City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 3

1 Community Council Boundaries .

2 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 of Toronto

REPORT No. 3

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 April 13, 14 and 15, 1999

Community Council Boundaries

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause, together with the following motions, to the first meeting of City Council to be held in January, 2000; and the Chief Administrative Officer was requested to submit a report directly to Council, for such meeting, on a process to establish the new Community Council boundaries in time for the Municipal Election to be held in November, 2000:

Moved by Councillor Lindsay Luby:

"That the Clause be amended by adding thereto the following:

'It is further recommended that the City Clerk be requested to submit a report to the next meeting of City Council outlining a public participation process with regard to the issue of Community Council boundaries.' "

Moved by Councillor Mihevc:

"That the Clause be amended by deleting Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated November 24, 1999, from the Chief Administrative Officer, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(3) Council, at this time, not endorse a particular model related to the number of Community Councils, and that, in preparation for public discussion and input, the Chief Administrative Officer present options related to a variety of models, including:

(a) a four Community Council system;

(b) a five Community Council system;

(c) a six Community Council system;

(d) a greater than six Community Council system; and

(e) the status quo.' "

Moved by Councillor Miller:

"That:

(1) the Clause be amended to provide that Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated November 24, 1999, from the Chief Administrative Officer, be adopted as the preferred principle, and the appropriate City officials be requested to consult with the community respecting other models, including the status quo; and

(2) the motion by Councillor Lindsay Luby be amended to provide that the City Clerk submit the requested report to City Council as soon as possible, rather than to the next meeting of Council."

Moved by Councillor Pantalone:

"That the Clause be amended by deleting from Recommendation No. (1) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team all of the words after the words 'City Clerk', so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'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;'.")

(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.)

--------

(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 2 of The Special Committee to

Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

headed "Community Council Boundaries")

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

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;

(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

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 "clearly�there 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;

(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

--------

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.

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 April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) amending Recommendation No. (3) of the joint report dated February 10, 1999, from the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, as amended by Recommendation No. (1)(a) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, by deleting the words "on the floor of Council" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "in camera", so that such recommendation shall 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 in camera if the names appear on the list of applicants previously considered by the Nominating Committee;";

(2) amending Recommendation No. (2) of the joint report dated February 10, 1999, from the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, as amended by Recommendation No. (1)(b) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, by:

(a) inserting the words "or landed immigrant"after the words "Canadian citizen";

(b) deleting the word "resident" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "resident and/or municipal property taxpayer"; and

(c) inserting the words "except on Committees dealing with children and youth" after the words "18 years of age", such amendment to be inserted wherever the words "18 years of age" appear in the Clause;

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) Any person applying for appointment to a Special Purpose Body listed in Appendix 2 shall be a resident and/or municipal property taxpayer in the City of Toronto, a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant and at least 18 years of age, except on Committees dealing with children and youth issues. Any person applying to the Nominating Committee for appointment to any other Special Purpose Body shall be a resident and/or municipal property taxpayer in the City of Toronto and at least 18 years of age, except on Committees dealing with children and youth issues. Citizen appointees are required to maintain this status throughout their term of office;";

(3) deleting from Appendix 2(a), entitled "Selection Process Applicable by Type and Composition", in line 'B', the words "Striking Committee" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Community Councils"; and

(4) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) any appointees to an Agency, Board, Commission or Tribunal of a former City or of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto who have not yet been subject to a re-appointment process, have their appointments terminated effective December 31, 1999, subject to the Chief Administrative Officer reporting to the Administration Committee at its September 1999 meeting on any such appointments which need an extended deadline to facilitate the re-appointment process;

(b) the Nominating Committee may request, from any organization, a recommended list of interested persons wishing to apply for a Council-appointed position on any Special Purpose Body; and

(c) the City Clerk be requested to reiterate Council's sunset clause to all persons applying for appointment to a Special Purpose Body.")

(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.)

--------

(Clause No. 4 of Report No. 2 of the Special Committee to

Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed

"Policy for Citizen Appointments Through the Nominating

Committee and the Corporate Services Committee -

Classification of Special Purpose Bodies and

Framework for Board Appointments Processes")

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;

(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;

(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;

(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:

96 Special Committees and Task Forces

138 Agencies, Boards, and Commissions

49 External Organizations

283 Entities 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;

(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.

(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;

(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:

7 respecting issue specific Task Forces which have been dealt with

3 advisory committees in general

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

33 respecting individual agency structures

47 Total

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;

(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;

(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

Sole Jurisdiction External

City Bodies Partnered Other

A. Service Boards Police

TTC

Exhibition Place

Zoo

Housing Company

Library Board

Parking Authority

Board of Health

Hummingbird PAC

St. Lawrence Centre

North York PAC
TRCA MTCC

Toronto Port Authority

AGO

Canadian Opera Co.

National Ballet Co.

Toronto Symphony

Children's Aid Soc.

Hockey Hall of Fame

Humane Society

Hospital Boards

Other Theatres

B. Program Operating Boards TEDCO

Museum site boards

Arena boards

AOCCs
BIAs Other Community/

Recreation Centres

CNEA

Tourism Toronto

C. Quasi-Judicial

(Decisions not service providers)
Cttee of Adjustment

Property Standards

Licensing Tribunal

Court of Revision

Rooming House

Fenceviewers

D. Administrative Pension Funds

Sinking Funds

Atmospheric Fund
Toronto Arts Council

E. Political Advisory Task Forces

Mayor's Committees

F. Program Advisory

Museums Board

Heritage Toronto

LACAC

Homes for the Aged Advisory Committee
Festival /Parade Committees

Arts Commissions

Historical Societies

Special Relationships Toronto Hydro GTSB

GTAA

TDHC
AMO

Canadian Urban Institute

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

SPB Type Councillors Special Interest Nominees Citizens at Large

A. Service Boards Striking Committee Special Interest Group Nominating I

B. Program Operating Boards Striking Committee Special Interest Group Standing/CC

C. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals None None Nominating I

D. Administrative (Financial) Striking Committee Special Interest Group Nominating I - unique process

E. Political Advisory Bodies Special Special Special

Process recommended by establishing Body

Standing Committee or Community Council

Mayor or individual Councillor

Chair of Advisory Body

F. Program Advisory Bodies Special Special Special

G. External Organizations supported by Discretionary Grants

(a) some appointments Striking or Standing(if program based)
CC(if local)
None Special

(b) no appointments None None None

H. External Orgs not funded but Council makes appointments due to legislation or Striking (City-wide)

CC if local
None Special (if any)

I. Unique Relationships

Toronto Hydro Striking None Special

TDHC Striking None Nominating I

TRCA Striking None Nominating I

GTSB Striking None None

CNEA

GTAA
Striking

Striking
None

None
Nominating II

Nominating II

--------

Appendix 2(b) - Policies Applicable by Process

	Competitive	Recruitment Scope	Staff Permitted	Qualified Elector	Resident/ Ratepayer
Nominating I	Yes	Broad	No	Yes	Yes
Nominating II	Yes	May be limited	No	N/A	Yes
Standing/ CC	Yes	May be limited	No	N/A	Yes
Striking	Yes	Councillors	No	Yes	Yes
Special Interest Types A, C	External	SIG	No	Yes	Yes
Special Interest Other	External	SIG	No	N/A	N/A
Special Processes -rules determined for each entity -includes: selection of advisory bodies Mayor's nominations professional recruiter processes	As determined	As determined	Yes	As determined	As determined

--------

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 1 Why 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 2 To 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 3 What 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 4 Control 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;

(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.

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

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

Step 5 Is 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:

High User Pay Core

P C

O O

L N

I T

C E

Y N

T
EntrepreneurialSubsidized by Tax Base LowLow Financial Impact on TaxpayerHigh

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 6 What 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;

(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.

(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.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER

Chair

Toronto, February 12, 1999

(Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links