0
Gutting the committee structure
03 February 2011
The way it's supposed to work: council creates policy. Staff implements it.
The way it happened Monday night: staff created policy, council approved it.
The policy in question was to decide for council, and the community at large, what committees and boards should be dissolved, and which should survive. Staff created the list of which committees we, as council, are allowed to participate in. Council was not asked to comment or provide input on this, prior to the report being tabled, Monday.
The public had no say in the decision either. The committees were not allowed to speak on their own behalf, nor to respond to the recommendation they be dissolved or altered. None of them were warned before the agenda was published that staff were recommending they be axed.
The staff report was the result of a staff initiative, and not the result of any council request. No one at the table came to staff and asked for any recommendations regarding committees let alone to dissolve any of them. Staff took it on themselves to determine whether public committees were worth sitting on. Initiative is not bad, but in this case it created a policy that reaches throughout the community and will have long-lasting repercussions on how this council performs and how the public is involved in our decisions.
Council, not staff, should create policy.
Staff recommended dissolving the Affordable Housing Task Force, Parking Advisory Committee, Sustainability Committee, Human Resources Committee, Sign Variance Committee and Physician Retention and Attraction Committee. Very few members of this council have sat on any of those committees, certainly none of the newcomers. Very few at the table have even been able to read any of the committee minutes in recent agendas since these committees have not sat since inauguration. So any decision made about their value to the community would be made without any information outside of what staff noted in their report. It would be made without hearing from any of the community members, too.
Council's decision was based solely on staff's recommendation, with little experience, no public input or other background on the committees themselves to help make it an informed decision.*
It was, as I see it, the single worst policy decision I've seen in more than seven years at the table. The vote was 7-2 to follow the recommendations, with only Deputy Mayor Lloyd and myself opposing it.
Why the haste?
I asked for deferral for a year, to allow members of council to actually sit on the committees, to work with them, and get to know what they do, before deciding they were not valuable to the community. They could then report back to council on their impressions.
That was defeated 6-3 (with Councillor West voting in favour of the deferral as well).
Why? What was the rush? Why couldn't we have at least waited until we had some public input?
Why committees matter
Committees are the heart and soul of council's work. I estimate they represent 60-75% of the work we do - or rather should do - in the community. They are our connection to community issues and concerns. They are our connection to the public and committees are a vehicle for the public to interact and debate with councillors outside the formal council forum.
Committees are the mechanism by which council and the public collectively develop, sustain, evolve and promote policies and strategies that are then brought to the table for further discussion. They are where councillors learn to be advocates and champions for issues, where councillors get informed, educated and experienced.
Yes, they mean more work for council. Yes they mean more hours for council. Being a member of this board of directors is not always convenient. We are expected to engage the public, not find ways to avoid engagement. We are expected to do that work, not avoid it. As Deputy Mayor Lloyd said, "Being a member of council is not just about Monday nights."
Some of our hardest working volunteers are in the committees. They are often the best and brightest the community has to offer. They are motivated and want to contribute to the betterment of the community, but not necessarily by getting into politics. Committees are the vehicle for those who believe in community service. Every time we advertise for seats on a committee, we have received applications, usually many more than the number of available spaces.
Committees - not politicians or staff - are responsible for many initiatives and projects: the Elvis festival, the trails network, the waterfront, the Sustainable Community Plan, the restoration and preservation of the Watts Skiff heritage building, the "Millennium" park, the animal shelter, the new museum building, the restored and revitalized curling club and much, much more. We owe our committees a debt of great gratitude.
Without council representation, there is no one at the table to speak to issues or recommendations raised by committees, no one at the table to champion committees and their goals. And without the committees, there is no one to make these issues prominent in the community or bring them to council on a regular basis.
Committees play a vital role in the community. Committee members are unpaid, but they do yeoman's work in digging up research and funding opportunities, the bodies to do the work, creating the websites, filling in forms, holding public information meetings, taking field trips to other communities, meeting with provincial and federal officials, liaising with other municipal counterparts, developing the tools and programs. They use their own resources, their own vehicles, their own time.
Committee minutes allow council to read regular updates on the areas of interest these committees represent, they allow council to learn about the issues and to be prepared for upcoming recommendations or policy suggestions. They are the single most important conduit for information and ideas, for public engagement and for strategies.
Committees help us define and promote our core values. They give us a broader and deeper perspective on issues than we are likely to get as individuals. And they allow councillors to actively participate, not merely vote on motions and recommendations at the table.
They also engage people by being both a place where residents can actively contribute to the greater good. Everyone I've ever spoken to has been proud to serve on a local committee and deeply proud of their accomplishments. Committees foster environments of cooperation and help people develop strong bonds with the community. They create loyal, selfless ambassadors for us.
Committees also provide a focus for local issues and a forum that other residents can approach and interact with that isn't as complex, intimidating or restrictive as the council format. Residents who want to argue for or against something can do it more easily, informally and comfortably in a committee than in front of council where public scrutiny and TV cameras can be intimidating.
Council’s involvement on committees connects us to the community and does so on a regular basis, in an active manner. When we reduce the number of committees, we reduce council’s connections to the residents and ratepayers here. Council becomes more isolated, less open, less accountable and likely more prone to dictating to the public instead of representing the public interests.
Other bad precedents
People feel honoured to be chosen to serve on a committee. When we shut their committee down, we're taking back that honour, saying, in essence, they don't deserve it. That we didn't respect their efforts. That their issues are not important enough for us to bother with. That hits people in their self-esteem.
In the 2000-2003 term, council dropped several committees or removed council representation. That proved so unpopular in the community, and hobbled council so much by making it out of touch with the residents, that before the term's end almost all of the committees or appointments had been re-established.
By dissolving committees, I believe we essentially abdicate council’s involvement with their issues. As Ian Adams points out, dropping the Youth Committee in the 2003-06 term simply meant youth issues vanished from the agenda along with the committee, and there was a mutual alienation between council and community youth. The result remains with us: a hole in our policies and engagement where youth fall through. I suggest the same will happen with these six committees. That does not sit well with me and I worry that we will lose touch with far too many important issues.
In the 2003-2006 term, council chose to dissolve the Vision 2020 committee; a group of some of the smartest and most forward-thinking people in the region. It was done without even a thank you to the members, let alone asking for their input into the decision. It is no surprise that many of the former members were bitter and angry over the decision. It's no coincidence that several of them formed the core of a ratepayers' group that was unrelentingly critical of that administration.
We just did the same thing to six committees - six important committees, including the Sustainability Committee which was created to replace Vision 2020, and has been populated again by some of the smartest, most motivated people I've met in this community. And just like Vision 2020, they were shut down with so much as a thank you, let alone a chance to explain their work to council.
I do not think it wise to alienate, anger or ignore people who have put in so much personal time and effort on the community's behalf. But we did. Again.
This, of course, is backwards. Council should not be dictating to the public. Council should, instead, be asking for public opinion, and asking whether the committees themselves feel they were doing valuable work that contributes to the wellbeing of Collingwood.
We should have given them the opportunity to defend themselves. That would have been the open, accountable process.
And I'll say it again: staff should not be creating public policy. That is the role of council, and council needs its committees to properly formulate those policies.
Who picks up the slack?
Now we have lost the work and efforts of roughly two dozen unpaid volunteers on six committees, who will do the work they did on our behalf?
Who will review and update the sustainable community plan on a regular basis and report to council on our progress in every area? Who will attend conferences, meet with other officials or residents and make reports? Who will liaise with upper tier governments to get updates, funding opportunities and information? Who will maintain relationships with other groups, agencies and organizations? Who will advocate and champion these issues, initiatives and projects? Who will reach out to the public and enlist support, create legions of volunteers, raise public awareness?
Apparently staff will do it all. The report is populated with phrases like, "staff recommend we will work directly with community housing resource groups," "We will continue to advocate to the upper tier...", "staff recommend we continue to our relationship with external agencies...", "Staff undertake their work..." We, I assume from the context, means staff.
It's not about money. The potential savings to the community if the committees ever spent their entire budget (few ever did, and three of the six axed groups had $0 budget anyway) is $33,000. For that we got the efforts and time of more than 20 people (28 or more including council reps). We got back far more than the paltry amount it cost us. A simple consultant's report would cost us at least double that much and with those committees we got the benefit of many consultants for that amount!
I commented that if staff has so much time on its hands that it can do the work of two dozen unpaid volunteers to save money, we could save a lot more by trimming those staff who have that much time on their hands.
But if staff are already fully occupied - and I believe this is the case, not the opposite - how will any of them be able to take on the additional duties, responsibilities, reporting, networking, researching, conferences, meetings, presentations and advocating that these committees did before?
Will staff now develop policies for those areas that are being disbanded? Without those committees, I feel council will be taken out of the loop, with the result that there will be no support network for policy making behind council in those areas that the committees managed. Council will have to depend entirely on what staff says in these areas, with no corroborating background or information, no independent advocates for any side of an issue, and no public presentations from those committees.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of any public, community-driven and open process being replaced by a staff-driven process.
What can be done?
Not much now. The decision was made and we have to live with the consequences and repercussions.
I personally believe that to be a better, more effective and more connected council, to better engage the public and to better develop informed policies, we should increase council representation on committees, not decrease it. Apparently that's not a popular opinion at the table.
I believe we should have council representation on MORE committees and boards, and include groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Arts & Culture Advisory committee, Museum advisory committee, Georgian Triangle Development Institute, and others. I believe we should create a new Public Works committee. I don't hold out a lot of hope for these.
We, as councillors, really should participate in our committees. Without council representation, committees or advisory boards operate in a vacuum. They have no direct connection with the administration, they have no one to talk with about policy or procedure, and no one to bring their issues to the table and champion their causes. I believe a committee or board without council representation is being hamstrung in its ability to act effectively on our behalf. And it’s an equal disservice to council since we at the table are not privy to anything but the minutes – which may be sterilized for inclusion in our agenda.**
I believe that council involvement also brings council - and therefore public - oversight to every committee. We act as two-way information and engagement resources to committees, but we also make sure community resources are not squandered and that recommendations and decisions are done with the interests of the whole community at heart, not merely the goals of the committee itself.
The report notes that the Physician Retention and Attraction Committee has not met for two years. If that’s true, then the fault lies either with the chair of that committee for not convening the group, or with the council representative who sat on it last term but failed to inform the rest of council that this group had fallen into that situation. The fault does not lie with its mandate or goals. What it needs it revitalization and re-energizing, not dissolution. Council continued to hear from staff how important the work this committee did was to the community (even though it was not meeting). Surely that remains true.***
We should be looking for ways to enhance and expand our relationship with the community. The recommendations in this report only reduce and limit it. And again, it was the sort of decision that should not have been made without council taking the time to actually hear from the committees, and to get some experience working with them - how else can council make an informed decision?
I recommended we retain the existing committees for the next year, then return to the table to discuss them and their future, in public. That deferral, as I said, was defeated.
I will recommend we add council representation to the museum, arts & culture and other advisory committees which currently have no council rep, as well as on the Chamber of Commerce. And I will recommend we launch a new Public Works committee with three council representatives, plus staff.
I believe this decision points us down a road that is not destined for the greater good of this community and will further isolate council from our community at a time we should be trying to increase our involvement and engagement with it. But only the Deputy Mayor agreed. The wisdom of council was to gut the committee structure based solely on a single staff report, without public comment.
It was, in my experience, the worst policy decision made by any council in the past seven yeas.
~~~~~
* The second part of the report contained recommendations for the remaining committees that were, on the whole, positive. While I was not opposed to those changes, I expressed concern that the committees and boards affected were not informed beforehand nor were they asked to comment. Our municipal partners in the airport board were not informed that we intended to change the makeup of the board on which they sit, either. I believe we should communicate with our stakeholders - especially those directly affected by our decisions - much more effectively than this. Curiously, no one else at the table even spoke to these latter changes, for or against.
** I point to the highly-charged debates at the Museum advisory committee over the museum's high fee structure as an example. None of these often acrimonious debates or comments ever reached the council table because we had no one at the meetings to hear them. The minutes did not reflect any of the issues, nor has this council seen the several letters from local authors and historians opposing the museum’s fee structure.
*** The CEO of the hospital was caught off-guard this week, when a member of council mentioned to her during a tour that the Physician Retention and Attraction committee had been dissolved. She had not been contacted to comment or discuss the closure, nor, apparently had anyone in the medical community.
The way it happened Monday night: staff created policy, council approved it.
The policy in question was to decide for council, and the community at large, what committees and boards should be dissolved, and which should survive. Staff created the list of which committees we, as council, are allowed to participate in. Council was not asked to comment or provide input on this, prior to the report being tabled, Monday.
The public had no say in the decision either. The committees were not allowed to speak on their own behalf, nor to respond to the recommendation they be dissolved or altered. None of them were warned before the agenda was published that staff were recommending they be axed.
The staff report was the result of a staff initiative, and not the result of any council request. No one at the table came to staff and asked for any recommendations regarding committees let alone to dissolve any of them. Staff took it on themselves to determine whether public committees were worth sitting on. Initiative is not bad, but in this case it created a policy that reaches throughout the community and will have long-lasting repercussions on how this council performs and how the public is involved in our decisions.
Council, not staff, should create policy.
Staff recommended dissolving the Affordable Housing Task Force, Parking Advisory Committee, Sustainability Committee, Human Resources Committee, Sign Variance Committee and Physician Retention and Attraction Committee. Very few members of this council have sat on any of those committees, certainly none of the newcomers. Very few at the table have even been able to read any of the committee minutes in recent agendas since these committees have not sat since inauguration. So any decision made about their value to the community would be made without any information outside of what staff noted in their report. It would be made without hearing from any of the community members, too.
Council's decision was based solely on staff's recommendation, with little experience, no public input or other background on the committees themselves to help make it an informed decision.*
It was, as I see it, the single worst policy decision I've seen in more than seven years at the table. The vote was 7-2 to follow the recommendations, with only Deputy Mayor Lloyd and myself opposing it.
Why the haste?
I asked for deferral for a year, to allow members of council to actually sit on the committees, to work with them, and get to know what they do, before deciding they were not valuable to the community. They could then report back to council on their impressions.
That was defeated 6-3 (with Councillor West voting in favour of the deferral as well).
Why? What was the rush? Why couldn't we have at least waited until we had some public input?
Why committees matter
Committees are the heart and soul of council's work. I estimate they represent 60-75% of the work we do - or rather should do - in the community. They are our connection to community issues and concerns. They are our connection to the public and committees are a vehicle for the public to interact and debate with councillors outside the formal council forum.
Committees are the mechanism by which council and the public collectively develop, sustain, evolve and promote policies and strategies that are then brought to the table for further discussion. They are where councillors learn to be advocates and champions for issues, where councillors get informed, educated and experienced.
Yes, they mean more work for council. Yes they mean more hours for council. Being a member of this board of directors is not always convenient. We are expected to engage the public, not find ways to avoid engagement. We are expected to do that work, not avoid it. As Deputy Mayor Lloyd said, "Being a member of council is not just about Monday nights."
Some of our hardest working volunteers are in the committees. They are often the best and brightest the community has to offer. They are motivated and want to contribute to the betterment of the community, but not necessarily by getting into politics. Committees are the vehicle for those who believe in community service. Every time we advertise for seats on a committee, we have received applications, usually many more than the number of available spaces.
Committees - not politicians or staff - are responsible for many initiatives and projects: the Elvis festival, the trails network, the waterfront, the Sustainable Community Plan, the restoration and preservation of the Watts Skiff heritage building, the "Millennium" park, the animal shelter, the new museum building, the restored and revitalized curling club and much, much more. We owe our committees a debt of great gratitude.
Without council representation, there is no one at the table to speak to issues or recommendations raised by committees, no one at the table to champion committees and their goals. And without the committees, there is no one to make these issues prominent in the community or bring them to council on a regular basis.
Committees play a vital role in the community. Committee members are unpaid, but they do yeoman's work in digging up research and funding opportunities, the bodies to do the work, creating the websites, filling in forms, holding public information meetings, taking field trips to other communities, meeting with provincial and federal officials, liaising with other municipal counterparts, developing the tools and programs. They use their own resources, their own vehicles, their own time.
Committee minutes allow council to read regular updates on the areas of interest these committees represent, they allow council to learn about the issues and to be prepared for upcoming recommendations or policy suggestions. They are the single most important conduit for information and ideas, for public engagement and for strategies.
Committees help us define and promote our core values. They give us a broader and deeper perspective on issues than we are likely to get as individuals. And they allow councillors to actively participate, not merely vote on motions and recommendations at the table.
They also engage people by being both a place where residents can actively contribute to the greater good. Everyone I've ever spoken to has been proud to serve on a local committee and deeply proud of their accomplishments. Committees foster environments of cooperation and help people develop strong bonds with the community. They create loyal, selfless ambassadors for us.
Committees also provide a focus for local issues and a forum that other residents can approach and interact with that isn't as complex, intimidating or restrictive as the council format. Residents who want to argue for or against something can do it more easily, informally and comfortably in a committee than in front of council where public scrutiny and TV cameras can be intimidating.
Council’s involvement on committees connects us to the community and does so on a regular basis, in an active manner. When we reduce the number of committees, we reduce council’s connections to the residents and ratepayers here. Council becomes more isolated, less open, less accountable and likely more prone to dictating to the public instead of representing the public interests.
Other bad precedents
People feel honoured to be chosen to serve on a committee. When we shut their committee down, we're taking back that honour, saying, in essence, they don't deserve it. That we didn't respect their efforts. That their issues are not important enough for us to bother with. That hits people in their self-esteem.
In the 2000-2003 term, council dropped several committees or removed council representation. That proved so unpopular in the community, and hobbled council so much by making it out of touch with the residents, that before the term's end almost all of the committees or appointments had been re-established.
By dissolving committees, I believe we essentially abdicate council’s involvement with their issues. As Ian Adams points out, dropping the Youth Committee in the 2003-06 term simply meant youth issues vanished from the agenda along with the committee, and there was a mutual alienation between council and community youth. The result remains with us: a hole in our policies and engagement where youth fall through. I suggest the same will happen with these six committees. That does not sit well with me and I worry that we will lose touch with far too many important issues.
In the 2003-2006 term, council chose to dissolve the Vision 2020 committee; a group of some of the smartest and most forward-thinking people in the region. It was done without even a thank you to the members, let alone asking for their input into the decision. It is no surprise that many of the former members were bitter and angry over the decision. It's no coincidence that several of them formed the core of a ratepayers' group that was unrelentingly critical of that administration.
We just did the same thing to six committees - six important committees, including the Sustainability Committee which was created to replace Vision 2020, and has been populated again by some of the smartest, most motivated people I've met in this community. And just like Vision 2020, they were shut down with so much as a thank you, let alone a chance to explain their work to council.
I do not think it wise to alienate, anger or ignore people who have put in so much personal time and effort on the community's behalf. But we did. Again.
This, of course, is backwards. Council should not be dictating to the public. Council should, instead, be asking for public opinion, and asking whether the committees themselves feel they were doing valuable work that contributes to the wellbeing of Collingwood.
We should have given them the opportunity to defend themselves. That would have been the open, accountable process.
And I'll say it again: staff should not be creating public policy. That is the role of council, and council needs its committees to properly formulate those policies.
Who picks up the slack?
Now we have lost the work and efforts of roughly two dozen unpaid volunteers on six committees, who will do the work they did on our behalf?
Who will review and update the sustainable community plan on a regular basis and report to council on our progress in every area? Who will attend conferences, meet with other officials or residents and make reports? Who will liaise with upper tier governments to get updates, funding opportunities and information? Who will maintain relationships with other groups, agencies and organizations? Who will advocate and champion these issues, initiatives and projects? Who will reach out to the public and enlist support, create legions of volunteers, raise public awareness?
Apparently staff will do it all. The report is populated with phrases like, "staff recommend we will work directly with community housing resource groups," "We will continue to advocate to the upper tier...", "staff recommend we continue to our relationship with external agencies...", "Staff undertake their work..." We, I assume from the context, means staff.
It's not about money. The potential savings to the community if the committees ever spent their entire budget (few ever did, and three of the six axed groups had $0 budget anyway) is $33,000. For that we got the efforts and time of more than 20 people (28 or more including council reps). We got back far more than the paltry amount it cost us. A simple consultant's report would cost us at least double that much and with those committees we got the benefit of many consultants for that amount!
I commented that if staff has so much time on its hands that it can do the work of two dozen unpaid volunteers to save money, we could save a lot more by trimming those staff who have that much time on their hands.
But if staff are already fully occupied - and I believe this is the case, not the opposite - how will any of them be able to take on the additional duties, responsibilities, reporting, networking, researching, conferences, meetings, presentations and advocating that these committees did before?
Will staff now develop policies for those areas that are being disbanded? Without those committees, I feel council will be taken out of the loop, with the result that there will be no support network for policy making behind council in those areas that the committees managed. Council will have to depend entirely on what staff says in these areas, with no corroborating background or information, no independent advocates for any side of an issue, and no public presentations from those committees.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of any public, community-driven and open process being replaced by a staff-driven process.
What can be done?
I personally believe that to be a better, more effective and more connected council, to better engage the public and to better develop informed policies, we should increase council representation on committees, not decrease it. Apparently that's not a popular opinion at the table.
I believe we should have council representation on MORE committees and boards, and include groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Arts & Culture Advisory committee, Museum advisory committee, Georgian Triangle Development Institute, and others. I believe we should create a new Public Works committee. I don't hold out a lot of hope for these.
We, as councillors, really should participate in our committees. Without council representation, committees or advisory boards operate in a vacuum. They have no direct connection with the administration, they have no one to talk with about policy or procedure, and no one to bring their issues to the table and champion their causes. I believe a committee or board without council representation is being hamstrung in its ability to act effectively on our behalf. And it’s an equal disservice to council since we at the table are not privy to anything but the minutes – which may be sterilized for inclusion in our agenda.**
I believe that council involvement also brings council - and therefore public - oversight to every committee. We act as two-way information and engagement resources to committees, but we also make sure community resources are not squandered and that recommendations and decisions are done with the interests of the whole community at heart, not merely the goals of the committee itself.
The report notes that the Physician Retention and Attraction Committee has not met for two years. If that’s true, then the fault lies either with the chair of that committee for not convening the group, or with the council representative who sat on it last term but failed to inform the rest of council that this group had fallen into that situation. The fault does not lie with its mandate or goals. What it needs it revitalization and re-energizing, not dissolution. Council continued to hear from staff how important the work this committee did was to the community (even though it was not meeting). Surely that remains true.***
We should be looking for ways to enhance and expand our relationship with the community. The recommendations in this report only reduce and limit it. And again, it was the sort of decision that should not have been made without council taking the time to actually hear from the committees, and to get some experience working with them - how else can council make an informed decision?
I recommended we retain the existing committees for the next year, then return to the table to discuss them and their future, in public. That deferral, as I said, was defeated.
I will recommend we add council representation to the museum, arts & culture and other advisory committees which currently have no council rep, as well as on the Chamber of Commerce. And I will recommend we launch a new Public Works committee with three council representatives, plus staff.
I believe this decision points us down a road that is not destined for the greater good of this community and will further isolate council from our community at a time we should be trying to increase our involvement and engagement with it. But only the Deputy Mayor agreed. The wisdom of council was to gut the committee structure based solely on a single staff report, without public comment.
It was, in my experience, the worst policy decision made by any council in the past seven yeas.
~~~~~
* The second part of the report contained recommendations for the remaining committees that were, on the whole, positive. While I was not opposed to those changes, I expressed concern that the committees and boards affected were not informed beforehand nor were they asked to comment. Our municipal partners in the airport board were not informed that we intended to change the makeup of the board on which they sit, either. I believe we should communicate with our stakeholders - especially those directly affected by our decisions - much more effectively than this. Curiously, no one else at the table even spoke to these latter changes, for or against.
** I point to the highly-charged debates at the Museum advisory committee over the museum's high fee structure as an example. None of these often acrimonious debates or comments ever reached the council table because we had no one at the meetings to hear them. The minutes did not reflect any of the issues, nor has this council seen the several letters from local authors and historians opposing the museum’s fee structure.
*** The CEO of the hospital was caught off-guard this week, when a member of council mentioned to her during a tour that the Physician Retention and Attraction committee had been dissolved. She had not been contacted to comment or discuss the closure, nor, apparently had anyone in the medical community.
