TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

1Community Council Boundaries

2Framework for Citizen Participation in the City of Toronto

3Establishing a Municipal Hansard-Like Service for City Council

4Policy for Citizen Appointments Through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee -Classification of Special Purpose Bodies and Framework for Board Appoinments Processes

5Authority for Delegation of Matters

6Wrap-Up Report of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

7Other Item Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

(from its meeting on February 12, 1999,

submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

  1

Community Council Boundaries

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred considedration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer embodied in the communication (January 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (4) embodied therein by adding thereto the following words "and in co-ordination with the Official Plan process", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(4)the process to redefine Community Council boundaries will be led by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner and in co-ordination with the Official Plan process;"; and

(2)that the City Clerk be requested to consult with the Community Social Planning Council and interested Members of Council in developing the consultation process for the Community Council boundaries.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (January 20, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, during consideration of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, adopted the following recommendation:

Moved by:Councillor McConnell

"WHEREAS the citizens of this City had opposed amalgamation precisely because they did not want to see their historic communities swept away; and

WHEREAS the Community Council system was established to serve as a protection for citizens in sustaining the community relationships they valued; and

WHEREAS community consultations on this issue resulted in many respondents opposing changes to the Community Council boundaries; and

WHEREAS the proposed criteria for new Community Council boundaries has had little public discussion;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Clause be referred back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration and public review."

In this regard, Clause No. 2 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team was referred back to the Special Committee for further consideration and public review.

(Clause No. 2 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the

Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team,

entitled "Community Council Boundaries".)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

Moved by:Councillor McConnell

"WHEREAS the citizens of this City had opposed amalgamation precisely because they did not want to see their historic communities swept away; and

WHEREAS the Community Council system was established to serve as a protection for citizens in sustaining the community relationships they valued; and

WHEREAS community consultations on this issue resulted in many respondents opposing changes to the Community Council boundaries; and

WHEREAS the proposed criteria for new Community Council boundaries has had little public discussion;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Clause be referred back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration and public review.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to consult with the border Councillors on the issues raised by Councillor Anne Johnston respecting those homes where the wards overlap.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report responds to Council's request that the Special Committee give consideration to:

(a)the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee.

The report recommends increasing the number of community councils and outlines a number of principles to guide the redefinition of community council boundaries, effective following the next municipal election.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications. A change in the number of community councils will have implications for the number and assignment of secretariat support staff to the community councils by the City Clerk's Division.

  Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters;

(2)the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election;

(3)the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles:

(a)there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer;

(b)each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest;

(c)community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council;

(4)the process to redefine community council boundaries will be led by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner;

(5)the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

Recommendation No. (21) in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team stated that:

"City Council should move to single member wards for the next term of Council that begins in 2001. At that time, consideration should be given to further refining the community council boundaries to reflect historic associations among neighbourhoods."

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council referred the portion of this recommendation pertaining to single member wards to the Urban Environment and Development Committee. The portion of the recommendation regarding community council boundaries fell within the purview of the Special Committee.

On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council adopted as amended 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." In adopting the clause, Council specifically requested the Special Committee to give further consideration to:

(a)the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee.

This report responds to Council's request.

Comments:

The present boundaries of the six community councils are identical to the boundaries of the former municipalities prior to amalgamation. In the first term of Council, the utility of these boundaries has been to bridge the transition from the old structure of municipal government to the new City of Toronto. As the new City evolves, and people become used to it, the need to retain the old municipal boundaries may be expected to diminish.

The governance forms in the new City are evolving. On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 Council made a clear statement about the place that community councils should have in the governance of the City of Toronto. Council resolved that there is a distinction between matters of city-wide significance and matters of local importance and impact. The community councils are needed to focus on the latter. Council set in motion a number of initiatives to find options for further delegation of responsibilities and final decision-making authority to enable community councils to perform their functions effectively. It is important, too, to ensure that community council boundaries are defined in a way that enables community councils to focus on local matters.

Do Current Boundaries Make Sense?

The suitability of the current community council boundaries was considered in a discussion paper on "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto" which the Special Committee produced in March 1998. The discussion paper noted that "clearly¼there is an uneven distribution of workload. Some community councils have a far heavier workload than others and have proposed that they should organize sub-committees, task forces or panels within their community councils to manage the workload." The discussion paper went on to note that the uneven distribution of community council workloads could be an indication that the current community council boundaries are incorrect.

The community councils range in size from a membership of 3 in East York to 16 members in Toronto. East York encountered some practical difficulties as a result of its small size, especially for the part of the year when it had only 2 members. At the other extreme, a community council of 16 members may be too large for a committee of council. Several members of the Toronto Community Council have suggested that it is too large to focus on local matters of importance to all its members.

Some Members of Council, who were interviewed for the review of the Council-committee structure, said that the current community council boundaries do not make sense. Most of the people interviewed thought that the community councils should be more equal in size and their boundaries should bear a closer relationship to groups of neighbourhoods with a community of interest. A number of councillors noted that, in the interests of "getting on with making the new City work," it was important not to maintain the former municipal boundaries as the basis for community council boundaries.

More Community Councils or Fewer?

In the interviews and in responses to the questionnaire requesting input to the review of the Council-committee structure, some councillors thought that there should be more community councils than the present six. Others said that there should be fewer.

The point of having community councils is to have a means within the political structure to focus on local issues. The strength of a community council approach is that it enables elected representatives from a local community, who know and understand the community well, to deal with matters of particular concern to the local community that do not have an impact on other communities. This point becomes obscured if there are fewer, therefore larger, community councils.

Is there an Ideal Size for a Community Council?

Following an extensive consultation process during 1997, the networks of agencies that provide community and social services across the City, proposed that the City should be divided into "civic districts" that would align more closely with natural communities rather than be based on the borders of the former municipalities. Under this proposal, about a dozen community councils could be defined by grouping civic districts together. The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto is continuing to develop the concept of civic districts.

Based on their experience of dealing with local issues in the larger community councils, some councillors have suggested that a workable size for a community council is between five and seven members. This is a small enough number to increase the likelihood that members have a local connection to the matters being dealt with. It is also not too small to prevent the checks and balances that come with diverse perspectives and debate. Membership of between 5 and 7 people could be achieved by having 8 to 12 community councils.

When Could Community Council Boundaries be Revised?

As alluded to earlier in this report, the present community council boundaries provide a familiar comfort zone for citizens and elected officials during the transition from the old governing structures to the new City of Toronto. Most councillors, who were interviewed as part of the review of the Council-committee structure, said that community council boundaries should not change before the next term of Council.

There are practical considerations, too, which make any boundary revisions prior to next term unlikely. Subsection 7 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 empowers City Council to redefine the boundaries and composition of community councils so long as, under the terms of subsection 7 (6) of the Act, "no ward shall be represented partly by one and partly by another community council." The redefinition of community council boundaries is dependent, therefore, upon the outcome of the current ward boundary review process. Clearly, 57 wards rather than 28 wards provide different sets of options for building community councils.

At the staff level, the process to review ward boundaries has been lead by the City Clerk reporting to the Urban and Environment development Committee. It is appropriate that the process to revise community council boundaries also be lead by the City Clerk. Because of the mandate and function of community councils, it is important that citizens have the opportunity to participate in the definition of community council boundaries at an early stage in the process.

Conclusions:

The current community council boundaries are based on former municipal boundaries rather than on the definition of local areas. Council has decided that community councils should play an important role in the City dealing with local matters. It is appropriate that their boundaries be redefined to better suit that role. Community council areas are based on groupings of City wards. Therefore, the redefinition of community council boundaries will begin following the outcome of Council's review of the ward boundaries. It is anticipated that redefined community council boundaries will come into effect following the next municipal election.

It is recommended that:

(1)the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters;

(2)the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election;

(3)the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles:

(a)there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer;

(b)each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest;

(c)community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council;

(4)the process to redefine community council boundaries will be lead by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner; and

(5)the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries.

--------

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, in adopting, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure", directed, inter alia, that the following Recommendation No. (9) embodied in the report dated June 3, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, be struck out and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration:

"Community Council Boundaries:

(9)to assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City's government has an effective geographic focus, the Special Committee's examination of Council's political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

(a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC;".

--------

Councillor Bill Saundercook, York- Humber, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, in connection with the foregoing matter.

--------

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk:

(a)(February 11, 1999) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, in support of the recommendation that there be between 8 and 12 community councils; and

(b)(undated) from Dr. Susanna Chow, Vice President, Governor's Bridge Ratepayers Association, advising that an informal vote was held at the Association's last annual general meeting on November 30, 1998 in favour of shifting to the adjacent Midtown ward and that a written petition will be submitted to City Council after further discussion with the ratepayers in the area.

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum;

-Ms. Margaret Simpson;

-Mr. John Papadakis;

-Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council;

-Mr. Marvin Novick, Ryerson School of Social Work;

-Mr. Bob Barnett; and

-Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River.

 2

Framework for Citizen Participation in the City of Toronto

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1)incorporating the principles of citizen participation as set out in the report dated February 1, 1999, from Chief Administrative Officer, into Recommendation No. (1) embodied in such report, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

   "(1)the following principles of citizen participation be adopted:

(a)Collaborative Decision-Making:

The City of Toronto is committed to govern in partnership with the citizens of Toronto. This principle recognizes that citizen participation is an integral element of the City's governance culture.

(b)Accessibility:

The City of Toronto is committed to continuously work towards the removal of barriers to effective citizen participation. The City of Toronto will ensure that citizens have the opportunity to make presentations to Council, its Standing Committees and Community Councils. The City of Toronto is committed to include the diversity of community groups in public consultation processes.

The City government is committed to facilitate citizens' access to municipal elected officials and City staff. The City of Toronto will support councillors in actively seeking citizen input on community issues and in expressing citizens' views and concerns in the political decision-making process.

(c)Continuous Improvement in Citizen Participation:

The City of Toronto is committed to learning about innovative and creative ways of fostering citizen participation in other jurisdictions. It will apply new learning and develop innovative "made in Toronto" practices.

(d)Community Capacity Building:

The City of Toronto is committed to supporting its citizens in co-operative problem-solving.

It is proposed that the City of Toronto engage in a dialogue on citizen participation with Torontonians. At this forum, citizens and elected officials will be able to explore the opportunities for citizen participation in Toronto. They will review best practices of citizen participation in other jurisdictions. This dialogue can be organized as a two day discussion forum to be held in 1999. The forum may include elected officials, researchers and members of academia from other cities who have had experience with different mechanisms of citizen participation."; and

 (2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report the results of the forum to the Corporate Services Committee.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer; and further, that Councillor David Miller, High Park, be requested to Chair the proposed forum:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to outline a broad framework for citizen participation in the City of Toronto. This framework defines the meaning of citizen participation and civil society. It describes the multiple forms of citizen participation in City governance. It recommends that a forum be held to discuss further the roles of City government in maintaining a civil society.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications associated with this report. The costs of organizing a forum on citizen participation will be absorbed within the existing budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the principles of citizen participation as identified in this report be adopted;

(2)the City of Toronto sponsor a forum designed to develop further the roles of the City government in citizen participation; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

On February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee, entitled "Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. The Clause described six priority areas in the Special Committee's workplan, one of which is the reinforcement of mechanisms for citizen involvement in the City's governance.

As part of the report "Roles and responsibilities of community councils in the context of the council-committee structure", Council also adopted the following recommendation:

"The Chief Administrative Officer's forthcoming report on citizen involvement in municipal governance explore more fully the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard and include recommendations relating to the provision of resources on Citizens' Assemblies, Residents' Associations and Tenants' Associations, including support currently provided through the Healthy City Office". (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, adopted as amended by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998).

Discussion:

Chapter 8 in the Toronto Transition Team's final report noted that:

"This is a City where people get involved. There are thousands of people who participate in one way or another in maintaining and improving the liveability of their neighbourhoods, their communities and their city. [There is] a tradition of citizen involvement which must not be lost in the transition to the new City. What we have now should become the foundation on which to expand and enhance citizen participation."

The Transition Team provided the following examples of ways in which citizen input is incorporated into decision-making:

(a)contact with individual ward councillors;

(b)deputations to committees of Council;

(c)participation in formal public consultations on specific issues;

(d)involvement in Council sub-committees, task forces, advisory committees or program management committees;

(e)membership on City agencies, boards and commissions;

(f)involvement in partnerships, coalitions and joint working groups among citizens, business groups, councillors and municipal staff to collectively address issues over time; and

(g)community development initiatives to overcome barriers to participation and facilitate involvement in community affairs.

   As the examples illustrate, there are currently many different ways for citizens to participate in the governance of the City of Toronto. At one end of the continuum (described in Figure 1), citizens have a less active involvement in government through their roles as tax and fee payers, users of services and recipients of information. The other end of the continuum reflects more active citizen participation in policy formulation and service delivery.

--------

Figure 1 Continuum of Citizen Participation

in City Governancy

Each form of citizen participation along the continuum makes a valid and necessary contribution to City governance. The context in which governance decisions are made varies from situation to situation. Therefore, no single form of participation is appropriate for all circumstances. The notion of a continuum of citizen participation is supported by the literature on citizen participation and prominent political scientists.

Different situations lend themselves to more active or less active approaches to citizen engagement. The relationship between different decision-making situations and levels of citizen engagement is illustrated in Figure 2.

There are circumstances in which the City government has a very clear understanding of the issue and what its response should be. In these cases the relationship between the City government and citizens is characterised by the Council informing citizens about the nature of the issue and the City's response. The recent snow emergency is an example of this type of decision-making. In this instance, the City informed rather than consulted with Torontonians about its response to the storms.

At the other end of the continuum, there are situations in which the City government is unaware of the existence and nature of an issue or has not included the issue on its policy agenda. Citizens recognize and define a community issue, advocate for its resolution, and play an active role in identifying alternative responses and selecting a preferred course of action. In these cases, the citizens play the lead role and are more actively engaged in the resolution of the issue.

The Figure 2 model outlining citizens' different roles in public decision-making presumes an informed citizenry keenly interested in working towards the resolution of community issues and in shaping the quality of community life.

The discussion so far speaks to citizen participation in City governance. The opportunities for citizens to actively engage in setting directions for their community in cooperation with each other is equally important. This form of citizen participation focuses on the relationships between and among citizens and their respective communities and the capacity building required to do that.

Citizens in cooperation with each other create and maintain civil society. Civil society refers to the network of informal social relationships between and among community members which are designed for mutual care, joint problem-solving and community development. Civil society is embodied in voluntary, non-profit associations, neighbourhood groups, churches, charity groups, local community activist groups and social movements. In other words, civil society is a sphere of social relationships, which lies outside the domain of government and the market economy. Civil society has also been referred to as the "third sector" bridging the gap between the actions of the private sector and government. The ability of the community to effectively address community issues is enhanced the more citizens become actively involved in cooperative problem-solving and shared decision-making (community capacity building).

For example, citizen assemblies are an innovative model for building community capacity. Citizen assemblies are discussion forums which provide opportunities for interaction and dialogue between and among citizens as well as between citizens and elected officials. Citizen assemblies which are open to all citizens in a particular geographic area pursue some or all of the following objectives:

(a)to inform communities better about issues relevant to them;

(b)to engage residents in discussions about municipal decisions and policies which affect them;

(c)to increase the visibility of and improve communication among existing local organizations;

(d)to increase participation of marginalized groups and individuals;

(e)to encourage a deeper thinking by residents, local organizations and politicians about solutions to problems and directions for community development; and

(f)to foster community empowerment.

The City of Toronto actively supports its citizens in building community capacity in a number of ways:

The City government encourages the formation of civic associations, community groups and networks around specific community issues. For example, the government has community development officers and a healthy city office which can assist citizens in forming new neighbourhood associations or community groups and in advocating for the resolution of particular issues. These civic associations may even be in a position to solve certain community issues either in whole or part without reliance on the government.

The City of Toronto contributes to the economic stability of community organizations through the provision of seed money, program funding and operating grants. The City of Toronto annually spends a significant amount of money in financial assistance to community agencies working in different service areas (e.g., arts and culture, social and community services, crime prevention, youth employment etc.)

The City of Toronto provides its citizens with background research and up-to-date information on pressing community issues. Information pamphlets and brochures are usually translated into different languages in order to facilitate their accessibility to different language groups.

The City of Toronto makes meeting space available for citizens and community groups at City facilities.

Principles of Citizen Participation in the City of Toronto:

The City of Toronto government continues to support the tradition of citizen involvement. It is recommended that citizen participation in the City of Toronto be guided by four principles:

(1)Collaborative Decision-Making:

The City of Toronto is committed to govern in partnership with the citizens of Toronto. This principle recognizes that citizen participation is an integral element of the City's governance culture.

(2)Accessibility:

The City of Toronto is committed to continuously work towards the removal of barriers to effective citizen participation. The City of Toronto will ensure that citizens have the opportunity to make presentations to Council, its standing committees and community councils. The City of Toronto is committed to include the diversity of community groups in public consultation processes.

The City government is committed to facilitate citizens' access to municipal elected officials and City staff. The City of Toronto will support councillors in actively seeking citizen input on community issues and in expressing citizens' views and concerns in the political decision-making process.

(3)Continuous Improvement in Citizen Participation:

The City of Toronto is committed to learning about innovative and creative ways of fostering citizen participation in other jurisdictions. It will apply new learning and develop innovative "made in Toronto" practices.

(4)Community Capacity Building:

The City of Toronto is committed to supporting its citizens in cooperative problem-solving.

It is proposed that the City of Toronto engage in a dialogue on citizen participation with Torontonians. At this forum, citizens and elected officials will be able to explore the opportunities for citizen participation in Toronto. They will review best practices of citizen participation in other jurisdictions. This dialogue can be organized as a two day discussion forum to be held in 1999. The forum may include elected officials, researchers and members of academia from other cities who have had experience with different mechanisms of citizen participation.

Conclusions:

This report has defined the different ways in which citizens are currently involved in the governance process of the City of Toronto. It has outlined a set of key principles which underlie and guide citizen participation. It has proposed that the City government and the citizens of Toronto engage in a dialogue designed to further explore the notion of citizen participation and to share best practices regarding citizen participation.

________

Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, in connection with the foregoing matter.

3

Establishing a Municipal Hansard-Like Service for City Council

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (February 8, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to striking out Recommendation No. (1) embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)the City continue to pursue the goal of a text-based Hansard-like service; and the City Clerk be requested to report back, through the Administration Committee, in one year's time, on the technological feasibility and cost."

Purpose:

This report describe the merits, options and costs for establishing a Municipal Hansard-like service for City Council.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications from the Special Committee receiving this report for information. If however, City Council, through a recommendation from the Special Committee, undertakes an action to pursue the implementation of a Hansard-like service for City Council, then there will be financial implications as no budget has been approved for this matter.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City not pursue a text-based Hansard service for City Council at this time; and

(2)the City Clerk, in consultation with Information Technology and Facilities Management staff, be requested to prepare a report to the Corporate Services Committee on technology options and financial implications for producing audio and/or video recording of City Council, Community Council and Standing Committee meetings, and making such recordings accessible to the public, Members of Council and staff through a Municipal Hansard-like service.

Background:

At its April 24, 1998 meeting, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team endorsed, in principle, the idea of a Municipal Hansard-like service provided it can be accomplished at a reasonable cost. The Committee also requested the City Clerk to establish a small working group, in consultation with the City Solicitor and interested citizens, to report back to the Special Committee with respect to the practical implementation issues involved, and referred a number of communications, received by the Committee, to the City Clerk for consideration respecting the establishment of a Hansard-like service. Staff discussed this issue with some of the citizens who appeared before the Special Committee.

Hansard is the official and complete report of proceedings in a parliament or legislature. It is named after Thomas Hansard, the publisher of the report of debates at the British Parliament in the early 19th century. The Hansard Report is a full text report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one 'which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.'

All Provincial Governments in Canada use a Hansard service to record the proceedings of provincial parliaments. A Hansard service, in the strict parliamentary tradition, is only practiced in one municipality in Canada, the City of Winnipeg. All other municipalities investigated rely on meeting minutes to record the proceedings of Council.

The reference to a "Hansard-like" service by the Special Committee suggests that options beyond a traditional text-based Hansard service should also be investigated. This report presents some options for a Hansard-like service.

Comments:

In its most basic sense, the Hansard is used to record 'what was said' within a decision-making environment. The Hansard augments the minute-keeping function of a meeting, but it does not replace the recording of decisions from a meeting. All legislative bodies which use the Hansard continue to record through Journals and/or decision documents 'what was done' within the decision-making environment.

The targeted audience for Hansard service includes the public, Members, and staff. It provides a forum to follow and understand the debates of a legislative body and provide a factual reference for Member statements. Legal Services staff have advised that Councillors do not have the same immunity for statements made during Council meetings that MPPs have in the House.

Presently, access to the proceedings of Toronto City Council is available through a number of mediums including attending Council meetings in-person, viewing live meeting broadcasts on community television, referring to meeting minutes after the meeting. Meetings are also videotaped and available to Members and staff for viewing through the Facilities Management Division.

Ontario Hansard Service:

The Ontario Legislative Assembly produces a Hansard for all House sessions as well as Committee Hearings. The Ontario Hansard is produced through a manual process of staff transcribing, editing and indexing digital audio recordings of House and Committee proceedings. The annual budget for the Hansard service is approximately $2.8 million (including simultaneous translation services), of which the majority is for salaries and benefits. The Ontario Hansard employs approximately 17 transcribers, editors and researchers. Depending on the volume of work, contractual transcribers may also be involved in producing the Hansard. Hansard transcripts of House debates are normally available the next business day and Committee proceedings within 48 business hours. Ontario Hansard is made available through limited hard copies (for Members) and the Internet.

City of Winnipeg Municipal Hansard:

The City of Winnipeg has used a Municipal Hansard since 1992 to record Council meetings only. The Municipal Hansard hard copy transcripts are made available by subscription, and the public can access the Hansard through the City Clerk's Department and public libraries. The Municipal Hansard is not made available through the Internet. The Hansard is produced on a monthly cycle so that a final version is available before the next Council meeting. In 1997, the gross operating budget for producing the Hansard was over $84,000.00, the majority of which was allocated for staffing costs to transcribe and produce the Hansard. City of Winnipeg staff have advised that although the Hansard is a useful reference tool for understanding Council debates, the most important record-keeping tool continues to be a Council "disposition document" which captures all the Council actions.

Merits of a Hansard-like Service:

The merits of a Hansard-like service depend on the desired objectives. If a verbatim transmittal of meeting speeches, debates, and motions is the objective, a Hansard-like service is appropriate. If the objective is to record the transactional business of Council including the decisions, motions, and votes, then the meeting minutes and decision documents are appropriate. Hansard cannot replace meeting minutes, nor can meeting minutes fulfil the objectives of a Hansard. The City Clerk's Office is currently investigating the approach, content and format of preparing meeting minutes for City Council and committees to ensure they are as effective, accessible, and understandable as possible.

A Municipal Hansard-like service would have considerable merit if it can achieve the following:

(1)deliver a product soon after the subject event has occurred;

(2)be made as widely accessible as possible;

(3)is cost-effective; and

(4)remain an adaptable and flexible service that can take advantage of emerging technologies to serve other Council bodies (e.g., Committees).

Hansard-like Service Delivery Options and Costs:

Staff investigated three types of Hansard-like service to record and make available the proceedings of City Council meetings. These included:

(a)a text-based Municipal Hansard;

(b)audio recordings of Council meetings; and

(c)video recordings of Council meetings.

These options and their relative costs, where known at this time, are presented below with pros and cons identified. It is assumed that a Hansard-like service will only be provided for City Council meetings and not Standing Committee and Community Council meetings. It is also assumed that any revenues from a Hansard-like service, through subscriptions, would be negligible.

(a)a text-based Municipal Hansard:

The option would provide a text-based Municipal Hansard service similar to the Ontario Hansard. A substantially verbatim text document, recording the full proceedings of a typical three-day City Council meeting, would be produced within one month of the meeting. A gross cost estimate for this service is $240,000.00 in annual operating costs with start-up capital costs of approximately $100,000.00. The equivalent of five (5) full-time positions would be required to produce the document. The operating costs are primarily attributable to the manual work requirements to transcribe audio recordings into text files, text editing and document indexing. Capital costs would be necessary for recording equipment, computer hardware and software. Under this option, the Municipal Hansard document would be published to the City's web site and hard copy production would be limited to reference copies and subscriptions.

A text-based Municipal Hansard would be accessible through the City's web site and hard copy reference documents could be made available through City Hall, the Civic Centres and public libraries. Hard copy subscriptions could also be made available, but revenues would only offset some printing costs. Posting the Hansard to the Internet would necessitate having in place the appropriate text search tools. Making available text files of meetings would facilitate their use in other relevant documents by allowing selected text to be "cut and pasted" into other documents without the need for text re-entry.

Unfortunately, this option would not deliver a Hansard document soon after a Council meeting and involves significant operating costs to offset the manual transcription process involved. Reducing the turnaround time for producing a Municipal Hansard from less than four weeks would almost double the operating costs as additional transcribers and editors would be required. Expanding the service to cover Standing Committees and Community Councils would also add significant costs as capital investments would be required for each meeting location, as well as additional operating costs for Hansard transcription and editing. Manual transcription continues to be the industry-standard for producing a Hansard. Voice recognition and transcription software is available for single-source input (i.e., one speaker), but is not yet capable of accommodating multiple-source inputs as would be required for a Council of 58 Members.

Staff investigated the possibility of obtaining a "streaming text" from community television closed-captioning for the hearing impaired, but Rogers Cable has advised that the Council broadcasts are currently not closed-captioned. Gross cost estimates for providing a closed-captioning service for Council meetings include $5,000.00 per meeting. This estimate assumes full coverage of a Council meeting and Rogers Cable does not yet broadcast the entire Council meeting. Closed-capitioning service still requires an intermediary transcription process and since the objective is real-time translation, the text stream would not represent a substantially verbatim record and is limited in distinguishing multiple speakers.

(b)audio recordings of Council meetings:

A second option is to produce audio recordings of the meeting, and technology advancements have turned the Internet into a medium for broadcasting audio files. A number of web sites use "streaming audio" services to broadcast audio information. For example, the Prince Edward Island Legislative Assembly uses computer audio files, as an extension of its Hansard service, to provide real time access to the Legislature when in session, in addition to archival session files. A similar approach for "streaming" and archiving the audio of City Council meetings is an option. However, this information would only be available publicly through the Internet and computers accessing this service would need a sound card to listen to the audio file.

The technology involved in audio recording and transmittal via computers and the Internet is changing monthly. Cost estimates are being investigated by staff, but preliminary research suggests $100,000.00 for capital equipment including recording hardware, file storage and retrieval systems, indexing software, and "stream" licenses. A key issue is the storage and archival capabilities of large digital file recordings of meetings. Computer-based audio files consume substantial memory space so dedicated equipment would be necessary. Also, the archival files would only be useful if they were indexed. Indexing files is still mainly a manual process so staff costs would need to be addressed. Corporate Services Information Technology staff are investigating the technical requirements and financial issues around this service, and anticipate meeting with various vendors during the next few months to investigate the "state of the technology".

Providing online audio access to Council meetings could enable real-time access to meetings as they occur and near-time access to historical meetings. The service would not require substantial operating costs after initial capital investments, and could be adaptable to serve Standing Committees and Community Councils. Digital audio recordings essentially represent the first step in producing a text-based Municipal Hansard, and under this option could be adaptable to produce a text-based document in the future as the technology evolves to allow for electronic transcription of digital audio files to text files. The drawback of providing an audio-only record of the meeting is that public accessibility would be limited to those persons with computers and sufficient hardware and software to listen to the recordings.

(c)video recordings of Council meetings:

City Council meeting are currently videotaped and are available for viewing by Members and staff through the Facilities Management Division. Videotapes are commonly used by Secretariat staff to substantiate motions and actions from Council meetings during the preparation of the Minutes. The current limitation of videotape is that it is not indexed (i.e., no Clause or Motion reference) to assist in researching the proceedings and requires playback equipment (i.e., a viewing area equipped with a VCR and TV). Indexing the videotape would involve a manual process with someone who is familiar with the meeting process and subjects reviewing the tape and indexing the time of events and/or superimposing text references to the subject matter. Numerous copies would need to be made of the tape to be made accessible. It is estimated that indexing, reproducing, and distributing Council meeting videotapes would take upwards of three weeks to complete. Total costs would be lower than the text-based Hansard and audio streaming options previously discussed.

Making a copy of an indexed videotape available to the public through the library system is an option, but would require appropriate viewing space (e.g., viewing rooms/areas). In addition, and if videotape were to be adopted as the primary means for the public access to substantially verbatim Council meeting records, access to tapes and appropriate viewing space should be provided at City Hall and each of the civic centres. Such facilities do not presently exist.

Videotape may provide a lower cost option for recording the Council proceedings, but the limitations on access and product delivery suggest it is not a viable solution. Digital video recordings, similar to audio recordings, could result in a more easily produced and widely accessible Hansard-like service. Corporate Services facilities staff have advised that the refurbished Council Chamber will be equipped with digital video recording equipment. Working with this equipment, it could be possible to record and archive digital video for playback via computer networks and the Internet. Facilities staff will begin exploring this option later this year. While this option will have the same access limitations as the on-line audio system described in option 'b'(i.e., only those with computers can access the recordings), this option is more easily adaptable to also serve Standing Committees and Community Councils and be used for a text-based Hansard product in the future.

Beyond its usefulness in providing a Municipal Hansard-like service, digital audio and video technology has the potential for other corporate uses such as program service delivery (remote monitoring of services) and staff training (via an intranet). It may be possible to distribute the capital costs of the technology across other benefiting areas of the Corporation.

A Hansard-like Service for City Council:

A Hansard-like service for City Council meetings can provide the public with a factual account of meetings to provide a context for understanding the decisions of City Council. If a Hansard-like service is implemented for the City, ideally it should also serve Standing Committees and Community Councils, in addition to City Council, since the majority of the transactional business of City originates and its substantively debated at the committee level. Many of the issues that are of specific public interest are location specific (e.g., planning applications) and are generally debated at the committee level and committee recommendations are ratified at City Council with little or no debate. Focusing a Hansard-like service only on City Council meetings would not capture these debates.

While a text-based Municipal Hansard would provide the greatest range of access to Council proceedings, as compared to audio or video files, producing a text-based document is a costly and time-consuming function since it involves labour-intensive work processes to translate audio files to text files. It is recommended that City Council not pursue a text-based Hansard service at this time. Pursuing alternative technologies including digital audio and/or video recordings is a more beneficial option. Digital technology is more cost-effective, results in a more immediate product, is relatively accessible, is more readily adaptable to service other committee meetings and corporate programs. Establishing access to digital audio and/or video files could represent an interim step to producing a text-based Municipal Hansard in the future as technology improvements permit electronic translation to text-files. It may even be possible to link technologies such as "streaming text" from a closed-captioning service with audio and/or video files to provide a more complete information product. It is recommended that the City Clerk and Information Technology and Facilities Management staff investigate the technical requirements for digitally recording City Council meetings and providing public access to such recordings, and report back to the Corporate Services Committee.

Hansard-like service overlaps into the larger issue of public accessibility to the Council legislative process. Accessibility issues are being examined through the City Clerk's ongoing legislative process review, and a progress report from the City Clerk on this work is also on the Special Committee agenda. Further analysis is underway and conclusions will be forthcoming through the legislative process review.

Conclusions:

A Hansard-like service is designed to accurately record the substantially verbatim proceedings of a meeting. It does not replace the Minutes of a meeting which are designed to record the decisions. A Hansard-like service would provide a factual reference to Council debates so the public, Members and staff can understand the context of decisions. However, the production of a traditional text-based Hansard is a costly option and is not recommended at this time. Advancements in the area of digital technology to record, distribute and archive Council meetings provide a more attractive alternative which in the future could also be used to produce a text-based Hansard. The opportunity to use technology to make the municipal legislative process more accessible can position the City as a leader in transparent governance.

Staff will continue to explore digital technology options and report back to the Corporate Services Committee on implementation options and more specific budget estimates.

The City Solicitor and Corporate Facilities staff have been consulted in preparation of this report.

Contact Name:

Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Office

tel.: (416) 392-8668 e-mail: pfay@toronto.ca

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following e-mail communications:

(i)(February 10, 1999) from Ms. Sally Gibson urging the Chair and Members of the Special Committee to recommend to Council that the City establish a text-based Hansard service and that sufficient resources be provided to the Clerk for her to create and maintain such a system; and

(ii)(February 12, 1999) from Ms. Liz Rykert in support of a text based online searchable Hansard service and suggesting that City's Economic Development Office be requested to explore options for public/private partnerships to develop the software to deliver the product through the Internet.

 4

Policy for Citizen Appointments Through the Nominating

Committee and the Corporate Services Committee -

Classification of Special Purpose Bodies and

Framework for Board Appointments Processes

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(1)the adoption of the joint report (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to:

(a)amending Recommendation No. (3) by deleting the word "only", so that such Recommendation now read as follows:

"(3)the Procedural By-law be amended to provide that, for citizen appointments processed through the Nominating Committee, Members of Council may submit names on the floor of Council if the names appear on the list of applicants previously considered by the Nominating Committee;"; and

(b)amending Clause No. (2) contained in Appendix 1 to read as follows:

"(2)Any person applying for appointment to a Special Purpose Body listed in Appendix 2 shall be a resident in the City of Toronto, a Canadian citizen and at least 18 years of age. Any person applying to the Nominating Committee for appointment to any other Special Purpose Body shall be a resident in the City of Toronto and at least 18 years of age. Citizen appointees are required to maintain this status throughout their term of office."; and

(2)the adoption of the report (February 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following joint report (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To respond to outstanding Council and Committee requests and recommend a consolidated set of policies for the appointment of citizens to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee.

Financial Implications:

While there are no immediate financial implications, development of the proposed "Citizens' Guide to City of Toronto Appointments" will require additional resources. This report recommends that the City Clerk request these resources as part of the 1999 Operating Budget process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the policies outlined in Appendix 1 be adopted for citizen appointments to:

(a)all City of Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies where appointments are recommended to City Council by the Nominating Committee or, in the case of pension and sinking funds, the Corporate Services Committee; and

(b)those quasi-judicial tribunals listed in Appendix 2, with local panel appointments being recommended by the Nominating Committee to the Community Councils and any City-wide appointments being recommended by the Nominating Committee to City Council, subject to an organizational structure report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)the City Clerk be authorized, in the next round of appointments, to proceed with any outstanding appointments in accordance with the policies recommended in this report, and that the term of office for incumbents be extended until Council makes new appointments;

(3)the Procedural By-law be amended to provide that, for citizen appointments processed through the Nominating Committee, Members of Council may submit names on the floor of Council only if the names appear on the list of applicants previously considered by the Nominating Committee;

(4)the Nominating Committee generally not be responsible for recommending citizen appointments to the City's advisory committees, working groups, and task forces, and that any such appointments previously assigned to the Committee be referred to the Commissioner having responsibility for the program area, for consideration as part of the review requested by Council regarding the mandates, composition, and continuation of these advisory bodies;

(5)a staff review team, comprising representatives from City Clerk's, Access and Equity, and the Chief Administrator's Office with other program staff as appropriate, undertake the administrative screening of applications based on the Council-approved minimum criteria as described in Policy 12 of Appendix 1;

(6)the City Clerk be requested to develop a "Citizens' Guide to City of Toronto Appointments," in consultation with program, agency, and communications staff, and to report as part of the 1999 Operating Budget process on the resources required to implement this project; and

(7)the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of any necessary bill in Council to amend existing by-laws and provide for the implementation of this policy.

    Council Reference:

On February 4 and 5, 1998, Council amended and adopted an "Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments" (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team).

In approving this policy, Council authorized the City Clerk to proceed immediately with citizen appointments to the following special-purpose bodies:

(a)Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

(b)Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation;

(c)Canadian National Exhibition Association, Municipal Section;

(d)Toronto Police Services Board;

(e)Sinking Fund Committee;

(f)Metro Toronto Police Benefit Fund, Board of Trustees;

(g)Metro Toronto Pension Plan, Board of Trustees;

(h)Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee;

(i)Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee;

(j)Toronto Parking Authority; and

(k)Toronto District Heating Corporation.

Council also requested the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to prepare a set of policies and a plan for addressing outstanding issues to enable Council to proceed with the remaining appointments.

Council subsequently requested the City Clerk to review the desirability of instituting limits on the terms served by citizen appointees to local boards and "to review the process of receiving nominations by external bodies with a view to adding flexibility to the process and facilitating the balancing of qualifications of citizen members" (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 4A of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, adopted as amended by Council on April 28 and May 1, 1998).

On April 6, 1998, the Nominating Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report on the potential impact of introducing a sunset clause for citizen appointments, including:

(a)issues surrounding the establishment of a new board that amalgamates boards from the former municipalities; and

(b)whether a member from such a former board should be deemed a new member without counting their past experience.

The Nominating Committee also requested the City Clerk to review the best practices of the former municipalities to determine if the "Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments" should be amended.

Finally, the City Clerk was requested to report as to what process City Council should follow when Members of Council wish to submit names for appointments on the floor of Council (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Nominating Committee, adopted as amended by Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998).

Discussion:

In reviewing the "Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments" and Council's requests, staff have examined the policies of the former municipalities with a view to achieving harmonization while implementing best practices. Consultations have involved staff from Human Resources, Access and Equity, Legal, Urban Planning and Development Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Clerk's, and the Chief Administrator's Office. Staff have also reviewed the appointments process used by the Government of Ontario and the Toronto Arts Council. A number of issues bearing on the City's appointments policy and process are discussed below.

Application of the Policy:

At the end of 1997 and prior to amalgamation, there were at least 280 bodies which linked citizens with the former municipalities. These bodies included: municipal Agencies, Boards and Commissions; administrative committees for pension, sinking and environmental funds; quasi-judicial tribunals; external special-purpose bodies which either requested or required municipal appointments to their boards; arts and heritage boards; community boards for Business Improvement Areas, community and recreation centres, and arenas; and municipal advisory committees, special committees, task forces, and working groups.

This report does not recommend a uniform appointments policy and selection process for all of the aforementioned bodies. The latter are addressed in the Chief Administrative Officer's report which classifies Toronto's special-purpose bodies and provides a general framework for all board appointment processes.

The focus here is on appointments to those Agencies, Boards and Commissions, administrative committees, quasi-judicial tribunals, and external special-purpose bodies processed through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee (i.e., the "Nominating Committee I" and "Nominating Committee II" processes described by the CAO).

With the exceptions noted below, the policy outlined in Appendix 1 applies to all citizen appointments to Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies recommended by the Nominating Committee to Council, to all appointments to administrative bodies respecting pension and sinking funds recommended by the Corporate Services Committee to Council, and to appointments to quasi-judicial tribunals recommended through the Nominating Committee to either City Council or the Community Councils. Special consideration has been given to citizen appointments to those special-purpose bodies, listed in Appendix 2, to whom Council has delegated some of its decision-making authority.

This report does not deal with appointments to arts, heritage and museum boards, community boards for Business Improvement Areas, community and recreation centres, and arenas, or municipal advisory committees, special committees, task forces, and working groups.

In a number of cases, Council has either adopted nomination procedures or requested staff to report back on particular appointments. For example, Council has approved special appointment processes for the Board of Health and Toronto Hydro. Appointments to Business Improvement Area Boards of Management are guided by the Municipal Act. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is reviewing the structure for the Committee of Adjustment and other quasi-judicial tribunals; the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism is reviewing the structure for museum Boards of Management and heritage advisory bodies; and the Chief Administrative Officer is reviewing Boards of Management for arenas, community centres, and recreation facilities.

Council has also directed all Commissioners to review all existing advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report to the relevant Standing Committees, setting out the mandates and composition of each body and making recommendations regarding their continuation.

Minimum Qualifications for Appointees:

As a basic qualification now reflected in the "Interim Policy," citizens appointed to those major Agencies, Boards and Commissions, administrative committees, quasi-judicial tribunals, and external bodies listed in Appendix 2 should be qualified electors in the City of Toronto. Under section 17 of the Municipal Elections Act, a person is qualified if he or she is: a resident, owner or tenant of land in the municipality, or the spouse of an owner or tenant; a Canadian citizen; and at least 18 years of age.

Citizens appointed to civic bodies having a governance function should be no less qualified than Members of Council who have delegated some of their authority and accountability to such bodies. In other words, residents who cannot vote for representation on Council (charged with making decisions directly on how to spend tax money) should not be permitted to make spending decisions on Council's behalf as a member of an Agency, Board or Commission. This is especially important where sizable budgets and staff are to be managed. As for quasi-judicial tribunals, decisions made by citizen appointees have direct and often significant regulatory impact on the community.

Appendix 2 also includes certain external special-purpose bodies which require, under legislation or by-law, that Council make board appointments. These bodies have strong financial, regulatory, and/or policy relationships to the City, involving a delegation of decision-making power on the part of Council. Where Council either chooses or is required to appoint citizens, the appointees should also be qualified electors in the City of Toronto.

Citizens appointed to external bodies where little or no delegation of decision-making occurs need not be subject to the "qualified elector" requirement. A more appropriate and inclusive requirement would have appointees being either residents or ratepayers in the City of Toronto and at least 18 years of age. Appointments of this type which are currently processed through the Nominating Committee include the Canadian National Exhibition Association (Municipal Section), the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Corporation.

In addition to the "qualified elector" and "resident/ratepayer" requirements, Council may approve other agency-specific selection criteria geared to obtaining candidates who can best help manage a specific agency's business. Such criteria will be recommended to Council from time to time.

Representation of Diversity:

Since 1990, policies and procedures have been in place across Toronto to improve the diversity of appointments to municipal Agencies, Boards and Commissions. The objective has been to provide equitable opportunities for residents of all backgrounds to participate in the decision-making process of City government and to provide Councils with information on how well this objective is being met. Implementing this approach has meant advertising in local community and ethno-racial and Aboriginal print media, as well as recruitment outreach to organizations representing women, ethno-racial communities, persons with disabilities, and Aboriginal peoples.

As expressed in the "Interim Policy" and here in Appendix 1, this objective is continued and the policy respecting equal access will apply to all citizen appointments regardless of the process used.

Sunset Clause for Appointments:

The objective of enhancing citizen access to the governing process is diminished if no limitations are placed on the tenure of appointments. Continuity and change in citizen membership on a given body can be achieved by instituting a sunset clause and staggered terms.

Under the proposed policy, citizen members would generally be appointed for a three-year term coincident with the term of Council, with reappointments permitted such that the maximum length of continuous service is six consecutive years. Reappointments are not automatic; incumbents who are eligible and willing to seek reappointment must reapply in the prescribed manner. To obtain the greatest continuity in the post-amalgamation period, an incumbent from a former municipal board should be deemed a new member without counting his or her past experience.

Various options exist for instituting a system of staggered terms. For example, Council could require that a certain percentage of citizen members be rotated off a board after a three-year term; or, one-third of the initial appointments could be made for one, two, and three years each. Both options are administratively cumbersome. More importantly, legislation often prohibits citizen terms from extending beyond the term of the appointing Council (e.g., Police Services Board, Public Library Board, and Board of Health). These considerations suggest that a more flexible approach is needed to achieve continuity and change. To this end, the Nominating Committee should consider achieving a balance between reappointments and new appointments when making recommendations.

Requiring Attendance at an Orientation Seminar:

The "Interim Policy" currently requires prospective applicants to attend an orientation seminar for all Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external bodies processed through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee. It is recommended that this requirement only apply in respect to those delegated-authority bodies listed in Appendix 2.

Compared to printed or electronic material, an orientation seminar affords a better means of providing for a two-way flow of information between City staff and the public. The seminar format allows agency representatives to explain their agency's specific business and to clarify the roles, responsibilities, and time commitment required of citizen members. The seminar also allows the public to determine if their interests, skills, and experience match the requirements of the agency, enabling prospective applicants to tailor their applications accordingly. Consideration can be given to holding the orientation seminar in more than one location to enhance geographical access by citizens to this forum.

Publishing a "Citizens' Guide to City of Toronto Appointments" is another way to inform and involve the public. The guide could include agency names, addresses, and contact numbers, information on the agency's authority, functions, and membership, where and when the agency meets, workload, and any requirements for members to have special expertise or represent specific community or professional groups. Program and agency staff would be responsible for helping to update the guide and for answering public inquiries. General information about the City's appointment policy and procedures could also be included. It is recommended that the City Clerk develop this guide in consultation with program, agency, and communications staff.

  Administrative Screening of Applications:

Screening of paper qualifications can help identify those citizens with the capability to help a special-purpose body better serve the public interest, streamline the work of the Nominating Committee, and improve the accountability of the overall appointments process.

A staff review team should examine applications submitted to the City and indicate to the Nominating Committee which candidates meet all Council-approved selection criteria (i.e., the appointments policy outlined in Appendix 1 and any specific qualifications approved by Council for a given body). This represents a delegation of administration, not a delegation of discretion. No subjective ranking of qualified candidates is involved. The review team should include representation from the City Clerk's Division, the Chief Administrator's Office, the Access & Equity Unit, and program staff as appropriate.

Submitting Names on the Floor of Council:

Any Member of Council may debate the Nominating Committee's recommendations and, by motion, submit alternate names for appointments at Council. This procedure undermines the integrity of the appointments process which includes a detailed assessment of citizen qualifications by the staff review team and the Nominating Committee. It is preferable that Members of Council bring potential appointees to the attention of the Nominating Committee at the beginning of the appointment process.

To uphold the integrity of the process, the Procedural By-law should be amended to provide that Members of Council may submit names for citizen appointments on the floor of Council only if the names appear on the list of applicants previously considered by the Nominating Committee.

Providing for Unusual Circumstances:

The proposed policy provides for the development of additional selection criteria tailored to the objectives and business of specific boards and approved by Council. In unusual circumstances, it may be necessary for an Agency, Board or Commission to recommend to Council an alternative recruitment process to seek candidates with particular expertise or experience. In any event, Council should require that its policy minimums have been met and clarify that the City's policies prevail in the event of a conflict. The policy minimums, represented by Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Appendix 1, address equal opportunity, basic qualifications, and limitations on the length and scope of service.

Appointments to Advisory Bodies:

A large number of advisory committees, task forces, and working groups provide advice to the City on particular issues, initiatives, or projects. They are often established on a time-specific basis with guiding terms of reference and are typically appointed either by Department Heads or by Council on recommendation of the Standing Committees or Community Councils. Compared to the Nominating Committee's approach, these appointment processes are flexible and are focused on drawing members from identified stakeholders and communities.

The Nominating Committee is generally not the appropriate body for recommending citizen appointments to the City's advisory bodies. Any appointments of this type previously assigned to the Nominating Committee (such as the Toronto Cycling Committee) should be referred to the Commissioner having responsibility for the program area, for consideration as part of the review requested by Council regarding the mandates, composition, and continuation of Toronto's advisory bodies. This review should address a nomination process for each advisory body recommended for continuation.

Conclusions:

Appointing citizens to special-purpose bodies is an important vehicle for involving the public in civic affairs. This report recommends a policy for appointments to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions, administrative committees, quasi-judicial tribunals, and external special-purpose bodies which are processed through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Contact Names:

Wayne Reeves, City Clerk's Division, 392-8107

Nancy Autton, Chief Administrator's Office, 397-0306

--------

Appendix 1

Policies for Citizen Appointments to

City of Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions and External Special-Purpose Bodies

processed through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee

(1)The Council of the City of Toronto shall make citizen appointments on the basis of equal opportunity. City Council recognizes that the City is best served by special-purpose bodies that fairly reflect the diversity of the community that they serve. Proactive strategies in achieving this result shall be followed.

(2)Any person applying for appointment to a special-purpose body listed in Appendix 2 shall be a qualified elector in the City of Toronto (i.e., a resident, owner or tenant of land in the municipality, or the spouse of an owner or tenant; a Canadian citizen; and at least 18 years of age). Any person applying to the Nominating Committee for appointment to any other special-purpose body shall be a resident or ratepayer in the City of Toronto and at least 18 years of age. Citizen appointees are required to maintain this status throughout their term of office.

(3)Any person applying for appointment to an Agency, Board or Commission may not be an employee of the City or any of its Agencies, Boards or Commissions. Citizen appointees are required to maintain this status throughout their term of office.

(4)No citizen shall serve on more than one Agency, Board or Commission or external special-purpose body at the same time except that one Member of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan may also serve as a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, and one Independent Member of the Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee may also serve as an Independent Member of the Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee.

(5)Unless otherwise provided in legislation or by-law, one term of up to three years is the normal length of appointment for citizens appointed by Council to Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies. Citizens eligible and willing to seek reappointment may be reappointed for a total of up to six consecutive years. For incumbents at the time of the adoption of this policy, terms will be counted from their first appointment by the new City of Toronto.

(6)City Council shall make appointments to its Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies for a term coincident with the term of Council or for such term as otherwise provided for in legislation or by-law. The appointment term shall be standardized to begin on December 1 and end on November 30, wherever possible, but all appointments will continue until their successors are appointed or City Council terminates an appointment.

(7)The Nominating Committee shall recommend to City Council a slate of citizen nominees for appointment to Agencies, Boards and Commissions and external special-purpose bodies except for:

(a)administrative bodies respecting pension and sinking funds, which are submitted to Council through the Corporate Services Committee; and

(b)local panels of quasi-judicial tribunals, which are submitted to Council through the Community Councils after considering the recommendations of the Nominating Committee;

(8)In the first year of any term of Council, the citizen appointment process will begin as soon as possible after the City Council takes office. The Nominating Committee's appointment processes will be limited to twice a calendar year, as required.

(9)Any citizen, other than an incumbent, interested in appointment to a special-purpose body listed in Appendix 2 is required to attend an orientation seminar as a prerequisite to applying for appointment.

(10)The Nominating Committee shall consider only applications received in the prescribed form by the deadline date. Late applications shall not be considered unless the number of applicants is less than the number of vacancies.

(11)Incumbents who are eligible and willing to seek reappointment to an Agency, Board or Commission or external special-purpose body must reapply in the prescribed manner, but are not required to attend the orientation seminar.

(12)A staff review team, comprising representatives from City Clerk's, Access and Equity, and the Chief Administrator's Office with other program staff as appropriate, will examine the applications. The review team will submit to the Nominating Committee those applications meeting the minimum stated qualifications. To identify qualified applicants, the review team will apply the City's appointments policy and other Council-approved agency-specific selection criteria as determined from time to time.

(13)The Nominating Committee shall meet in private to review applications from qualified candidates, in order to select candidates for interview. The Chair of the monitoring Standing Committee, a representative of the Access and Equity Unit, and any program staff identified by the Nominating Committee shall be invited as advisers/observers.

(14)All Members of Council shall be notified of the meeting dates and shall be permitted to review the list of applicants who have submitted their names prior to the review process, in order that all Members of Council can provide input prior to the meeting.

(15)The Nominating Committee shall interview the selected candidates and recommend to Council one person for each vacant position on an Agency, Board or Commission or external special-purpose body. The Chair of the monitoring Standing Committee, a representative from the Access and Equity Unit, and any program staff identified by the Nominating Committee shall also be invited as advisers/observers.

(16)In making recommendations, the Nominating Committee shall consider balancing reappointments and new appointments to achieve continuity and change in board memberships.

(17)For the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto Sinking Fund Committee, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer shall review applications and make recommendations to the Corporate Services Committee.

(18)For the Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee, a Committee composed of members of the Benefit Fund Committee shall review applications, interview candidates, and make recommendations to the Benefit Fund Committee for the appointment of an Independent Member. The Benefit Fund Committee shall submit its recommended nominee to Council through the Corporate Services Committee. This same process will be followed for the Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee.

(19)City Council may from time to time, in accordance with applicable law, make appointments of successor members or to fill vacancies. When filling vacancies, applications on file from qualified applicants made during the current term of Council shall be referred to.

(20)Any variation from this policy under unusual circumstances must be approved by City Council, and in any event Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be adhered to. In the event of a conflict, the City's policy for citizen appointments prevails.

--------

Appendix 2

Appointments Requiring Qualified Electors in the City of Toronto

(see Policy 2 of Appendix 1)

Agencies, Boards and Commissions

Exhibition Place, Board of Governors

North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation

St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, Interim Board of Management

Toronto Board of Health

Toronto Housing Company

Toronto Parking Authority

Toronto Public Library Board

Toronto Police Services Board

Administrative Committees

Metro Toronto Police Benefit Fund, Board of Trustees

Metro Toronto Pension Plan, Board of Trustees

Metro Toronto Sinking Fund Committee

Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Board of Directors

Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee

Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee

Quasi-Judicial Tribunals

Committee of Adjustment

Court of Revision

Property Standards Committee

Rooming House Licensing Commission

Toronto Licensing Tribunal

External Special-Purpose Bodies

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Toronto District Heating Corporation

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following report (February 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report proposes a classification system for Special Purpose Bodies and recommends a framework for determining the processes used to select members for each category of special purpose bodies. In addition this report concludes the initial work of the Special Committee in rationalizing the City's special purpose bodies.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt the classification system for special purpose bodies outlined in this report;

(2)Council approve in principle the Framework for Appointments to Special Purpose Bodies contained in Appendix 2 and that components be implemented as developed and approved by Council;

(3)the Chief Administrative Officer, the Senior Management Team and the City Clerk develop guidelines for defining the relationship of Program Operating Boards to City program strategies, policies and budgets and develop an appropriate process for selecting members of these boards;

(4)the responsibility for any further reviews, as may be required, of the structure and relationship of special purpose bodies be assigned as follows:

(a)the Task Force on ABC's be responsible for reviewing Service Boards and Program Operating Boards;

(b)the Urban Environment and Development Committee be responsible for reviewing quasi-judicial bodies;

(c)the Corporate Services Committee be responsible for reviewing Financial Administrative bodies;

(d)each standing committee or community council be responsible for reviewing advisory bodies which report to them;

(e)each Commissioner be responsible for reviewing advisory bodies established to advise staff; and

(f)the principles articulated in this report for conducting such reviews be adhered to;

(5)when Commissioners present recommendations in response to Council's directive of February 2, 1999, on the advisory bodies required, the following be articulated:

(a)purpose and mandate;

(b)term;

(c)composition (number of Councillors, staff, citizens) including groups to be represented;

(d)process(es) to be used to select members;

(e)person/entity responsible for nominating members;

(f)person/entity responsible for appointing members;

(g)staff group to provide administrative support;

(h)budget, if any, and source of funds; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

This report is intended as a companion report to the City Clerk's report on the Policy for Citizen Appointments by the Nominating Committee. This report suggests that the City continue to utilize a variety of processes for selecting members to serve on the wide variety of special purpose bodies and the policies and selection criteria for each class of board be somewhat standardized. The Clerk's report recommends the details of the policy to be applied to one class of members (citizens at large) of a specific class of special purpose bodies. This report provides the context for the Clerk's report and proposes that the City adopt the conceptual framework for making appointments and further develop alternative processes appropriate to the nature of boards in other classifications.

Prior to City amalgamation, each of the seven former municipalities determined what structure was most appropriate for delivering City services. Many different approaches were taken to suit the specific circumstances of the day and the community being served. This resulted in a wide variety of special purpose bodies.

The Transition Team identified the following entities to which Council makes appointments:

96Special Committees and Task Forces

138Agencies, Boards, and Commissions

49External Organizations

283Entities to which Council makes appointments

These entities are in addition to the Standing Committee and Community Council structures which are completely internal to the City political structure.

Prior to amalgamation, a staff group identified 234 organizations it called agencies, boards, and commissions. This list included some entities which are committees of Council and some which may more appropriately be called advisory committees and task forces. Over the past year, discussions of special purpose bodies have made it clear that nomenclature is a problem. The same terms are being used by different people to mean different things. A clearer way of describing and categorizing these entities is important to further understanding of the nature of these bodies and to assist in establishing common processes by which the City deals with related bodies. Common terminology and some general principles and approaches are required.

This report first makes a distinction between City agencies and external entities and second differentiates City Boards from City advisory bodies and the treatment of each category relating to selection of members is discussed.

The Special Committee has dealt with individual board governance structures, composition, and qualifications of members and endorsed the Framework for Determining the Composition of ABC Boards attached as Appendix 4. In wrapping up the work of the Special Committee respecting special purpose bodies, this report is also intended to provide some guidance and continuity to any future reviews of individual or groups of boards by establishing a classification system of special purpose bodies and guiding principles for the review process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In order to develop policies relating to special purpose bodies when there are such a large variety, it is important to classify them in a variety of ways for different purposes. All special purpose bodies can be classified by their relationship to the City and by the type of activities they carry on.

Classification by Relationship to the City:

There are several ways of looking at the full range of entities known as special purpose bodies:

(1)Bodies established by Council or by legislation over which Council has full jurisdiction;

(2)Bodies to which Council makes nominations or appointments; and

(3)Bodies which are funded by Council.

These lists overlap considerably, but are not the same.

As the following diagram illustrates, the list of entities in these three categories overlap considerably, but are not identical.

(1)Exhibition Place matches the definition of all 3 categories.

(2)(a)MTCC matches list (2) criteria only.

(b)Council nominates members to Metro Toronto Convention Centre, but has no jurisdiction over its operations and does not provide funding (list 2 only).

(3)Most grant recipients match list three criteria only.

insert diagram

City special purpose bodies are defined as those which are:

(1)Established by the City or by legislation giving sole responsibility for the entity to Council.

(2)City appoints all members (some may be nominated by others at City's request).

(3)Council is fully responsible for funding (even though some may be self sufficient, Council would be responsible if deficits occurred; some may have funding agreements with others).

Examples:Exhibition Place; and

Toronto Library Board.

Partnered Entities are those which are:

(1)Created by Council in cooperation with others or created by legislation with shared jurisdiction; joint agreement required to change the structure.

(2)Council appoints a portion of the members as determined by agreement or legislation.

(3)Council partially funds.

Examples:Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

Toronto District Heating Corporation; and

Greater Toronto Services Board.

External Entities are those which are:

(1)Not established by Council or no legislation exists giving Council authority and Council has no authority to change the structure or decommission.

(2)Council may partially or wholly fund.

(3)Council may make appointments as required by legislation or on request of agency.

Examples:Canadian National Exhibition Association (fully funded , some appointments);

Large grant recipients (discretionary funding, some appointments);

Metro Toronto Convention Centre (no funding, some appointments); and

Most grant recipients (funded, no appointments).

It should be noted that there are unique situations which do not match any broad definition precisely. An example is the Police Services Board which generally falls under a City SPB, but the Province makes some appointments.

Classification by Type of Business Activity:

City special purpose bodies can be classified along a continuum ranging from those which have policy, staffing, and budgetary responsibilities to those which are advisory in nature.

City special purpose bodies can be further classified by business activity as follows:

(A)Service Boards (including business corporations);

(B)Program Operating Boards;

(C)Quasi-Judicial Tribunals;

(D)Administrative (Financial) Committees;

(E)Political Advisory Bodies; and

(F)Program Advisory Bodies.

There is an increasing movement towards creation of business corporations owned by the City to permit service delivery independent of the City core structures. This corporate form is most appropriate when the service is self-sufficient and operates in a competitive environment. Although these structures may be quite different from other City agencies, they have been grouped with Service Boards for the purpose of describing the selection processes.

The definition of these classifications follows. A preliminary list of special purpose bodies by type and relationship to the City is contained in Appendix 1.

(A)Service Boards:

(i)conducts business on behalf of Council;

(ii)unique service not falling within Departmental services;

(iii)manages significant taxpayer resources from tax base and/or user fees;

(iv)City-wide service area; and

(v)Council makes all appointments.

(B)Program Operating Boards:

(i)program forms part of City departmental program through alternative delivery;

(ii)board manages operations but allocations contained within departmental portfolio;

(iii)usually designated sites or service areas; and

(iv)City makes all appointments.

(C)Quasi-Judicial Tribunals:

(i)makes binding decisions within policies established by Council;

(ii)not responsible for managing staff and city resources;

(iii)not responsible for recommending policy; and

(iv)City makes all appointments.

(D)Financial Administrative Bodies:

(i)make fund management decisions;

(ii)not responsible for managing staff or recommending service policy; and

(iii)Council appoints all members.

(E)Political Advisory Bodies:

(i)Established by Council;

(ii)Advises political bodies regarding specific policy issues;

(iii)May have limited lifespan; and

(iv)Generally supported and resourced by program staff.

(F)Program Advisory bodies:

(i)May be established by Standing Committee, service boards or by staff;

(ii)Advises program staff on specific issues or programs;

(iii)May be long term or ad hoc; and

(iv)Supported and resourced by program staff.

Composition and Selection of Members:

The balance of citizen and Councillor representatives on a given board is one of the most critical decisions in structuring a board. This may be primarily a function of how independent the board is from the core government and the reliability of the accountability mechanisms. This is the main topic of the Framework for Determining Composition of Boards attached as Appendix 4.

Another key issue is whether certain groups should be asked to nominate members or whether citizens should be selected from the public at large. Some specific consideration should be given to citizen representation for the following reasons:

(a)to provide a variety of business perspectives;

(b)to represent stakeholder groups;

(c)to bring specific skills to the tasks of the entity;

(d)to be influential in bringing external funding, sponsorship, volunteers, or social profile to the service; and

(e)to represent specific groups of service users.

The composition may include:

(1)Councillors;

(2)Special Interest Group Representatives (citizens); and

(3)Citizens at Large.

When there are numerous special interest groups, Councillors may be chosen to represent this broad spectrum of interests.

Citizens at large may be required to possess certain characteristics or skills to qualify for membership. The Board as a whole should cover the skill range required, each individual bringing a different perspective, interest, or skill.

There are already a number of processes being used to recruit and select members of each Board. Given the differing relationships to the City (categories), the differing nature of the business (type) and the differing membership (composition), it is reasonable that there be different policies applied to the selection process. The effort and cost of the selection processes used also need to be commensurate with the impact of board actions on the City and its constituents.

Appendix 2 illustrates in chart form the recommended processes and applicable policies. The City Clerk's report recommends the policies which would apply to the processes used by the Nominating Committee only. Several of the other processes are currently under review or development.

Until recently, only the full Council had the authority to make appointments. Appointments to some local bodies has now been delegated to Community Councils. Council may also consider delegating authority to Standing Committees to make the final appointment in some cases. This might be appropriate for program operating boards in particular and program advisory bodies.

Nomination Processes:

Appendix 2 identifies 6 different processes which are proposed. Most of these processes are already in place.

(1)The Striking Committee process is in place to nominate members of Council to serve on political standing committees, City boards, external bodies and some advisory committees and task forces. This is a form of competitive process where members indicate which positions they are interested in and the Striking Committee makes its recommendations to Council.

(2)The Nominating Committee I process is also in place and is a competitive process for nomination of citizens at large. The accompanying Clerk's report on the Policy for Appointing Citizens applies to this process. This process is the most comprehensive recruitment process and has the most stringent rules for selecting members. The policies described in the Clerk's report apply only to those entities which have authority to make program policy and manage resources of the corporation. They have been delegated authority to act on behalf of Council and thus require the same qualifications as the Council which appoints them.

(3)The Nominating Committee II process is a simpler, less stringent process. There are some agencies which have the need for selection of a number of citizens at large, but the agency does not have the same degree of delegated Council authority as the entities named in the Clerk's report Appendix 2. In particular, the requirement for qualified elector status need not apply. The scope of the recruitment may also be more limited. The requirement for attendance at an orientation session may also be waived in many cases.

(4)The Special Interest Group (SIG) process is an external process whereby specific organizations are requested or required to nominate a certain number of members. The minimum qualifications of board membership still apply (such as qualified elector, if required), but the nominating organization conducts its own process to make the nomination based on its own criteria.

(5)The Standing Committee/Community Council process is a new process as yet undefined. Council has already decided that some nominations or appointments will be made by Community Councils. It is proposed in this report that this delegation to Standing Committees and Community Councils of authority to nominate or appoint members may be appropriate for a broader range of entities than those defined so far. It is proposed that the Chief Administrative Officer, along with the Senior Management Team, further develop this process.

(6)Special processes are those designed to meet the unique needs of individual entities. These may include processes where the Mayor nominates members, a professional recruiter is engaged, or where specific individuals who have a notable expertise, financial backing or volunteer following are recruited. These processes are defined for individual entities, but also may include the use of one of the other processes such as the Nominating Committee, if citizens at large are required, or the Striking Committee where Councillors are required.

 Applicable Policies:

Appendix 2(b) outlines the recommended application of specific selection policies which apply to each process outlined above.

(1)A Competitive process is where vacant positions are advertised openly and all qualified candidates are considered. This would not apply to processes which are external (SIG), or where specific individuals are sought because of their notable expertise or community influence.

(2)The Recruitment Scope refers to the breadth of the group targeted for recruitment. In the Nominating Committee I process, the widest possible citizen group is targeted. For other processes, the target group may be narrowed to specific communities of users, or sub-groups of the City-wide community.

(3)The Staff Permitted policy refers to whether staff of the City may be appointed as members. Exclusion of staff is standard practice for bodies which are boards of management or who represent special interest groups. However, in some cases, it may be appropriate for City staff to serve on external boards, corporations owned by the City, or advisory bodies.

(4)The Qualified Elector policy applies only to those entities which have significant policy, budgetary or human resource management authority delegated by Council. To assume authority delegated by Council, a member should be at least as qualified as the Council which appoints them. This is required in the legislation which established several of the larger boards. However, this requirement need not apply to most special purpose bodies and in fact, would deny Council the advice of valued communities if applied.

(5)The requirement that an applicant be a Ratepayer or Resident is standard for most special purpose bodies since Council is serving a specific constituency. However, this requirement also need not apply in some cases, particularly in advisory capacities. Depending upon the particular issue or service, perspectives of the surrounding regions or specific expertise available only from an individual residing outside the City boundaries may be appropriate or required.

A summary of the nomination processes and the applicable polices in each case is contained in Appendix 2(b).

Responsibility for Further Reviews:

Because of the large number and variety of special purpose bodies, much of the Transition Team report dealt with special purpose bodies. Of the 136 recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team, 47 dealt with special purpose bodies including agencies, boards, and commissions, advisory bodies, and external bodies related to City business. They are distributed as follows:

7respecting issue specific Task Forces which have been dealt with

3advisory committees in general

4respecting general ABC issues now on the workplan of the Task Force on ABC's

33respecting individual agency structures

47Total

Of the 33 respecting individual agency structures, 17 have been considered and resolved, 10 are currently under study, and 6 are outstanding. From time to time special purpose bodies will need review to re-establish purpose, mandate, and structure. It is recommended that the responsibility for any necessary reviews of the structure and relationship of special purpose bodies be assigned as follows:

(a)the Task Force on ABC's be responsible for reviewing Service Boards and Program Operating Boards;

(b)the Urban Environment and Development Committee be responsible for reviewing quasi-judicial bodies;

(c)the Corporate Services Committee be responsible for reviewing Financial Administrative bodies;

(d)each standing committee be responsible for reviewing advisory bodies which report through the committee; and

(e)each Commissioner be responsible for reviewing advisory bodies established to advise staff.

In each case appropriate staff need to be assigned to conduct the reviews and make recommendations to the Committees and Task Forces named above.

SPB Review Principles:

To provide some guidelines for these review processes, some principles need to be established. These include:

(1)All reviews of mandate of local boards (Types A and B) maintain a perspective independent of the program.

(2)The structure and composition of local boards (Types A and B) follow the Framework on Determining the Composition of ABCs, but may be recommended by related city program staff.

(3)Objective qualifications for members at large be established for all local boards (Types A to D).

(4)Where available and appropriate, nominations from special interest groups (site membership, local or supporting citizen groups, user groups, etc.) be recommended. Where citizen groups are requested to make nominations, a policy of open membership must exist.

(5)Composition of local boards be designed to reflect the diversity of the community which they serve.

At its meeting of February 2, 1999, Council directed that Commissioners review all advisory bodies related to their programs. In defining new advisory bodies or re-establishing existing ones, Commissioners will need to define:

(a)purpose and mandate;

(b)term;

(c)composition (number of Councillors, staff, citizens) including groups to be represented;

(d)process(es) to be used to select members;

(e)person/entity responsible for nominating members;

(f)person/entity responsible for appointing members;

(g)staff group to provide administrative support; and

(h)budget, if any, and source of funds.

Conclusions:

This report completes the final piece of the conceptual framework for review of special purpose bodies for the new City of Toronto. It builds on the Framework For Determining the Composition of ABCs contained in the Terms of Reference for the Task Force on ABCs and reproduced as Appendix 3 to this report. This report provides the context for the companion report from the City Clerk outlining the Policy for Citizen Appointments through the Nominating Committee and proposes alternative processes be used for different categories of City special purpose bodies. It is further recommended that the CAO and Senior Management Team develop guidelines for defining the relationship of Program Operating Boards to City programs and develop an appropriate process for selecting members of these boards.

Contact:

Nancy Autton 397-0306

--------

 Appendix 1 - Special Purpose Bodies Classified by Relationship to City and Business Activity

Note: This list does not include all special purpose bodies. It is intended to be a representative sample for illustrative purposes. Over time, as the framework is further developed and mandates clarified, the categories will be updated.

Appendix 2 (a) - Selection Process Applicable by Type and Composition

--------

Appendix 2(b) - Policies Applicable by Process

(1)A Competitive process is where vacant positions are advertised openly and all qualified candidates are considered. This would not apply to processes which are external (SIG), or where specific individuals are sought because of their notable expertise or community influence.

(2)The Recruitment Scope refers to the breadth of the group targeted for recruitment. In the Nominating Committee I process, the widest possible citizen group is targeted. For other processes, the target group may be narrowed to specific communities of users, or sub-groups of the City-wide community.

(3)The Staff Permitted policy refers to whether staff of the City may be appointed as members. Exclusion of staff is standard practice for bodies which are boards of management or who represent special interest groups. However, in some cases, it may be appropriate for City staff to serve on external boards, corporations owned by the City, or advisory bodies.

(4)The Qualified Elector policy applies only to those entities which have significant policy, budgetary or human resource management authority delegated by Council. To assume authority delegated by Council, a member should be at least as qualified as the Council which appoints them. This is required in the legislation which established several of the larger boards. However, this requirement need not apply to most special purpose bodies and in fact, would deny Council the advice of valued communities if applied.

(5)The requirement that an applicant be a Ratepayer or Resident is standard for most special purpose bodies since Council is serving a specific constituency. However, this requirement also need not apply in some cases, particularly in advisory capacities. Depending upon the particular issue or service, perspectives of the surrounding regions or specific expertise available only from an individual residing outside the City boundaries may be appropriate or required.

--------

Appendix 3 - Analytic Framework for Determining Composition of Boards

There is universal support for involvement of citizens in advisory capacities. The more difficult issue is the degree to which government should delegate its decision-making authority to citizens who serve on local boards. It is clear that Council retains ultimate responsibility for decisions which it delegates to local boards whether comprised of citizens or Councillors or both. When either Council policy or financial performance are at high risk, the full Council may need to retain decision-making authority and delegate authority where objectives are clear and outcomes can be measured and monitored. It is essential that appropriate accountability mechanisms are put in place to ensure that elected representatives continue to carry the full responsibility for policy and fiscal management while delegating the implementation responsibility to staff or citizen boards.

There are very diverse views on which government services should be managed by local boards, what structure is most appropriate and what scope of authority boards should be given. A framework for considering the numerous issues is needed to assist in making these important decisions.

The composition of a local board appears on the surface to be a straight-forward issue and is therefore often addressed as one of the first steps in establishing a board. However, to ensure that Council will be comfortable with the degree of delegation of authority, the reporting relationship, and the assurance of accountability, the determination of the composition of the board should be one of the last steps in a more comprehensive process.

In considering the composition, there are several questions which need to be answered and a process can be developed to methodically consider these questions. The following provides a brief outline of a process in draft form.

Step 1Why is the service being provided?

This question is raised not so much to determine whether it should be a government service or not, but rather to articulate the specific reason the service is being offered by the City. Along with the funding method, this reason can then be used to determine how much authority should be delegated and what accountability mechanisms are appropriate.

Step 2To what degree is the service used to implement policy of the government?

Policy in this context refers to program policy and objectives rather than administrative policy. It must be determined whether the municipality sets the policy or whether policy is determined provincially and what discretion the municipality has in further defining policy. A distinction must also be drawn between delegation of implementation of a policy or delegation of policy setting.

Step 3What are the financial impacts on the taxpayer?

It is important to know whether any revenues collected are intended to earn a profit, offset costs, or be subsidized by the tax base. Where the service is an exclusive universal service such as hydro and water, user fees can be considered a financial impact on the taxpayer. These are distinguished from user fees for services which are selected by choice of the taxpayer such as recreational services. Generally, the reason identified in Step 1 and whether the policy should be set to encourage or discourage use of the service will determine how the business is funded. There are many ways of considering costs and funding and some "ground rules" need to be established to ensure consistency in determining the impact on the tax base. The issues include how capital is treated, how user fees are handled, how government grants are considered, and whether centralized costs are included.

Step 4Control and Accountability:

Before determining the degree of independence, the type and degree of control Council needs to exercise needs to be determined. Types of control include:

(a)Regulatory Control;

(b)Policy Control;

(c)Budgetary Control; and

(d)Service Delivery Control.

For each type of control the following questions need to be answered:

(a)Who is the entity accountable to? - Council, other government or regulatory body, general public, clients/users.

(b)Who is ultimately held accountable to the public? For personal liability, financial debts, property damages.

(c)Is success clearly measurable and attributable to the entity?

(d)What action is possible if objectives are not met?

Once these questions are answered, the possible level of independence will become clearer.

Step 5Is there a need or requirement to operate at arm's length?

A distinction needs to be drawn between management of a service at arm's length and delivery of a service at arm's length. Delivery of any service may be partially or wholly contracted out, even if it is a core government service, if it is efficient and effective to do so and if there are sufficient quality and service checks and balances. Management of the service consists of defining goals and objectives, developing strategies, assessing delivery mechanisms, determining the appropriate funding and measuring results. The critical issue is to what degree services can be managed at arm's length.

Considering the reason for providing the service, the policy content and financial impact on the taxpayer can be used to classify the type of service and determine to what degree the service can or should be managed at arm's length from the core government. Generally, the more entrepreneurial a service (low policy content and low financial impact on the taxpayer), the more arm's length the management of the service from the core government administration. Core government services are those which have a high policy content and a high financial impact on the taxpayer. In order to establish an arm's length relationship, however, it is essential that the type and degree of controls are considered so that Council can be assured that appropriate accountability mechanisms can be put in place wherever authority is delegated.

Based on the reason for providing the service, the policy content and tax base impact can be used to classify the type of service as follows:

 Other situations where it may be appropriate for services to be managed through entities independent of direct government management include:

(i)where the service area is multi-jurisdictional;

(ii)where patrons, donations, and volunteerism are key requirements; and

(iii)where the function is quasi-judicial or otherwise must be independent of political influence.

Step 6What size and composition of the board are appropriate?

Size of a board may be determined by considering:

(a)diversity of opinions required;

(b)required expedience of decision-making;

(c)amount of fund-raising and volunteerism desired;

(d)number of other citizen input methods being used; and

(e)complexity of decisions to be made, size of budget and staff.

The balance of citizen and Councillor representatives on a given board is one of the most critical decisions. This may be primarily a function of how independent the board is from the core government and the reliability of the accountability mechanisms.

Another key issue is whether certain groups should be asked to nominate members or whether citizens should be selected from the public at large. Some specific consideration should be given to citizen representation for the following reasons:

(f)to provide a variety of business perspectives;

(g)to represent stakeholder groups;

(h)to bring specific skills to the task of managing a service;

(i)to be influential in bringing external funding, sponsorship, volunteers, or social profile to the service; and

(j)to represent specific groups of service users.

Summary:

This framework is not intended to be rigid, but rather to provide a convenient and simple way of focusing the thinking process on the various issues which need to be considered in determining the composition of a local board.

 5

Authority for Delegation of Matters

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be requested to submit a report to the appropriate Committee of Council on the issue of delegation of matters, once the size of the Community Councils has been determined.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having received the following report (February 9, 1999) from the City Solicitor; and having directed that such report be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Council resolutions adopted during consideration of the report of the Special Committee on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the context of the Council-Committee structure (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team), that the City Solicitor be requested to report to the Special Committee on:

(i)the best method of achieving delegation of authority to Community Councils and to City staff where it is feasible and legally possible to do so;

(ii)the delegation of final decision-making authority respecting site plan control, ravine by-laws, fence by-laws and trees by-laws, and other matters that can be delegated under current legislation; and

(iii)whereby Members of Council can bring Community Council decisions to City Council for review and, recognizing the importance of Community Council and the need to eliminate waste and duplication in the present system of dealing with matters twice, to report on requiring a super-majority of two-thirds of Council to overturn a decision of a Community Council.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 considered the report of the Special Committee respecting the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team). In so doing, City Council adopted a number of recommendations intended to streamline decision-making at Council by delegating final decision-making authority to Community Councils and/or City officials. One of those recommendations is for Council to pursue legislative amendments to enable Community Councils to make final decisions on local matters. The City Solicitor was requested to report to the Special Committee on the best method of achieving the delegation of decision-making authority from Council to Community Councils, on local matters or to staff to make decisions on the approval of the relevant Community Councils. The City Solicitor was also requested to report on the feasibility and the legality of the delegation of specified responsibilities within the existing legislative structure.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The purpose of this report is to provide advice respecting Council's legal authority to delegate decision-making power to Community Councils or to City officials, and to provide the Special Committee with the general principles that will determine which matters can be delegated under current legislation. This report will also address the specific requests for the City Solicitor to report on matters where final decision-making authority can be delegated to Community Councils or staff, as previously set out.

General Principles of Delegation of Decision-making Authority:

The general legal principle of delegatus non potest delagare provides that a delegated authority may not be further delegated. This principle applies to municipal law in that a municipal council, as the recipient of delegated authority from the province, must exercise that authority itself. There are two exceptions to this general principle:

(i)where the province has granted express statutory authority to sub-delegate municipal powers; and

(ii)where the need to sub-delegate arises by necessary implication from the statutory language.

The Municipal Act, the Planning Act and several other statutes governing municipalities provide express authority for city councils to delegate certain acts to specified City officials. For example, section 41(13) of the Planning Act specifically authorizes Council to pass a by-law and delegate its jurisdiction over site plan control matters to a committee of Council or to a official named in the by-law. Under the Municipal Act, Council may delegate its decision-making power respecting the regulation of trees on private property to a named official. In addition to these general statutory authorities, each of the former municipalities have Private members bills (special legislation) authorizing various policy initiatives, many of which contain authority to delegate decision-making to staff or in some cases other bodies. An example of such delegated authority is found in the City of Toronto Act, 1975 which authorized the Council of the former City of Toronto to delegate its jurisdiction to license rooming houses to the Rooming House Licensing Commission.

In addition to explicit legislative authority for Council to delegate decision-making, section 102.1 of the Municipal Act contains a general power for the council of a municipality to delegate any powers, duties or functions that are administrative in nature to either a committee of council or to staff. This authority must be exercised by by-law and the by-law can impose conditions on the exercise or performance of the delegated powers, duties or functions. Administrative acts are generally defined as those acts which are necessary to be done to carry out legislative policies and purposes and clearly do not include the formulation of policy (legislative acts) or acts that otherwise involve the exercise of discretion (quasi-judicial acts). In essence, administrative acts generally require the application of criteria to a fact situation to reach a result that does not require interpretation or discretionary judgements to be made. Examples of matters that have been delegated under this general authority in the former municipalities include use of the street allowance for matters such as boulevard cafes, boulevard parking, encroachments into the street allowance, authority to process BIA levies, designation of fire routes, authority to approve compensation under the Expropriations Act, authority to execute standard agreements on behalf of the municipality, etc. (subject to Council approved criteria being met).

Authority for Council to delegate its authority to do certain acts may also be implied in certain circumstances. Implied sub-delegation is a more difficult question or statutory interpretation. In his book Principles of Administrative Law, DeVillar considers when authority to subdelegate can be implied and states that:

"The court inquires whether the policy-scheme of the statute is such as could not easily be realized unless the policy which requires that a discretion be exercised by the authority named thereto is displaced; it weighs the presumed desire of the legislature for the judgment of the authority it has named against the presumed desire of the legislature that the process of government shall go on in its accustomed and most effective manner and where there is a conflict between the two policies, it determines which, under all the circumstances, is the more important."

  Case law has established that delegation may be implied where a person delegated a statutory power is clearly unable to exercise it personally. For example, a Minister of the Crown will not be able to exercise all of the statutory powers delegated to him or her. In such cases, courts have found that the Minister is able to delegate certain administrative powers out of "administrative necessity". In the municipal context, the authority of the City Solicitor to take steps to defend legal proceedings commenced against the municipality has been implied.

Delegation - Specific Matters Requested for Report:

Council requested that the City Solicitor consult with senior staff and report on the feasibility and the legal limitations on City Council's ability to delegate final decision-making in respect of the several matters specifically referred to the City Solicitor for report. The chart attached as Schedule A addresses the feasibility and legality of delegating each of these matters. In addition, it provides comments respecting the four general areas that the Council recommended be delegated to staff and subject to a bump-up for a hearing at Community Council. A "bump-up" procedure can be described as one that allows a committee to consider and make recommendations to Council on specific applications that either do not meet the criteria approved by Council for it to be processed administratively or, special situations where a ward councillor requests an application be considered by committee and council. As long as Council retains final decision making authority in matters that cannot be processed administratively, there is no legal impediment to this process.

Over the past year, City Council has exercised its general authority to delegate administrative matters to staff on several occasions, and has exercised its specific authority to delegate decision-making to staff as well. City Council has placed responsibility for the efficient administration of the corporation with the Chief Administrative Officer; Council has delegated certain administrative functions as well as the powers and duties of Council under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City Clerk; and Council has delegated certain administrative and statutory duties to several other municipal officials. The delegations that existed prior to amalgamation have largely been carried forward as an interim measure, by the by-laws appointing the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioners and statutory and other officials. In addition, Council has already delegated functions including the enforcement of provisions of lease(s), licence and similar agreements to the City Solicitor; an interim purchasing by-law is in place; responsibility to accept conveyances of land for public highway purposes; authority for various City officials to sign standard form agreements including various health funding agreements and standard letter agreements respecting grants; and most recently, Council has exercised its statutory ability to delegate responsibility for seizing dogs, issuing muzzling orders and holding hearings respecting dogs that have bitten.

Several initiatives are under way to recommend new City-wide regulatory by-laws that will harmonize the practices that were in place in the former municipalities. Reports are at various stages of preparation, and will be going to the appropriate Standing Committees and to Community Councils for consideration. They will contain recommendations and options for delegating decision-making authority with respect to the matters specifically referred to in them and will set out the principles, details and policy options necessary for Council to consider to make a proper delegation of authority. Generally, until decisions are made on the substantive policy issues, it is premature to consider delegating final approval of these matters to either staff or Community Councils.

To provide Council with some sense of the matters that can be delegated to staff under current legislation, Schedule B sets out these functions and comments respecting each of them.

Authority to Require a Super-Majority of Two-Thirds of Council to Overturn a Decision of the Community Council:

The City Solicitor has been requested to report on methods whereby, in order to eliminate the waste and duplication of the present system of dealing with matters at Community Councils and again at Council, a super-majority of two-thirds of Council be required to overturn a decision of a community council. There is no legislative authority to require anything more than a simple majority decision of Council to overturn a decision of a community council or a decision of any other council committee. To impose this requirement would be illegal and would improperly fetter the discretion of Council. Legislative change would be required to implement this recommendation.

Section 28(c) of the Interpretation Act provides that in every Act, unless the contrary intention appears, where an act or thing is required to be done by more than two persons, a majority of them may do it. This provision is set out in the converse in the Municipal Act, which provides in Section 60 that, "except where otherwise expressly provided by this Act, any question on which there is an equality of votes shall be deemed to be negatived." It follows then that unless otherwise authorized, a simple majority of those councillors present and voting is all that is required to determine a question. Rogers, in reaching the conclusion that a simple majority governs in The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, states: "As in the case of quorums, the common law rules respecting majorities established with reference to corporate bodies have, as a rule, been applied to municipal Councils and other local authorities... At common law, provided there is a quorum present, a majority of the quorum may bind the corporation."

Finally, Section 105 of the Municipal Act authorizes Council to delegate the conduct of statutory hearings to a committee of Council however, it does not authorize Council to pass on any authority to make a final decision in respect of the subject of the hearing or to pass by-laws. In the case of statutory hearings held at community councils, to require a super majority of two-thirds of Council to overturn a decision of the Community Council would contravene the provisions of subsection 105(3) of the Municipal Act. Subsection 105(3) requires Council to take any necessary action, including passing by-laws after a hearing has been held under a by-law delegating the hearing function to committee, and a requirement that Council pass a by-law unless two-thirds object is contrary to this provision. This proposal would in effect result in final decisions being made by Community Councils in areas where Council cannot legally delegate final decision-making.

Conclusions:

Council may delegate final decision-making authority to Community Councils or to staff, only where legislation authorizes this delegation. Where policy or discretionary decisions must be made, and where statutory hearings are required, Council cannot delegate its authority without an explicit statutory provision to do so. However, Council's general ability to delegate administrative acts can be used to reduce the matters on Council's agenda. Council can, as a policy matter, adopt criteria or processes to be applied by staff to process those regulatory matters which are administrative. Most such delegated authority in place before amalgamation has been retained, and staff are working to prepare new City-wide policies and procedures for Council's consideration that will eventually replace existing limited authorities. The chart attached contains comments on those specific matters which were referred by Council for report.

Respecting the proposal to require a super majority of two-thirds of Council to overturn a decision of a Community Council, such a requirement would illegally fetter Council's decision. Consequently, legislative change is required to implement it.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Legal Services Division

392-7245

--------

Schedule "A"

Legal Ability to Delegate Items Specifically

Referred to for Report

--------

Matters Where Delegation has Been

Recommended to Streamline

Community Council Agendas

--------

Schedule "B"

Additional Matters Where Final Decision-Making

Can be Delegated to Staff or Community Councils

 6

Wrap-Up Report of the Special Committee to Review

the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that any outstanding issues relating to Agencies, Boards and Commissions which were under the purview of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1999) from Councillor David Miller, Chair, Special Committee:

Purpose:

This report summarizes the actions taken by the Special Committee since its formation in January 1998. The report brings closure to the Committee's activities and removes the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team from Council's agenda.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations in this report have no financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council confirm that the review of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team has been completed and that the Special Committee be disbanded; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

Council created the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team at its inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998. Council referred most motions pertaining to the Transition Team's Final Report and the interim Procedural By-law to the Special Committee. Council requested the Special Committee to report on the Transition Team's recommendations, with a few exceptions, to the May 1998 meeting of Council, that is, after four months.

Council adopted the Special Committee's terms of reference on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee). The terms of reference identified the following six priority areas:

(i)location of the seat of government;

(ii)role of community councils;

(iii)Council-committee structure;

(iv)citizen involvement in the City's governance;

(v)Council Procedural By-law; and

(vi)administrative structure.

From the outset, it was clear that the Special Committee should undertake a thorough review of these priority items in order to add significant value to Council's decision-making process. This would not be achieved simply by running down a checklist of the 136 recommendations in the Transition Team Report. Furthermore, it was clear that the Special Committee's consideration of Council's procedures, the committee structure and the roles and responsibilities of community councils called for consultations with members of Council and the public, which would take time to conduct properly.

The Special Committee reported to Council following its first four months as requested. The report summarized the Special Committee's actions since its creation and reviewed the progress of outstanding items on the work plan. Council adopted the progress report on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Special Committee). This report highlights the Special Committee's accomplishments during the full year of its mandate.

Summary of the Special Committee's Actions:

The Special Committee's membership represents the broad spectrum of perspectives on Council. It includes former area municipal and Metro councillors and a former mayor and represents wards in every community council area except York. This diversity helped to ensure that the Committee's discussions covered all aspects of issues and were balanced. It also helped to ensure that the policy directions recommended by the Committee were generally supported by City Council.

The Special Committee met twelve times over a period of one year. In that time, the Committee dealt with all six priority areas on its work plan. The following summarizes the Committee's actions with respect to each of the priorities.

Location of the Seat of Government:

Council requested the Special Committee to attach a high priority to determining the permanent location for the seat of City government. Accordingly, the Committee dealt with this issue at its first meeting. The Committee recommended that Toronto City Hall be chosen as the seat of government. The Committee also recommended a timetable and approach to preparing City Hall to accommodate all members of Council and Council and Standing Committee meetings by the end of 1998. The Committee recommended setting in motion a longer-term process to develop a civic campus in the vicinity of City Hall.

An early decision on the seat of government was important for a number of reasons. It symbolized the new municipal government's first major step towards building an identity for itself. It removed a contentious issue from the table enabling Council to move ahead with its policy agenda. It united members of Council behind the common goal of moving into a single location. Finally, an early resolution allowed the process of renovating City Hall to proceed expeditiously.

Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations. Council also requested the Special Committee to establish a sub-committee to oversee the relocation of members of Council to City Hall. The Special Committee appointed five of its members to the sub-committee under the chairmanship of Councillor Ron Moeser on February 13, 1998.

Under the guidance and scrutiny of the sub-committee, the renovations to City Hall and relocation of members proceeded smoothly and on schedule. All members of Council moved into their offices in City Hall by the end of 1998 as planned, standing committee meetings began to meet in City Hall in January 1999 and Council met in the refurbished Council chamber for the first time on February 2, 1999.

Planning for renovations to the City Hall towers and development of longer-term plans for a civic campus are continuing under the supervision of the Corporate Services Committee.

Role of Community Councils:

The Special Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the roles and responsibilities of community councils. This issue was of great symbolic as well as practical significance to Council and the citizens of Toronto. Community councils, as provided for in the City of Toronto Act, 1997, were a relatively untested component of municipal government. There were few examples to turn to for a record of their experience and potential and none in a situation like the one in Toronto. The legislative parameters, which defined the possibilities for community councils, were uncertain and fairly restrictive. However, many members of Council and their constituents saw community councils as essential means to keep a large government with a huge jurisdiction in touch with its communities. They also viewed community councils as vehicles to ensure that decisions with local community impact are influenced and made by people familiar with the local area, and to assist Council to deal with its enormous workload.

There was considerable public interest and debate about community councils. Therefore the Special Committee devoted energy and time to consultation with the public and councillors. The consultation process included a half-day workshop for councillors on February 23, 1998. Based on the workshop, the Special Committee produced a discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities of community councils. The paper was posted on the Internet, made available in public libraries and other civic buildings and distributed to the public through members of Council and the Special Committee's mailing list. A questionnaire attached to the discussion paper solicited citizens' feedback. The Special Committee heard public deputations on February 26 and June 26, 1998. In April 1998 the Special Committee conducted three focus groups on various aspects of the roles of community councils and, in April and May 1998, the community councils held public meetings on the issue and reported their outcomes to the Special Committee.

Thus, in making its recommendations to Council, the Special Committee drew on the benefit of a wide variety of input. The Committee recommended a strengthened role for community councils within the City's governance structure. The recommendations clarified the community councils' mandates for local planning, transportation and recreation matters and the distinction between city-wide and local matters. The Special Committee recommended that the community councils should have more scope to make final decisions and that a greater number of matters should be delegated to community councils. Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations with few amendments on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee).

During 1998, Council also adopted a number of other specific recommendations of the Special Committee concerning community councils. These included the addition of a third councillor to the East York Community council and some changes to the Procedural by-law to enable community councils to establish committees and task forces and hold recorded votes.

Council-Committee Structure:

In response to requests by Council at its inaugural meeting, the Special Committee reviewed terms of reference for eight task forces and special committees and developed terms of reference for an Economic Development Committee. The Special Committee also made recommendations to Council on an interim structure for the City's non-profit housing agency, the structure and mandate of the Toronto Parking Authority, governance structures for Arts and Heritage, a structure for the Toronto Library Board and the reorganization of the Toronto Licensing Commission.

However, most of the Special Committee's efforts with respect to governance structures were devoted to the roles and responsibilities of community councils, as described above, and a comprehensive review of the basic Council-committee structure.

In March 1998, the Special Committee sent a short questionnaire to Members of Council to assess their preliminary experiences with the interim committee structure. During the summer, staff interviewed about a third of the members of Council and a sample of senior management and secretariat staff. The interview responses and other research were analyzed and compiled into a discussion paper on the committee structure and its issues. The discussion paper also outlined a framework for resolving the problems. In October 1998, the Special Committee reviewed the staff paper and sent it and a questionnaire to all members of Council and a selection of senior staff. The survey results were used in developing the Special Committee's recommended revisions to the Council-committee structure.

The Special Committee recommended a less hierarchical committee structure that responded to councillors' desires to focus financial control in a single committee and also distribute governance responsibilities more broadly among members of Council. Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations with few amendments on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999 (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee).

Citizen Involvement in the City's governance:

During the course of its mandate, the Special Committee recommended a number of actions that have an impact on citizen involvement in the City's governance. One of its first acts was to recommend interim policy guidelines for making citizen appointments to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Council adopted the Committee's recommendations on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee). These interim guidelines have been used for the past year. The Special Committee will review a proposed permanent policy on citizen appointments at its meeting on February 12, 1999. The policy will apply to a defined band of special purpose bodies.

The Special Committee also reviewed terms of reference for a variety of task forces and agencies, which include citizen members either directly or on advisory panels. In particular, the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, whose terms of reference the Special Committee recommended to Council, will develop a framework to guide the role of citizens on the City's agencies, boards and commissions.

On February 2, 3 and 4, 1999 Council adopted a recommendation by the Special Committee that directs the commissioners to review all pre-existing advisory committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee).

The reviews of the Council-committee structure and the roles and responsibilities of community councils were guided by principles supporting strong public access and participation. The Special Committee also requested staff to take a more comprehensive look at citizen involvement in the City's governance. The staff report will be before the Special Committee on February 12, 1999. It examines the relationship between citizens and their municipal government, including the many ways in which citizens become involved, and outlines a broad framework for citizen participation in the City of Toronto.

Council Procedural By-Law:

During the past year, a number of specific issues pertaining to the Procedural By-law were referred to the Special Committee. The Special Committee reviewed these issues, usually to clarify anomalies in the by-law, and made recommendations to Council. However the Committee's major focus was on a comprehensive review of the by-law.

The Toronto Transition Team had prepared a draft Procedural By-law, which Council adopted on an interim basis at its inaugural meeting. The Special Committee reviewed motions referred to it by Council and conducted a survey of members of Council before recommending a comprehensive set of changes to the interim by-law to Council. Council adopted the changes on May 13 and 14, 1998 (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of The Special Committee).

The revisions were intended to simplify the language, clarify meanings and make minor corrections to selected sections of the interim by-law. They also streamlined the rules and procedures governing Council debates. Further changes to the sections of the by-law dealing with committee mandates and membership will result from Council's actions in response to the Special Committee's recommended changes to the Council-committee structure.

Administrative Structure:

All organizational mergers are inherently destabilizing. Municipal government amalgamations are no exception. Staff are insecure about their future place in the administration and the public want to know that services will continue to be provided and that people will be available in convenient locations to respond to problems. For these reasons, it was essential to move quickly to begin the amalgamation of the seven former administrative structures.

The Special Committee considered options for the overall administrative structure at its first meeting. Council adopted the Committee's recommendations for a senior management structure on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 (Claue No. 3 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee). The creation of the senior management structure provided a framework within which to build the administrative organization of the new City. It also provided clarity to members of Council about the provision of administrative support to the work of Council.

Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

The Special Committee's work plan did not specify the review of the City's agencies, boards and commissions as one of the priority areas. However, these special purpose bodies are an important part of the City's governance structure and the Transition Team report included about two dozen recommendations pertaining to them. Therefore, in the course of its work, the Special Committee did consider agencies, boards and commissions.

In its review of the terms of reference for the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, the Special Committee considered and endorsed a framework for establishing special purpose bodies' composition and the respective participation of citizens and councillors.

The Special Committee made recommendations to Council on the structure and composition of several specific bodies, including the City's non-profit housing company, the Toronto Parking Authority, the Licensing Tribunal, the Library Board, Heritage Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council.

The way in which the Special Committee dealt with these organizations, indicated the emergence of some common principles. These principles are elaborated upon in a staff report to the February 12, 1999 meeting of the Special Committee. The report provides a conceptual framework for categorizing the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions. It sets out a policy framework to assist Council to determine how the City should relate to different special purpose bodies and outlines steps the Chief Administrative Officer will take to further develop the concepts and their implementation over time.

Discussion:

The Special Committee focused on the basic structures and processes of government and the municipal government's interaction with communities in the new City. However, the recommendations in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team ranged from the basic infrastructure of governance in Toronto to the administration of day-to-day business. There were recommendations about the place of community councils and the organization of political decision-making structures in the City government. There was also a recommendation to undertake an inventory of vehicles and garage facilities. Given the mandate of the Special Committee to review the Transition Team's recommendations, the potential existed for the Special Committee to become swamped with matters relating to the content of the City's business, which more properly belonged on standing committee and community council agendas.

Therefore, a challenge for the Special Committee throughout its mandate has been to separate day-to-day issues and business of government from the basic infrastructure of government on which the Committee aimed to concentrate. Overall the Special Committee, with the co-operation of standing committee and community council chairs and staff in the City Clerk's Division, succeeded in making this distinction.

The Special Committee took some specific steps to exclude inappropriate items from its agendas. For example, it recommended the removal from its work plan of 49 Transition Team recommendations that deal with administrative and public policy matters (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Special Committee). In addition, numerous items were referred to the Special Committee simply because they bore some relationship to matters that were covered in the Transition Team Report. Whenever possible, these items were rerouted to a more appropriate standing committee.

Conclusions:

The work of the Special Committee provided an important bridge between the provincially appointed Transition Team's ideas for Toronto's governance and the emergence of a vision and structures of government that are "made in Toronto" and owned by the elected City Council.

  As alluded to in the summary of actions earlier in this report, the Special Committee debated the questions before it in great detail. Most of the Committee's recommendations stimulated a high level of interest and debate at Council, too. This careful review of the issues was productive. It provided a context for the new Council of a new City to pay close attention to how it wanted to make decisions, involve its members, staff resources and, especially, the citizens of Toronto.

The development of "made in Toronto" structures and processes of government - looking at the big picture of governance - was a huge undertaking for Council in its first year. 1998 was, unavoidably, a year of destabilization characterized by an insecure work force and the loss of familiar reference points for councillors and staff alike. It was also a period in which Council had to deal with the implementation of a new property assessment system and the impact of provincial downloading, both enormous agenda items in their own right.

Yet, through this period of instability and uncertainty, a vision of the type of City government this Council wants has begun to emerge. It is a vision that has come from the work of the Special Committee with the benefit of many citizens who appeared before the Committee or sent in their written ideas. It is a vision that has been refined in Council debate and embraced by all of Council in its resolutions.

The vision is of a Council that deals with important issues of City-wide significance and sets broad policy parameters for decision-making which is delegated to appropriate forums such as community councils. It is a vision of an inclusive City government whose mayor is able to exercise clear leadership and where responsibility for governing is shouldered by all members of Council. It is a vision of a City government that works in partnership with the citizens of Toronto to build capacity in all aspects of its communities.

This "made in Toronto" approach is the common thread that runs through the Special Committee's recommendations to Council and the way that Council has acted on the recommendations. It provides a healthy note on which to conclude the mandate of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

The utility of the Transition Team report lay in providing a set of interim structures and ideas to get the new government of a new City up and running. That purpose has now been served. The new City government is up and running and functioning with the benefit of its own policies, responses and style - all given legitimacy by the citizens who elected this Council. Therefore, it is recommended that Council confirm that the review of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team is complete and that the Special Committee be disbanded.

7

Other Item Considered by the Committee

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Progress Report on Council's Legislative Process Review.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having received the following report:

(February 9, 1999) from the City Clerk providing an update on the ongoing Council legislative process review underway by the City Clerk's Office; advising that the volume of business facing the amalgamated Council, its large size, and its wide-ranging municipal authority, means the legislative process is unlike any other experienced by the former municipalities; that City Clerk's staff are reviewing the legislative process to ensure the right supports are in place and the necessary changes are implemented to create a more transparent, convenient, accessible, and understandable legislative process for Members, staff and the public; that further staff reports recommending specific legislative process improvements will be brought forward as the review proceeds; and recommending that this report be received for information.

________

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, gave a presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, respecting the progress on Council's Legislative Process Review.

   Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER

Chair

Toronto, February 12, 1999

 (Report No. 2 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)