November 26, 1998
To:Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team
From:Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to:
-outline the results of a review of the current interim Council-committee structure;
-highlight issues with the interim structure; and
-recommend revisions to the structure in response to the issues.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the principles set out in the section of this report entitled "Guiding Principles" be adopted
as the means to guide the performance of the Council-committee structure;
(2)effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated in figure 5 in the
section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial
Control", be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the
Budget Committee;
(3)the CAO and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submit a report to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April 1999, fleshing out the budget
setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial control protocols, including:
(i)the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the
annual budget process;
(ii)the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting
budgets for the whole range of City programs;
(iii)the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting
process; and
(iv)guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas
within standing committees' portfolios;
(4)the CAO and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on the concept of a
time-limited Budget Advisory Committee as described in the section of this report entitled "A
Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control";
(5)the proposed Policy and Finance Committee be chaired by the Mayor;
(6)the chairs of all standing committees and community councils, other than the Policy and
Finance Committee and the Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the
members of the respective standing committees and community councils;
(7)appointments to standing committees and community councils continue to be made for
each half-term of Council and, with the exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair
the same standing committee or community council in consecutive half-terms of the same
Council;
(8)the committee structure described in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled
"Standing Committee Portfolios" be adopted for implementation effective June 1, 1999;
(9)the Commissioners review all pre-existing advisory committees, working groups and task
forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant
standing committees, setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees,
special committees, working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect
to their continuation;
(10)with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex officio member of all committees of
Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six
policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit
committees) shown in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee
Portfolios";
(11)the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council, and
the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the
Appointments Committee;
(12)the City's agencies, boards and commissions report through the proposed Policy and
Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the standing committee with
responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters;
(13)Council request the provincial government to amend the Health Protection and
Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997(No. 2) to confer upon Toronto City Council
the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health;
(14)when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of Health, public
health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council, and Council
establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have meaningful input to the
development of public health policy;
(15)until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of
Health, the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and
Neighbourhood Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council;
(16)the Mayor may assign to the Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting
Agenda, as described in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Manage Council's
Agenda", and the City Clerk and City Solicitor be requested to report further on how this
recommendation can be implemented;
(17)the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give effect to the
changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a schedule of
Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the Procedural
by-law for Council approval;
(18)the Council-committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18 months following the
implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every
three to five years; and
(19)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Council Reference:
At the inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 Council adopted an amended version
of the committee structure recommended by the Toronto Transition Team. Council
established the structure on an interim basis and requested the Special Committee to review
and comment on the interim structure as part of its mandate.
Review Process:
Interviews were conducted during August and September with approximately one third of the
Members of Council including the chairs of the standing committees, all but one of the
Community Council chairs and a sample of other Members of Council. Staff who provide
secretariat support to Council and its committees, the Commissioners and a sample of senior
management staff were also interviewed.
On October 16, 1998 the Special Committee reviewed a staff discussion paper that
summarized the results of the interviews. The discussion paper highlighted issues with the
interim structure and outlined a framework for developing options to resolve the issues.
Following the Special Committee's deliberations, the discussion paper and a questionnaire
seeking feedback on guiding principles and options for changing the Council-committee
structure were sent to all Members of Council and a selection of senior staff on October 22,
1998. Seventeen Members of Council and the Commissioners responded to the questionnaire.
The recommendations contained in this report are based on input gathered through the
interviews and questionnaire responses. The Commissioners and City Clerk have been
consulted throughout the review process.
Discussion:
Toronto's Interim Committee Structure:
The basic Council-committee structure is illustrated in figure 1.
The structure consists of seventeen committees. It includes six geographically focused
community councils, six policy oriented standing committees and a Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee. These thirteen committees make recommendations directly to City
Council. A Budget Committee makes recommendations to Council through the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee. Initially, an Audit Committee reported to Council through
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. In July, Council decided that the Audit
Committee should report directly to Council. A Striking Committee and a Nominating
Committee make recommendations directly to Council on the appointment of councillors and
citizens respectively to various bodies.
At the January 1998 meeting, Council created a further nine special committees and task
forces and adopted a motion to have the Board of Health report directly to City Council. Since
January, Council has established numerous additional committees and task forces.
Assessment of Toronto's Interim Committee Structure:
Generally, the structure is working and Council business is being done, but there are some
clear stresses and strains in the political decision-making system. As illustrated in Figure 2,
the source of these pressures is the combined impact of the existing structure of committees
and task forces and the existing legislative process.
(a)Structural Issues:
The number of committees and task forces presents some logistical challenges. A review of
the bodies to which the Striking Committee recommends appointments reveals that the basic
Council-committee structure consists of at least 49 standing committees, special committees,
sub-committees of standing committees and task forces that report to Council either directly
or through standing committees. These 49 committees and task forces constitute the political
decision-making structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. This
number does not include the City's agencies, boards and commissions such as the Toronto
Transit Commission, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Police Services Board or
Boards of Governors of Exhibition Place and the Zoo. Nor does it include the myriad
community based organizations on whose boards of directors Members of Council sit. As of
August 1998, the Striking Committee had recommended appointments of Members of
Council to at least 225 bodies.
The 49 committees and task forces noted above constitute the political decision-making
structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. They are listed in Appendix
1.
A direct consequence of the sheer number of committees is the difficulty in scheduling
meetings. This has lead to scheduling conflicts forcing Members of Council to choose
between attending a standing committee meeting or a meeting of a task force or ABC. The
scheduling problems are reflected in the difficulty many committees experience in
maintaining quorum. The combination of scheduling and quorum problems means that, on
occasion, meetings must be cancelled, delayed or wrapped up before the agenda is complete.
When this happens, the committee's business is deferred and begins to pile up.
The heavy schedule of committee and task force meetings can take a personal toll, too. The
demands on Councillors' time may be excessive. There are huge blocks of time when
Councillors are committed in committees, community councils and task forces. Some feel
they are being "scheduled to death." However, time management may be more of an issue for
some Councillors than for others. Several Members of Council suggested during the
interviews that they were too ambitious in regard to the number of committees and outside
organizations in which they enlisted. They are reviewing their commitments. Nevertheless
there is a concern that the Council and committee workload is eating into the time available
for constituency work.
(b)Co-ordination Issues:
The number and scope of committees and task forces have a bearing on how Council makes
decisions. The range of committees and task forces has produced a very fragmented approach
to dealing with Council's business. In part, this has to do with the way in which many of the
task forces were established. In several cases, working groups or task forces were established
through a motion on the floor of Council without consideration of how the work of the task
force would relate to mandates and priorities of standing committees.
In addition, the number of committees and task forces increases the possibility that the same
issue will be dealt with by more than one committee. For example, overlaps were identified
between the Environmental Task Force, the Urban Environment and Development Committee
and the Works and Utilities Committee and between the Task Force on Community Safety
and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. The role of the World Cities
Committee was called into question by the creation of the Economic Development
Committee.
The greatest concern about duplication and overlapping mandates relates to the respective
roles of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Corporate Services Committee
and the Budget Committee. Much of the concern over the respective roles of the Strategic
Policies and Priorities, Corporate Services and Budget Committees focused on the absence of
an executive committee in the City's political decision-making structure. The Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee does not perform an executive committee function and will
not as long as typical executive committee resource control functions are split between it and
the Corporate Services Committee. Some Members of Council felt that this diffusion of
executive responsibilities, coupled with an underwhelming performance by the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee to date, had caused the Budget Committee to expand its
mandate beyond that set out in the Procedural By-law to attempt to become a broader
financial priorities committee.
The net result of a fragmented approach to committee work and the existence of duplication
and overlapping mandates is insufficient co-ordination of Council business. When matters
arrive on the Council agenda in an uncoordinated fashion and without the context of an
overall set of strategic policy or financial priorities, Council's decision-making suffers.
(c)Procedural Issues:
Council and its committees function within a framework of rules and procedures that
constitute the legislative process. The legislative process is a significant part of the overall
governance structure. The way the legislative process interacts with the committee structure
affects the quality of Council's debates and decisions.
The legislative cycle is very crowded. It is organized to stream the deliberations of all
standing committees and community councils into a single meeting of City Council each
month. Where an issue must go to more than one committee, most commonly financial
matters that may go to a standing committee, Budget Committee and then Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee on their way to Council, the lead times are considered too short.
This situation is exacerbated when one committee requests an additional report to accompany
a staff report to the next step in the decision-making sequence. It places extraordinary pressure
on staff. Conversely, in some instances, the time taken from the preparation of a report to a
Council decision is considered too long.
A problem inherent in the current legislative cycle is the number of last minute reports that are
added to committee and Council agendas. Often this is a direct consequence of the schedule
and sequence of meetings. Some people have suggested that the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee is limited in its capacity to review matters thoroughly because it meets
so soon after the committees that feed issues to it, such as the Budget Committee.
Last minute reports, in combination with the sheer volume of reports, leaves Members of
Council with insufficient time to read their agendas. This problem is made worse by the
"layering" of information as a report progresses from staff to committees to Council.
When Members of Council do not have the time to read their agendas they risk debating
matters without the benefit of much of the background information. When Members of
Council are insufficiently briefed or are ill-informed, the quality of debate suffers and the
quality of the decisions made by Council can suffer.
The current legislative cycle which has Council meeting once a month to debate reports from
all community councils and standing committees, which meet on the same monthly cycle
yields unwieldy and potentially unmanageable Council agendas. Large Council agendas create
long and, from some Members' perspectives, unfocused and unbalanced Council meetings.
The length of Council meetings is not solely the result of the size of the agenda. Debate over
procedure has proved to be very time-consuming, too. Council routinely votes to waive some
of the procedures in place to streamline and improve Council debates.
The pattern at long Council meetings has been to devote a lot of time to the debate of a few
items at the beginning of the agenda. Too little or no debate is devoted to many items that are
approved at the last minute towards the end of a Council meeting when Members are
exhausted and the quorum is at risk. When this occurs the quality of Council's
decision-making can suffer.
(d)Impact of Structural Issues on Citizen Participation:
The above-noted comments about the governance structure focus on its impact on internal
players, that, is Members of Council and the administration. These seemingly internal issues
also impact on citizens at large.
The Council-committee structure and legislative process provide an important means for
citizens to participate in the governance of their city. Committees, community councils and
task forces all have the potential to provide opportunities to participate in the debate of civic
issues and the formulation of the municipal agenda. For the system to be accountable to the
public, the decision-making process must be transparent, responsibilities need to be clearly
assigned and procedures and timelines should be well defined. For example, recommendations
adopted by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 to distinguish the roles of community
councils and standing committees and to require the development of protocols that define
what is a local versus a citywide matter are intended to make the decision-making process
more understandable and therefore more accountable.
The current large number of committees and task forces and sometimes indistinct dividing
lines between their mandates has diffused responsibility among a large number of bodies.
Blurred or overlapping mandates are confusing and can confound accountability. If people are
not sure who is dealing with an issue, it is more difficult for them to participate.
The issue of last minute reports and agendas and difficult to interpret documentation also
impinges on the public's capacity and right to know and comprehend what their municipal
government is up to.
Resolution of Governance Structure Issues:
The City of Toronto's political decision-making structure will be shaped over time by the
demands placed upon it by its environment. That environment of expectations, needs, values
and mandate form the context within which the City government functions through its
organizational structures. It is important to understand this context in order to resolve the
issues with the interim structure in a way that is relevant to its context.
(a)Some Basic Assumptions:
It is possible to make the following general assumptions about what is expected of City
Council.
1.The twin challenges facing City Council during its first and even second terms are:
(i)to build the new, single, integrated City of Toronto; and
(ii)to continue to provide municipal services efficiently and effectively.
2.Meeting these challenges requires a Council-committee structure:
(i)with strong policy and co-ordinating capacity; and
(ii)that conducts the business of the municipal government efficiently and effectively within
the municipality's financial means.
3.The Council-committee structure must provide Council with an efficient decision-making
forum, with public input and access, to continue to build the new City. The structure is
evolving over the first term of Council and, during the first two terms at minimum, should be
considered a work in progress.
4.The Council-committee structure must enable Council to receive public input on issues in a
timely fashion.
5.The Council-committee structure provides a forum for administrative staff to provide input
and make recommendations to Council on all issues.
(b)Guiding Principles:
The above-noted assumptions help to indicate what the Council-committee structure has to be
capable of doing. It is also important to identify principles to guide how the
Council-committee structure should be capable of performing. The following ten guiding
principles were developed based on input by Members of Council via their interview and
questionnaire responses. It is recommended that these principles be adopted as the means to
guide the performance of the Council-committee structure.
1.The Council-committee structure should enable Council to set goals and priorities and to
adhere to these.
2.The Council-committee structure should enable control of municipal expenditures.
3.All committees of Council should add value to the political decision-making process.
4.Every Member of Council should have an important role in the decision-making process.
5.The Council workload should be shared as evenly as possible among Members of Council.
6.The Council-committee structure should be simple and understandable to the public.
7.The Council-committee structure should allow for meaningful opportunities for public
input to Council's decision-making process.
8.The Council-committee structure should enable councillors to be held accountable for their
decisions.
9.The Council-committee structure should enable councillors to spend time in their
constituencies.
10.Standing committees are where policies should be developed for recommendation to
Council and where the implementation of policies should be monitored.
(c)Framework for Resolving Governance Structure Issues:
The interview and questionnaire responses revealed that there is not unanimity over the
specific issues or their seriousness. A number of diametrically opposed points of view were
expressed during the interviews. However, most of the input does lead to consistent
conclusions that:
-the objective, or desired outcome of the Council-committee structure and legislative process
is well considered, timely, effective and accountable decision-making by Toronto City
Council. Any changes to the structure should result in improved Council decision-making;
-certain structural and procedural conditions are necessary to achieve the desired outcome;
and
-specific decisions must be made to create the required conditions.
These conclusions constitute a framework for looking at options to make changes to the
governance structure. The framework is summarized in figure 3.
(d)A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control:
In order to achieve the desired outcome of improved Council decision-making, the political
decision-making structure must be capable of managing the Council's agenda. This involves
having the capacity to co-ordinate the issues that form the agenda.
An effective mechanism needs to be in place to set goals and priorities to guide debate and
issue resolution throughout the political decision-making structure. The structure also needs to
be capable of integrating key policy decisions and financial and budgetary priorities.
This type of integrating and priority setting mechanism performs a control function in
municipal government and is often provided in the form of an executive committee. A key
consideration, therefore, is whether and how to provide typical executive committee control
functions in Toronto's political structure.
Feedback from Members of Council on this matter reveals two competing yet strongly held
values that need to be reconciled. These are:
-a deep concern about vesting too much power and control in the hands of a small group of
people; but, at the same time
-acknowledgement of a need to vest responsibility for corporate control functions such as the
establishment of financial priorities, corporate strategic goals and corporate-wide policies to
control the management of human resources, real estate and other assets in a dedicated
committee of Council.
A critical issue for Council in the present review of the Council-committee structure lies in
finding a way to reconcile these apparently competing values of corporate control and power
decentralization.
Reluctance to vest control in the hands of a small group of people reflects opposition to an
executive committee composed of the chairs of standing committees, which plays a role in
vetting the recommendations emanating from other committees of Council. This type of
executive committee is perceived to create two classes of councillors. On a large Council, the
majority is excluded from membership of the executive committee. Their exclusion carries
with it the risk that executive committee recommendations will be held down and opposed in
full Council on principle. This would slow business down, would duplicate the deliberations
of the executive at Council and would make it difficult for the executive to add significant
value to the political decision-making process.
In Toronto's situation, because of the volume of business, it would be impractical to route all
standing committee reports through an executive committee. Such a process would generate
an enormous amount of paper and would likely create a serious bottleneck in the conduct of
Council business. This type of situation is already evident in the practice of routing certain
standing committee reports through the Budget and Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committees and needs to be corrected, not reinforced.
One of the guiding principles outlined earlier in this report speaks to the need for the
Council-committee structure to be simple and understandable. A simple, understandable and,
therefore, accountable structure is one in which each issue need go to just one committee. This
suggests giving consideration to flattening the Council-committee structure.
A flatter Council-committee structure provides the means to reconcile competing expectations
of corporate control and power decentralization. Within a flatter structure, it is possible to
achieve both. At issue is the capacity for Council to make decisions on specific issues in full
confidence that it has the necessary information to do so. Responsibilities would be divided
between standing committees, each of which reports directly to Council. Each committee
would play a role in providing information required by Council to make its decisions.
Responsibility for analyzing and recommending on program policy would remain vested in
standing committees whose focus is on services to the public as is the practice now. The role
of these standing committees will be to monitor the management of current programs and
review service levels. They will propose modifications to service levels, bearing in mind
strategic plan directions and fiscal parameters set by Council. Standing Committees will also
develop policies to meet emerging issues and guide future program improvements, which will
provide input to budget development in subsequent years.
Responsibility for recommending on corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental
issues and corporate international activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating
and capital estimates, tax policies and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included
within approved allocations would be vested in a separate standing committee which would
replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee.
Consideration was given to merging the responsibilities currently assigned to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee, the Budget Committee and the Corporate Services
Committee into a single Corporate Finance and Administration Committee. These
responsibilities would include the financial and corporate priority setting role already
described, the range of corporate administration responsibilities and review of
intergovernmental and international activities.
During this term of Council, the Corporate Services Committee is dealing with the
development of many administrative policies as part of the amalgamation process. There are
also many amalgamation-related real estate items, the move to City Hall and impending
labour contract negotiations. The City is playing a more active role in AMO and the FCM and
is soon likely to become involved in the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board. Thus,
intergovernmental affairs are requiring more careful and focused attention. Therefore, a single
Finance and Corporate Administration Committee would have a large agenda. It would have
to establish a number of specific sub-committees to handle its responsibilities. This is
illustrated in figure 4.
The difficulty with this option is that it reintroduces some of the problems inherent in the
current structure. It does not satisfy the simplicity and understandability principle. In addition,
this option still relies on a hierarchy of committees reporting to another committee. It
therefore runs the risk of recreating scheduling difficulties and bottlenecks.
A Corporate Finance and Administration Committee may be a viable option in the next term
of Council once many of the administrative policy issues associated with amalgamation have
been dealt with. As a stepping stone in that direction, for the second half of this term of
Council it is concluded that a separate Corporate Administration committee is still required to
deal with the amalgamation-driven issues and many day-to-day administrative items that need
committee consideration and Council approval. Accordingly corporate-wide policies to
control the management of human resources, real estate and other aspects of the corporate
administration should continue to be recommended through a separate Corporate
Administration Committee. A Policy and Finance Committee should be established to deal
with corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental issues and corporate international
activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating and capital estimates, tax policies
and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included within approved allocations
It is recommended that, effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated
in figure 5 in this report, be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee and the Budget Committee.
This recommendation is a logical step in the evolution of the City's governance structure. In
reality, because of the way it was defined by the Transition Team, the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee never really functioned as an executive committee. The Transition Team
itself was apparently confused since, in the same section of its report, it said that the SPPC
was and was not an executive committee. In any event, the responsibilities that the Transition
Team ascribed to the SPPC were so diluted and were countered by similar responsibilities
vested in the Corporate Services Committee so as to make it impossible for the SPPC to
function as an executive, resource control or leadership committee. In practice, the Budget
Committee attempted to fill the void and assume the role of a vetting body even though it did
not have the mandate to do so.
To be effective, the type of non-hierarchical committee structure being proposed in this report
must be complemented by clear and rigorous financial control procedures. These are
necessary to ensure that budgets are developed in a co-ordinated and consistent manner,
allocations within budgets reflect Council's relative priorities and financial means, and
allocations and, therefore, priorities are not undermined by ad hoc and piecemeal in-year
changes. Financial control procedures are necessary, too, to hold staff accountable for the
service levels that Council establishes through the budget process. Protocols will be needed to
guide the instances when the proposed Policy and Finance Committee becomes involved in
the review of in-year operation of programs within the purview of other standing committees.
As a general rule, the budget should be considered a service level contract. From the point
when Council adopts the budget, staff will be held accountable for delivering on the budget
contract and service levels contained therein. The budget setting process for the following
year must be undertaken with all competing priorities on the table together. This approach
should not leave room for ad hoc in-year changes.
An underlying expectation of the protocols will be that in-year change to the approved budget
is an unusual event. An example might be the impact of a higher than anticipated welfare
caseload. Such an instance would be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee through
normal variance reporting mechanisms. The Policy and Finance Committee would review the
impact of the matter and would make recommendations to Council regarding the adjustment
of priorities to accommodate the increased expenditures required in the affected program area.
It is recommended that the CAO and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to
submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April
1999, fleshing out the budget setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial
control protocols, including:
(i)the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the
annual budget process;
(ii)the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting
budgets for the whole range of City programs;
(iii)the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting
process; and
(iv)guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas
within standing committees' portfolios.
Some Members of Council have suggested that a Budget Advisory Committee be established
to assist the Policy and Finance Committee with the preparation of the annual capital and
operating estimates. Such a group would be advisory to the Mayor and the Policy and Finance
Committee and would exist only for the duration of the annual budget process. It is
recommended that the CAO and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on
this concept of a time-limited Budget Advisory Committee.
Responsibility for the establishment of strategic corporate goals and priorities, corporate
financial priorities and the budget gives the Policy and Finance Committee a critical role in
setting the parameters for the operation of the municipal corporation. It is appropriate that the
Head of Council chair this committee. It is recommended that the Policy and Finance
Committee be chaired by the Mayor. It is further recommended that the chairs of all standing
committees and community councils, other than the Policy and Finance Committee and the
Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the members of the respective
standing committees and community councils.
One of the ways to ensure that disproportionate power is not concentrated in a small group of
councillors is to limit the term of chair of a standing committee or community council to a
half term of Council. It is recommended that appointments to standing committees and
community councils continue to be made for each half-term of Council and that, with the
exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair the same standing committee or
community council in consecutive half-terms of the same Council.
The approach outlined in this section of the report is consistent with the proposed guiding
principles in that it will enable Council to set goals and priorities and adhere to them. It will
also enable control of municipal expenditures within the financial capacity of the City.
(e)Standing Committee Portfolios:
A further condition that must be met for Council decision-making to improve is that
committees must play a constructive part in the decision-making process. As noted in the
proposed guiding principles, committees must add value to decision-making. For this to
happen there must be sufficient time in committees to debate the issues that are before them.
This requires that there is a reasonable division of responsibilities among committees. There
must also be sufficient time for the whole of Council to review and understand the
committees' actions.
In the interviews and the questionnaire, Members of Council were asked for their views about
the standing committees' clusters of responsibilities. Their responses suggest that there should
not be a radical change in the number of standing committees at this time. Most respondents
seem comfortable with between six and eight main standing committees, including the Policy
and Finance Committee and Corporate Administration Committee already discussed, and in
addition to the community councils.
A larger question arose about whether it is appropriate to recommend any changes at all to
standing committee portfolios at this time. Council has yet to adopt its strategic plan and
related policy sectoral plans. These plans could have implications for the way Council wants
to focus standing committee responsibilities. Most of Council's task forces have not yet
issued their final reports. Their recommendations, too, may have some implications for
committees' clusters of responsibilities. For these reasons, and because experience of the
interim structure is still relatively short, some people have suggested that now is not the time
to recommend major changes.
Nevertheless, based on the input received during this review of the Council-committee
structure, it is appropriate to recommend some adjustments to committees' portfolios. These
are illustrated in Figure 6.
It should be noted that Figure 6 does not involve changes to the administrative structure
or the departmental responsibilities of the commissioners. The recommended changes
are to the political decision-making structure. The political and administrative
structures do not and need not mirror one another.
It is recommended that the committee structure described in Figure 6 be adopted for
implementation effective June 1, 1999.
The changes being recommended include:
-combining the Striking and Nominating Committees into a single Appointments Committee;
-regrouping the responsibilities of committees that focus on services to the public into
clusters that look after urban and built form and its regulation, the economy and its
development, physical infrastructure, and services that affect the social and physical
well-being of people;
-eliminating the need for a separate Emergency and Protective Services Committee because
its functions are deployed to other standing committees; and
-changing the names of standing committees to reflect their mandates more accurately.
This structure will replace existing standing committees and their sub-committees. The new
standing committees will have to decide whether it is necessary to re-establish
sub-committees. At present, numerous advisory committees exist. By and large, these
advisory committees were inherited from the former municipalities. Their status and
relationship to the formal departmental and standing committee structures needs to be
reviewed and rationalized. It is recommended that the Commissioners review all pre-existing
advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces within their
respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant standing committees,
setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees, special committees,
working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect to their
continuation.
Consistent with the proposed guiding principles, every Member of Council should have an
important role in the decision-making process and the Council workload should be shared
between Members of Council. Therefore, it is recommended that, with the exception of the
Mayor, who is an ex officio member of all committees of Council, no Member of Council
should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not
including the Appointments and Audit committees) shown in figure 6.
At present, the Striking Committee is chaired by the Mayor and is composed of Members of
Council appointed by the Mayor. Because of the political nature of many of the appointments
that will be made by the proposed Appointments Committee, the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor
should chair this committee. The Mayor, as the head of Council, should have the authority to
recommend to Council the membership of the Appointments Committee. It is recommended
that the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council and
the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the
Appointments Committee.
(f)Agencies, Boards and Commissions:
In order to clarify and simplify the Council-committee structure, the City's agencies, boards
and commissions are not listed in the recommended structure. By definition, the City's
agencies, boards and commissions are not part of the committee structure. They set their own
policies and their administrations are accountable to their boards. Their primary relationship
to City Council is financial. Council funds them and therefore is responsible for approving
their budgets. It is recommended that the City's agencies, boards and commissions report
through the proposed Policy and Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the
standing committee with responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters.
In some instances, agencies, boards and commissions do have need to seek approvals from
City Council. For example, the City's Management Agreement with the Board of Governors
of Exhibition Place requires Council approval of certain Board decisions, such as demolition
of buildings, and certain leases. On other occasions, an agency, board or commission may
wish to ensure that a policy direction is in synchronization with Council's objectives. In these
instances, the agencies, boards and commissions should report to Council through the
standing committee that has responsibility for the particular policy field.
The relationship is less clear-cut in the case of the Board of Health for the Toronto Health
Unit. This is a Board established under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. However,
under the City of Toronto Act, 1997, Council is responsible for the appointment,
reappointment and dismissal of the Medical Officer of Health and Associate Medical Officers
of Health as well as for providing to the Board municipal employees necessary for the Board
to carry out its functions. In addition, the Board of Health has functioned in a somewhat
similar manner to standing committees in that it has been reporting directly to Council. A
review of agendas shows that there has been some overlap in the policy issues, for example,
homelessness, coming before the Board of Health and the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee. Thus, unlike other agencies, boards and commissions, the Board of
Health is already quite integrated into the City's organization. This integration could be
complete if the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health were conferred upon City
Council.
A precedent for this does exist. Section 49 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act sets
out the composition and term of office for boards of health. However, paragraph 49 (9) (c)
states that the provisions do not apply to "a regional corporation that, under the Act
establishing or continuing the corporation, has the powers, rights and duties of a¼board of
health." This is the case in the regional municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. Under the
Acts establishing them, they are granted these powers, rights and duties. The Medical Officer
of Health and public health staff are integrated into the municipal administration and public
health matters are reported to Council through a standing committee of the regional
government.
It is recommended that Council request the provincial government to amend the Health
Protection and Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) to confer upon
Toronto City Council the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health. It is further
recommended that, when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of
Health, public health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council
and that Council establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have
meaningful input to the development of public health policy. It is also recommended that,
until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health,
the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council.
(g)A Mechanism to Manage Council's Agenda:
To make effective use of the information provided by its standing committees, Council must
have the ability to integrate and co-ordinate the information. In other words, to function
effectively, a flattened Council-committee structure must be complemented by a strong and
dedicated agenda management function. It is recommended that the Mayor may assign to the
Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting Agenda. This role would entail
responsibility for assisting the Mayor, in consultation with the City Clerk, Chief
Administrative Officer and Commissioners, to formulate the order paper for Council meetings
including the identification of key items and the grouping of items on the agenda to ensure
co-ordination of related matters.
Council Agenda management also entails assisting the Mayor in managing the business
portion of Council meetings, including chairing meetings of Council; maintaining order and
decorum; and deciding questions of order, subject to appeal to Council. The Solicitor has
advised that Section 57 of the Municipal Act requires that the Mayor, as head of Council,
chair Council meetings. The Act authorizes Council to appoint a substitute to act in the
Mayor's place and stead when he is absent or refuses to act. Council has exercised this power
in appointing Councillor Ootes Deputy Mayor.
The Municipal Act does not allow for the Mayor's power to be split between two individuals.
Therefore, the assignment of responsibilities described in this section of the report to a Deputy
Mayor and a separate Manager of the Council Agenda would likely require changes to the
relevant portions of the legislation, if the role includes chairing Council meetings when the
Mayor is absent or refuses to act. In that event, Council would have to request the province to
amend the Municipal Act or provide special legislation that would authorize the City to
appoint a speaker or a person other than the Mayor to chair meetings of Council. Legislative
changes would not be required if the responsibilities of manager of the Council Agenda were
part of the duties of the Deputy Mayor.
It is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor report further on how to implement
the proposal to assign a manager of the Council meeting Agenda.
(h)Task Forces and Special Committees:
A key issue that emerged during the interviews revolved around the role of task forces and
other ad hoc committees within the Council-committee structure. Ad hoc or special
committees recommend to Council on a particular issue or advise on the management of a
particular initiative or project. They tend to be temporary or cross-functional. Municipal
governance texts suggest that ad hoc committees provide important evidence of a municipal
government's responsiveness and adaptability to its environment.
Structural flexibility is an asset. At the same time, it is important for the basic structure of
standing committees to be seen to have the capacity to deal with key priority or extraordinary
issues without the need to set up accompanying structures. A balance must be found. The
present review has found that, in the absence of a balance, ad hoc committees will proliferate
resulting in some of the issues and pressures described earlier in this report.
Council has already recognized the need to think carefully before creating ad hoc committees.
On October 1 and 2, 1998 Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 17 of the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Status of Special Committees and Task
Forces." In adopting the clause, Council approved the following guidelines that should attach
more rigour to the establishment of ad hoc committees in the future:
-Before creating a special committee or task force, Council should ensure that:
1.the work cannot be undertaken by an existing standing committee of Council;
2.the mandate of the new special committee or task force is time limited by a sunset date and
Council approval is required for continuation beyond the sunset date;
3.the special committee or task force will report to Council through a standing committee
where appropriate; and
4.the staff and other resources required to support the work of the special committee or task
force are identified and available within existing resources.
Those principles will guide future actions. The question remains about the continuation of the
existing task forces and special committees. Some people suggested ending their mandates
now. This is not recommended for two main reasons. First, most of the major task forces are
scheduled to complete their mandates by the end of 1998 or during 1999. Second, the task
forces are dealing with important issues regardless of whether or not these issues could have
been addressed within standing committees. Termination prior to the completion of their
mandates could result in the waste of some of the effort and resources that have already been
invested in them. It could also confuse external stakeholders and the general public who may
have been involved in the work of the task forces and special committees.
Some Members of Council suggested that, in principle, task forces should be made up entirely
of citizens and should be advisory to standing committees, where policy deliberations should
occur. This may be appropriate in some instances but not necessarily in every situation. It is
important to understand what are appropriate mechanisms for doing pieces of specialized
policy work. There may be models that the city can try to adopt to continue to involve citizens
in ongoing policy work. Staff who have been providing support to the task forces have been
amassing experience and information about how they have worked and what lessons may be
learned. Each task force experience has been different. While it is tempting to come up with a
blanket rule about how to approach specialized policy work, the experience to date is
suggesting that one size may not fit all situations.
(i)Improving the Legislative Process:
Revisions to the Council-committee structure can only go so far in addressing the issues
described earlier in this report. The efficacy of the Council decision-making system also
depends on the rules and materials that go with the structures and on the willingness of the
participants to be constrained by the rules. The decision-making structure will be as good as
the councillors' ability to make it work. It follows that, in order to improve Council
decision-making, councillors' workloads must be manageable. This means that their agendas
must be comprehensible. They must be sufficiently briefed about the matters they are
considering. In short, councillors must have sufficient time to read necessary reports and
background materials.
Members of Council must also be able to attend the meetings of their committees and not be
forced to choose from within conflicting schedules.
For these conditions to be met, decisions must be made about the rules, procedures and
sequence of events that make up the legislative process. The cycle of meetings must be
refined. Should Council meet every two weeks with smaller, more focused agendas?
Decisions must also be made about the form of documentation that supports and records the
political decision-making process. It must be user-friendly.
The City Clerk is examining these matters as part of her review of the Council legislative
process.
Conclusions:
The interim Council-committee structure has been in place for less than one year. That is a
relatively short period on which to base too many conclusions. In addition, information is not
yet available from the task forces, strategic plan or policy sectoral plans, which could
influence the political decision-making structure. For these reasons, the recommendations in
this report do not represent a radical departure from the current structure. Rather, they are
revisions, which in combination with actions arising from the City Clerk's review of the
legislative process, are intended to relieve the stresses described in this report.
The changes recommended in this report are intended to take effect on June 1, 1999 when the
mid-term reappointments occur. Thus the changes should not be disruptive. In the interim, it
is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give
effect to the changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a
schedule of Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the
Procedural by-law for Council approval.
The changes recommended in this report do not deal with the longer term. How the Council
structure evolves after the present term of Council will depend, among other things, on the
size of the Council. Toronto City Council's dilemma is that it is the size and complexity of a
provincial legislature, yet it is bound by rules that make it try to function like a small town
council. How can the two factors be reconciled? Are there any procedural characteristics that
can be borrowed from provincial/federal legislatures that will deal with Toronto's size and
volume of business?
In the longer term, the practices of Members' Statements and Question Period may provide
models for Toronto's legislative process. In adopting Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of the
Special Committee entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the
Context of the Council-Committee structure" on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council
signalled its tolerance for the delegation of final decision-making responsibility to other levels
within the decision-making structure. A future Council may focus more on the passage of
enabling legislation, thereby vesting more authority for making final decisions in the standing
committees, community councils and administration. It is recommended that the
Council-committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18 months following the
implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every
three to five years.
The recommendations in this report represent a step. As noted in the section of the report
entitled "some basic assumptions", the structure is evolving over the first term of Council and,
during the first two terms at minimum, should be considered a work in progress. The structure
will continue to evolve and adapt to Council's and Toronto's needs.
Michael R. Garrett
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix 1
Standing Committees, Sub-committees, Working Groups and Task Forces Dealing with
Business for which Council has Direct Responsibility
-Task Force for Access & Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights
-Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions
-Working Group on Amalgamation of Fire Department
-Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
-Audit Committee
-Budget Committee
-Working Group on Co-ordination of By-Law Enforcement Functions
-Children's Action Committee
-Sub-Committee on Collision Reporting
-Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee
-Task Force on Community Safety
-Corporate Services Committee
-Council Strategy for People without Homes
-East York Community Council
-Economic Development Committee
-Emergency and Protective Services Committee
-Environmental Task Force
-Etobicoke Community Council
-Working Group on Budget of Fire/Ambulance Services
-Sub-Committee on Gambling
-Task Force on Gardiner/Lakeshore
-Task Force to plan Toronto's role in the year long activities for the Year 2000 Millennium
-Municipal Grants Review Committee
-Nominating Committee
-North York Community Council
-Special Committee to consider the issue of Pay Duty Policing
-Personnel Sub-Committee
-Special Committee on Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall
-Road Allowance Sub-Committee
-Scarborough Community Council
-Senior's Task Force
-Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee
-Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
-Striking Committee
-Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry
-Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee Toronto 3Rs
-Toronto Community Council
-Working Group on Budget of Toronto Licensing Commission
-Working Group on Restructuring of Toronto Licensing Commission
-Working Group on Budget of Toronto Police Services Board
-Special Committee to Review the Final Report of Toronto Transition Team
-Task Force for the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design
-Urban Environment and Development Committee
-User Fee Committee
-Work and Utilities Committee
-World City Committee
-York Community Council
-Toronto Cycling Committee
-Toronto Pedestrian Committee
