way of doing business could facilitate.
We are concerned about a lack of communication between
Advisory Committees and Council and staff. Without effective contact advisory
committee members feel marginalized. Advisory committee input should be
encouraged, and given preferred treatment, at standing committee meetings.
Standing committees are encouraged to refer items to the appropriate advisory
committee(s) and provide feedback on the utility of advice provided. Another
suggestion is that Advisory Committees have a regular opportunity to raise
matters with Council, perhaps at an Advisory Committee day, say twice a year.
We are open to and encourage the use of additional
consultative mechanisms so that decisions may be informed by a range of views.
We encourage taking advantage of Web 2.0 using resources beyond the city's own
web site, just as the city posts notices in the commercial media to reach a
wider audience.
AHCAC would like to point out that, contrary to the
impression left by the document, administrative matters on our agenda usually
occupy a very minor part of the time of the meeting, much less than their
percent of items on the agenda.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input.
Yours
sincerely,
John D
Reid
Chair
Arts,
Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
cc:
Tyler Cox
Melanie Murdock
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
ToMayor O'Brien, All Members of
Council
M. Rick O’Connor, CMO, City Clerk and Solicitor Leslie Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk |
File/N° de
fichier: |
|
From / Expéditeur |
FromStephanie Brown Bellefeuille,
Coordinator
|
|
|
Subject /
Objet |
SubjectMotion Re: Mid-Term Governance Review - Transit Committee |
Date: 20 February, 2009 |
At its 19 February 2009 meeting, the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee passed the following motion, to be considered during the mid-term governance review, further to the Council motion of 25 June 2008:
Given various and on-going problems that have surfaced with the operations and management of OC Transpo, PTAC respectfully suggests that the City of Ottawa carefully examine the establishment of an at-arm’s-length body to govern OC Transpo, composed of elected officials, and public stakeholders.
Please take the above motion into consideration as part of the mid-term governance review.
Author Stephanie Brown Bellefeuille
cc: Pat
Scrimgeour, Manager, Transit Service Design
Rob Orchin, Manager, Mobility and Area Traffic Management
WOMEN’S PERSPECTIVES
ON INCLUSIVE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNANCE
The Peach Paper Re-Visited
June 2009
City for All Women Initiative – CAWI
The City for
All Women Initiative (CAWI) is a partnership between women from diverse
communities, community organizations, universities and the City of Ottawa. Our
mission is to strengthen the capacity of the full diversity of women and the
City of Ottawa to work in partnership so as to create a more inclusive city and
advance gender equality. We believe that
our City can become a better place to live when the ideas and concerns of women
of all backgrounds are taken into account.
Opportunity
Ottawa City Council is currently engaged in the Mid-term Governance Review
Process to review its governance structure to help shape future governance
decisions and has invited public participation in the discussion. Given our mission, CAWI welcomes this
invitation and presents the “Peach Paper Re-Visited” in response.
Why a Peach Paper?
When City Council held their
Governance Review at the beginning of the 2006-2010 term, CAWI presented a
document to City Council on what women in our network deemed to be important
for inclusive municipal governance. We
called the paper, a “Peach Paper” as peach is the colour of the scarf that is
worn by women in the network when we present our views to City Council. This
document is a continuation of our dialogue with City Council on governance.
Shared objective
Our aim is to assist City Council in achieving Objective 3 of the 2008-2010
Municipal Strategic Plan, Governance Priorities.
Objective 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.
In holding a series of forums, women throughout Ottawa have identified the
following actionable recommendations to enhance inclusive decision making in
the City of Ottawa.
It is important to note, when
we refer to women throughout this text, we mean all women in our full
diversity, including Aboriginal women, immigrant, Francophone, visible
minorities, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans individuals, those living on
low-income or living with disabilities.
Create more
inclusive practices for citizen engagement
There are many factors that influence women’s experience of living in
Ottawa, such as the community we live in, our cultural background, and our
household income. Being more informed and responsive to the diversity of
women’s experiences in decision making offers the potential for better outcomes
and results for the City as a whole.
Recommendation #1: Be proactive
·
Establish mechanisms to put the Public Participation Policy into action (e.g., training and resources for elected
representatives and city officials to facilitate public participation).
·
Encourage staff at all levels to facilitate meaningful engagement.
·
Have a staff person who is a resource for elected representatives and
city officials to identify effective mechanisms for public participation.
·
Create opportunities for public input at the initial stages of proposal
(e.g. consult before drafting papers) so that residents can be proactive rather
than reactive.
·
Participate in discussions that are being facilitated by community
members (e.g., CAWI’s Women’s Action Forums) – go into the community and simply
listen.
Recommendation #2: Make the process more accessible
·
Post staff reports 2 weeks prior to public consultation or Standing
Committee, in both official languages, easy to understand text (plain language)
and in different mediums (e.g., print, electronic).
·
Use a variety of tools to maximize input from citizens and to encourage
broader participation. New technologies
present one way to support access, but it is important to recognize that many
in our city do not have the capacity or inclination to share their perspectives
this way.
·
Include an allotted time for each agenda item in public meetings which
respects the use of volunteer’s time and allows the public to estimate time to
be present.
·
Hold public consultations at times when public is available (e.g., avoid
summer or holiday seasons).
Share
information
A challenge that often exists for women is
that information on decision making processes is not shared in a timely and
transparent manner. This limits our
capacity to inform discussion and decisions being made. Across Canada, women represent only 12.9 % of mayors and 22.9% of City
Councillors. (FCM). Visible minority
women and Aboriginal women are 1%. The goal of FCM is to have women be 30% of
City Councillors by 2026. As we work
towards greater representation of women across our diversity in formal
structures of decision-making, it becomes even more important for the
City to inform women about how to participate and make sure our voices are heard.
Recommendation #3: Inform Public on How to Participate
·
Educate residents about how the system works – including the
significance of key documents and decision points (Strategic Plan, Governance
Reviews, Fiscal Framework and Annual Budget Process) and how public can inform
decision-making.
·
Get information out more broadly about public consultations (e.g., print
in free daily papers, circulate posters to community centres) and use simple,
multi-lingual, multi-media formats.
·
Be more proactive about outreach (e.g., hold meetings in the community)
with due consideration for cultural differences (e.g., some people are not
comfortable coming out at night, speaking at microphones, may have
apprehensions of police involvement given experiences with authority figures in
countries of origin).
Strengthen
Effectiveness of Advisory Committees
For
decision making to be inclusive, there must be structured processes that are
ongoing, transparent and well identified. Advisory Committees offer residents a
forum, which is often less intimidating than some formal public consultation
processes, to raise concerns and share perspectives. We believe that these
committees should strive to be more representative in their membership to
reflect the diversity of our City and can be strengthened.
Recommendation #4: Improve selection process
·
Develop an application form that asks for specific information that is
needed to help in the selection, such as skills, interest, knowledge, links to
community and invite self-identification.
·
Develop guidance documents for selection panels that encourage members
to consider people from diverse backgrounds to create committees that are
reflective of City’s demographic composition.
Recommendation #5: Train all members
·
Provide training to all Advisory Committees so all members understand
how city government works, clarify roles and responsibilities (e.g., linkage to
implementation of Strategic Plan), and how they can influence decisions being
made.
·
Encourage Advisory Committees to view themselves as conduits for sharing
information with public and attaining public input to support municipal
decision making.
·
Guide chairs of Advisory Committees to facilitate in a way that
encourages everyone to participate and try to achieve consensus decision making.
·
Create opportunities for Chairs to meet frequently to share information
amongst themselves (share practices and pressing issues) and to learn from each
other.
Recommendation #6: Strengthen lines of communication between
Standing Committees and Advisory Committees
·
Communicate any priorities Standing Committees have set for the year to
the Advisory Committee at the beginning of the term and for consideration while
developing annual work plans. Be clear
about expectations of Advisory Committees.
·
Keep lines of communication open so that the Advisory Committees are
informed about how their input is being addressed by staff and Standing
Committees.
·
However, while it is valuable that Advisory Committees support the
priorities of Standing Committees, it is also important that when they see an
issue emerging in the community, there is a way to bring it forward.
Triple-bottom
line approach to fiscal management – financial, social and environmental
Increasing economic challenges facing our city puts services in jeopardy
of being cut which has a particular impact on women. We take on more work as family caregivers and community
volunteers. We see erosion in our standard of living, as it is largely women
who work in these “caring” professions. We find it more difficult to access
services to meet the needs of our families. The budget is not just about
dollars and cents. It’s about our quality of life and our communities. Our
ideas and experiences need to be heard.
Recommendation
#7:
Establish a process that starts from the bottom-up and addresses community
needs
·
Create opportunities for public to inform draft budget
at the outset and when the Draft Budget is prepared.
·
Hold public consultation at Standing Committees rather
than at Council as a Whole to enable better dialogue between officials and
public.