Preliminary Revisions to the Interim Procedural By-law

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

 (1)the adoption of the joint report (April 22, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, subject to amending Appendix 1 embodied therein by:

 (i)referring Recommendations Nos. (3) and (14) back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for report thereon to the Special Committee at such time as they are reporting on the proposal respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council", as outlined in the Special Committee direction No. (1) below;

 (ii)amending Recommendation No. (7) to require the Chair to ensure that a quorum is present at Council and Committee meetings when a vote is taken;

 (iii)striking out Recommendation No. (18);

 (iv)amending Recommendation No. (19) to read as follows:

 A(19)(a)that the first speaker be the Councillor who held the Clause, with a single extension in speaking time if supported by a majority vote of Council, and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes, with no extension unless supported by a majority of Council;

 (b)that the second speaker be the Chair of the Standing Committee, Community Council, Special Purpose Body, Sub-Committee, Special Committee or Task Force to which the clause applies;

 (c)that all questions of staff be taken before the beginning of the debate of any item; and

 (d)that only the Chair, or in his absence, the Councillor chairing the meetings be permitted to call staff to the floor for questioning later during the debate, if necessary;";

 (v)striking out Recommendation No. (21);

 (vi)referring Recommendation No. (27) back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for further report thereon to the Special Committee;

 (vii)amending Recommendation No. (30) by deleting therefrom the word "noon" and inserting in lieu thereof the time "4:30 p.m."; so that Recommendation No. (30) shall now read as follows:

 "(30)that Members submit to the Clerk, in writing by 4:30 p.m. of the day prior to Council, a list of those items that they wish to be held;"

 (viii)inserting in the Section, entitled "The Management of Notices of Motion", the following new recommendation:

 "that Members of Council submit notices of motion to the City Clerk who shall ensure that such motions conform to the rules of Council.@;

 (ix)inserting in the Section, entitled "Holding Items for Debate at Council", the following new recommendation:

 "that Members of Council who hold items at the beginning of Council meetings be required to discuss those items with the relevant staff prior to the lunch break; and that the Chair canvass Council immediately after the lunch break to determine which items Members wish to release;@ and

 (x)striking out Recommendation No. (32);

 (2)that a position of Vice-Chair be established for Standing Committees, other Committees of Council, and Community Councils, and elected by the Members of those relevant committees; and

 (3)that the report (April 21, 1998) from Councillor Sinclair respecting Recommendation No. (33) embodied in Appendix 1 be received.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having:

 (1)endorsed, in principle, the proposal outlined in the communication (April 20, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert, respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council"; and requested the City Solicitor and the City Clerk to submit a report to the Special Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 8, 1998:

 (i)on a method of implementing the proposal outlined in the communication (April 20, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council", which will fulfill the legal requirements of the Municipal Act and the intent of having a single Member of Council responsible for conducting meetings of Council; and

 (ii)on the feasibility of each Member of Council being given the opportunity of chairing meetings of Council on a rotating basis;

 (2)endorsed, in principle, the idea of a Municipal Hansard-like service provided it can be accomplished at a reasonable cost; and

 (i)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

 (ii)referred the following communications to the City Clerk for consideration respecting the establishment of a Hansard-like service:

 (a)(March 5, 1998) from Mr. Mark Stanisz, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Special Committee respecting the creation of a Toronto Hansard Service; and requesting the Special Committee to direct staff to report to the Special Committee summarizing the cost and timeline of setting up a Toronto Hansard Service, the ability to pay for bills and registrations online and setting up a live viewcam for Council meetings;

 (b)(April 14, 1998) from Ms. Liz Rykert, respecting the development of a Hansard Service for City Council; and recommending that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

 (1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Municipal Hansard Service for the City of Toronto; and

 (2)strike a working group of staff and interested citizens to develop the plan to implement the service and identify costs and operational implications;

 (c)(April 18, 1998) from Ms. Sally Gibson respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system;

 (d)(April 22, 1998) from Ms. Tara Dier respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system; and

 (e)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. Roger Greenwald requesting that the Special Committee give careful consideration to establishing a Municipal Hansard system; and

 (3)requested the City Clerk to submit a report to the Special Committee:

(i)on technological solutions respecting Recommendation No. (30) embodied in Appendix 1; and

 (ii)respecting the numbering system of agendas and reports as proposed by Councillor Rae.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following joint report (April 22, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk:

 Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to address a number of amendments proposed by Members of Council to the Procedural By-law and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 This report has no immediate financial implications. In the future, should Council elect to implement a Hansard system, there would be an impact on the budget of the Clerk=s Division. Additional information is required to assess the magnitude of this impact.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)Council adopt the recommendations contained in this report respecting administrative changes to the Procedural By-law intended to simplify language, clarify meanings or make minor corrections to selected sections of the Procedural By-law, embodied in Appendix 1;

 (2)Council adopt the recommendations contained in this report respecting revisions to the Procedural By-law that streamline rules and procedures governing Council debate specifically, embodied in Appendix 1;

 (3)the City Clerk report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on alternative vehicles, such as cable television, through which members of the public can have better access to elected officials; and

 (4)that the appropriate officials be authorized to take any action necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction of the necessary bill in Council.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 City Council, at its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, considered and adopted a communication from the City Clerk dated December 30, 1997, respecting a draft Procedural By-law for City Council which was modeled after the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. At its January meeting, Council referred the draft Procedural By-law and several communications and proposed amendments related to it to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Special Committee) for a report back to Council in May, 1998. A copy of the Procedural By-law with the proposed amendments by Members of Council merged into the document has been prepared and is on file with the City Clerk.

 By-law No. 23-1998, being a by-law to govern the proceedings of Council and the Committees thereof, (the Procedural By-law) was adopted by City Council at its meeting of February 6, 1998. In accordance with the recommendations of the Special Committee, which were adopted by City Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, the Procedural By-law has been amended to permit Community Councils to establish sub-committees and to delegate statutory hearings to such sub-committees; to permit recorded votes at meetings of Community Councils; and to require motions to be signed by Members of Council.

 There are four broad categories into which the amendments to the Procedural By-law that were proposed at City Council's January meeting fall. They are:

 (1)Administrative Matters;

 (2)Rules of Debate/Conduct of Members;

 (3)Governance; and

 (4)Membership.

 This report recommends administrative amendments to the Procedural By-law. These recommendations provide clarification as to the meaning of provisions within the By-law, simplify language in specific sections or make minor corrections. The recommended amendments do not have a material impact on the meaning or intent of the document.

 This report also sets out options and recommendations concerning the rules governing Council debate and public access to the action and decisions of Council. Where possible, these options and recommendations consider approaches taken by other governments and input from members of City Council.

 Amendments to those portions of the Procedural By-law relating to governance and membership will be the subject of a separate report once the Special Committee has concluded its review of the current governance structure and of the roles and responsibilities of City Council, Community Councils and the Standing Committees.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 A Procedural By-law is intended to provide the means whereby members, staff and the general public can determine how the business of the municipality is to be conducted. Subsection 55(2) of the Municipal Act requires Council to adopt a Procedural By-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings of Council. Additionally, the Municipal Act prescribes certain other rules that must be followed by municipalities in conducting their business, for example, determining when meetings can be held in camera. These rules, and others relating to the rules of debate, the conduct of Members, Standing Committee structure, etc., are set out in the Procedural By-law.

 Administrative Matters:

 At its January meeting, City Council had before it several suggested amendments to the Procedural By-law that are administrative in nature and generally serve to clarify or simplify language in the matter, or make minor corrections. After reviewing the Procedural By-law with reference to these recommendations, the following amendments are now being recommended:

 (1)in subsection (h) replace "Corporation of the City of Toronto" with "City of Toronto";

 (2)in subsection 1(m)(ii) add "save and except the ex-officio powers of the Mayor as a Member of a Community Council";

 (3)delete subsections 1(m)(iii) and (iv) respecting Second and Third Deputy Mayor, subject to them being reinserted at a future date if Council chooses to appoint members to these positions;

 (4)amend subsection 3(2)(b) respecting the inaugural meeting of Council to permit Community Councils to meet in their usual meeting places to elect their Chair to facilitate community access to proceedings;

 (5)amend subsection 5(1) respecting emergency meetings to clarify that 24 hours notification before the meeting be in writing and can include electronic mail;

 (6)respecting the preparation of agendas for special meetings of Council, amend subsection 5(3) to clarify that it is the responsibility of the Clerk to direct development of the agenda for these meetings, in consultation with the Mayor;

 (7)amend the definition of quorum for Council meetings in section 8 to clarify that quorum requires a majority of Members sitting in their assigned seats;

 (8)respecting In-Camera meetings, rather than reference the Municipal Act, amend section 10 to set out the situations when a member can move a motion that Council meet in camera as set out in section 55 of the Municipal Act. This would allow members to determine when meetings may be held in camera by referencing the Procedural By-law and would eliminate the need to then reference the Municipal Act;

 (9)amend section 11 respecting Council adjournments to add a new subsection providing that when Council meets on a Friday, it shall adjourn prior to sundown;

 (10)subsection 15(a)(I) provides that Members of Council shall not speak disrespectfully of a diversity of parties, including City officials and, it has been recommended that "officials" be replaced by the broader term "employees";

 (11)in subsection 25(7) respecting questions that are substantially similar in form and content to questions already asked, for clarity replace the words "substantially similar" with "substantially the same";

 (12)in section 38, simplify the language by deleting "The following are deemed to be procedural motions and shall be subject to debate, as follows:" and replace it with "The following are deemed to be procedural motions and shall be subject to consideration in the following order:"; and

 (13)amend subsection 60(1) to provide that the Clerk will prepare and circulate a Bills index with the Council Agenda rather than the actual bills to reduce the amount of paper to Councillors, with copies of the bills available in the Clerk=s Office or in the Council Chamber during meetings for review.

 Rules of Debate:

 Many of the issues raised by Members of Council during their review of the Procedural By-law concerned the rules and procedures governing Council debate and public access to Council information, actions and decisions. At Council=s inaugural meeting in January, Members proposed a variety of By-law amendments to address these issues. Additional suggestions were obtained by means of discussions with staff and individual Councillors. In addition, feedback on the various options presented in this report was obtained by means of a questionnaire circulated by the Chair of the Special Committee to all Members of Council. All of this information has been considered in developing and refining the procedural directions recommended in this report.

 A number of assumptions underlie the following recommendations. They are:

 (1)that the rules and procedures in the Procedural By-law must facilitate effective, efficient, accountable and sensitive decision making by Council;

 (2)that the Procedural By-law must provide the tools necessary to manage the City=s large agenda in a timely manner;

 (3)that Council Members must have fair and equal opportunities to present their positions to Council;

 (4)that individual Members of Council and the actions, discussions and decisions of Council as a whole must be accessible and understandable to external constituencies; and

 (5)that, in general, all matters requiring debate by Council must be listed in the Order Paper.

 Specific issues raised by Members of Council related to rules of debate can be divided into the following six categories:

 (i)the use of a speaker;

 (ii)conduct at Council meetings;

 (iii)the questioning and speaking process;

 (iv)the management of notices of motion;

 (v)miscellaneous procedural issues; and

 (vi)public access to political processes.

 For each of these categories, this report reviews the requirements of the current Procedural By-law, issues and concerns raised by Members of Council, options or proposed amendments for addressing these issues, and recommended actions.

The Use of Speaker:

 The Procedural By-law currently recognizes the Mayor as head of Council. It permits the appointment by Council of a Deputy Mayor to act in the place of the Mayor when needed. The Deputy is not permitted to chair a Standing Committee or Community Council and is appointed by Council By-law. Section 57 of the Municipal Act requires that the Mayor as head of Council chair Council meetings. Existing drafts of the proposed new Municipal Act contain the same requirement. As a result, special legislation or a Municipal Act amendment would be required should Council elect to fully delegate all tasks related to a speaker. It is possible for the Mayor to administratively request a member to assume the chair during his absences without legislative amendment.

 It has been proposed that Section 1 of the Procedural By-law be amended to permit the appointment, by by-law, of a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Council. These individuals would be selected from Members and would chair Council meetings.

 Speakers are commonly used in larger legislative assemblies operating under a party system. They are intended to be impartial and, as is the case with the Province of Ontario, have no voting rights. The party system improves the effectiveness of the speaker model by ensuring that elected officials, other than the speaker, are available to represent a party=s position and interests on specific issues.

 The City of Winnipeg is the only known municipal model in which a speaker or presiding official is employed. This individual is appointed by Winnipeg Council from within its membership and presides over Council meetings. Specific responsibilities of the speaker are legislated in the City of Winnipeg Act and elaborated on in the City=s Procedural By-law. They include chairing meetings of Council, maintaining order and decorum at Council and deciding on questions of order. The Speaker has normal voting rights but must leave the chair to participate in debate. A Deputy Presiding Officer chairs in these cases. The Speaker also chairs the Secretariat Committee, which handles the internal affairs of Members. The Mayor and Members of the Executive Committee cannot be speakers.

 Options available to City Council in its consideration of the speaker model are:

 (1)maintaining the status quo in which the Mayor is chair of Council but vacates the chair when speaking or moving a motion;

 (2)selecting a speaker from within Council who would be impartial and without voting rights (legislative amendment required);

 (3)selecting a speaker from within Council who would vote in the event of a tie and vacate the chair to speak or introduce a motion (legislative amendment required); or

 (4)selecting a speaker from within Council who would have full voting rights but would be required to vacate the chair to speak or move a motion (legislative amendment required).

In all options, where a speaker is proposed, the Deputy Speaker would assume the chair when it is vacated.

 There are both benefits and drawback to implementing the speaker model in the City of Toronto. It could reduce the Mayor=s considerable workload while allowing a member to focus on managing the sizable agenda of Council and becoming expert on the rules and procedures governing Council. Without full voting rights, as is suggested in options two and three, and in the absence of a party system, the ability of the speaker to represent the interests of his or her constituency at Council may be impaired. Option four addresses this concern by awarding the speaker full voting rights.

 In light of the above issues, it is recommended that option one, the status quo, be continued. This option ensures that all constituents are equally represented at Council, recognizes that the Mayor, who is elected at large, is better equipped to act as an impartial chair and does not require legislative amendment. This option was preferred by those members that responded to the questionnaire circulated by the Chair of the Special Committee.

 Conduct at Council Meetings:

 Currently, section 16.1 of the Procedural By-law outlines rules governing the behaviour of Members at Council meetings. Specifically, it clarifies in sub-section 16(b) that ANo person shall display signs or placards, applaud participants in debate or engage in conversation or other behaviour which may disrupt the proceedings of Council.@ In addition, section 16.1(d) requires that Members not use Aoffensive words or unparliamentary language in or against the Council or against any speaker.@

 Proposed amendments to section 16 are as follows:

 (1)that the requirement that Members Anot speak disrespectfully of the Royal Family, the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governor of any Province, any Member of Council or any official of the Corporation@ be deleted;

 (2)that a definition of unparliamentary language which specifies that Members not AA. attribute false of undeclared motives to another Member; B. Charges another Member with being dishonest; C. is abusive or insulting; or, D. is likely to cause disorder@ be incorporated in the By-law; and

 (3)that sub-section 16(b), which is quoted above, be amended to read that ANo member shall engage in behaviour that shall disrupt the proceedings of Council.@

 Options for addressing these issues are:

 (1)maintaining the status quo in which Members are not permitted to speak disrespectfully of the parties listed above and in which Aunparliamentary language@ is not specifically defined in the By-law;

(2)citing a parliamentary authority within the By-law to be referred to when a definition of Aunparliamentary language@ is required;

 (3)incorporating a description of Aunparliamentary language@ in the By-law;

 (4)deleting sub-section 16.1 which clarifies those parties to whom Councillors cannot speak disrespectfully; or

 (5)amending sub-section 16(b) to read ANo member shall engage in behaviour that shall disrupt the proceedings of Council.@

 A number of these options can be implemented alone or in combination with other options.

 The intent of options two and three is to clarify what constitutes Aunparliamentary language@. Detailed definitions exist in a variety of credible sources including Bourinot=s Parliamentary Procedure and Beauschene=s Parliamentary Rules and Forms. By contrast, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario simply refer to matters which Ain the opinion of the Speaker offend the Practices and Precendents of the House@. Developing a new definition specifically for the By-law that is all-inclusive would be difficult and unnecessary. Option two, which suggests citing an existing definition to be referred to as needed, is an option that would provide Council with access to a clear definition. However, any detailed listing of unparliamentary language soon becomes out of date. The status quo, which is similar to the Provincial model is preferred because these provisions do not require updating and provide for flexibility.

 Option four suggests removing from the current By-law restrictions prohibiting Councillors from speaking disrespectfully of a variety of parties including the Royal Family, employees and other public sector officials. Such restrictions are traditionally included in Procedural By-laws and are beneficial as they focus debate on issues as opposed to individuals. As a result, this option is not recommended for implementation.

 Finally, option five suggests that sub-section 16(b) of the By-law be amended to read that ANo member shall engage in behaviour that shall disrupt the proceedings of Council.@ At present, this sub-section specifies what is considered to be disruptive behaviour. The proposed amendment could be open to a diversity of interpretations and is not recommended for implementation.

 Questioning and Speaking Guidelines:

 At present, section 25 of the Procedural By-law stipulates that a Member, when speaking to Council, may first ask questions to obtain facts or clarification on a matter. Questions can be asked of the Mayor, an official of the City or of a related body, a Committee Chair, Community Council Chair or Chair of an agency, board or commission. They can also be asked of the previous speaker when that speaker has introduced a motion. Members are permitted to speak on a matter for five minutes. A five minute extension is possible, with support from two thirds of Members present. Motions can be introduced during a Member=s speaking time.

A number of concerns have been raised as a result of current speaking and questioning practices. Specifically, the duration of individual debates and of Council meetings, the number of speakers on individual items, the degree to which the speaking list grows as debate continues, the use of questioning as a tool of debate, and the use of speaking time to continue questioning have been identified as issues by a number of Councillors.

 Several options have been proposed to address these issues and to streamline the debate process. A number of these options referred to the speaking time allotted to Members on individual items. After considering the impact of various time limits, it was concluded that refining the questioning and speaking process as opposed to simply adjusting limits on speaking time better addresses the above issues. For this reason, it is recommended that current practices governing speaking time be maintained.

 Refining the Questioning Process:

 A number of options have been proposed for streamlining questioning practices at Council. They are:

 (1)that a period of time be set aside prior to debate on each item at Council for questioning of staff by Members of Council and that no questions of staff be allowed during Council debate;

 (2)that a briefing on key issues be held by staff prior to Council meetings and that questioning at Council pertain only to clarification of new information submitted at Council or clarification of motions;

 (3)that questioning be permitted only when it is to clarify a motion; and

 (4)that Members be permitted to question only when on the floor to speak.

 Option one would limit the use of questioning as a tool of debate and successfully streamlines the debate process. There is a concern that it could have a negative impact on attendance at Standing Committees, however, where detailed questioning of staff traditionally takes place. In addition, a need to seek further information from staff may arise as a result of Council debate. This option would prevent Council from seeking clarification from staff once debate on an item has begun.

 In option two, a briefing on key issues would be held prior to Council meetings. The agenda for these briefings would be circulated in advance and sessions would be open to both the public and the media. Staff could begin with a presentation on agenda items. For those items addressed at the briefing, questioning at Council would be limited to clarification of any new information submitted to Council or clarifying motions. By focussing on only selected items, this option could have less of an impact on attendance at Standing Committees than would option one.

 Option three is the most restrictive in that it would permit questioning only to clarify a motion. This limits the ability of Councillors to obtain clarification on any new information presented at Council meetings. To be effective, this option would have to be implemented in combination with option one, in which time was set aside at Council to question staff.

Option four permits Councillors to ask questions only when they on the floor to speak. The primary concern with this approach is its impact on debate, which could become fragmented and confusing as councillors alternated between speaking and questioning.

 It is recommended that option two be implemented and that briefing sessions be scheduled prior to Council on key items on the Council agenda. By providing a time for Councillors to obtain detailed information or clarification on complex items, prior to Council, the debate process could be significantly streamlined. Opening these sessions to the public and media ensure continued full access to the political process.

 Finally, in the area of questioning it has also been proposed that Section 25(7) of the By-law, which stipulates that a member may not ask a question if the Chair rules that the question is similar in form and content to one that has already been asked, be deleted. Deleting this clause could result in debate that becomes unnecessarily prolonged or repetitive. This proposed amendment is therefore not recommended.

 Refining the Speaking Process:

 A number of options have been proposed to streamline the speaking process and to address other issues described earlier. These options are:

 (1)that the Committee Chair responsible for an item be the first speaker, with a single extension if supported by a majority vote of Council and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes only, with no extension;

 (2)that the speakers= list be open prior to the start of debate on an item and permanently closed when debate begins; and

 (3)that the speaking list be restricted to ten people at a time and that after each group of ten the vote be called automatically and be allowed only if the motion that the vote now be taken is successful.

 Option one provides Committee chairs with an opportunity to present an overview of the issue and to highlight the rationale behind the Committee recommendation. By restricting all subsequent speakers to five minutes, the debate process could be significantly streamlined. With the unanimous approval of Council, extensions could be provided to speakers in extraordinary cases.

 In option two, the speakers= list is open prior to the start of debate on an item and closed when debate begins. While this proposal prevents the speakers= list from growing as debate continues, it prohibits Members from responding to issues raised by colleagues during the debate process.

 In Option three, the speakers= list is restricted to ten names, including the Member responsible for holding a report. After all ten Members have spoken, Council would be canvassed to determine if Members were ready to vote or if more debate was required. In the case of the latter, another ten speakers would be recorded and the process would repeat itself. While this approach could serve to limit the extent to which debate is prolonged and is repetitive, it could also restrict the extent to which opposing views can be aired at Council.

 In light of the above, option one is recommended for implementation. While it streamlines the debate process, it ensures that each member of Council has a fair and equal opportunity to present his or her views at meetings.

 The Management of Motions:

 Finally, it has been suggested that the debate process could be further streamlined with changes in the ways in which motions are managed. The following three options have been suggested:

 (1)that when a motion to defer or refer an item has been tabled, further speakers will only be entertained if they have amendments to the deferral or referral motion, otherwise a vote be taken immediately; and

 (2)that Members of Council submit their proposed motions (amendments to clauses in Committee Reports) to the City Clerk by noon in the day prior to Council to permit circulation of the motions in advance of the Council meeting.

 Option one and two are recommended for implementation. Option one reduces the likelihood of dedicating time at Council to debating items that are ultimately going to be referred to a Standing Committee or Community Council or deferred to a later Council meeting. Option two enables the City Clerk to circulate proposed amendments to Clauses to Councillors at the outset of Council meetings thus facilitating the agenda review process and reducing the speaking time requirements of members. This is compatible with the previous recommendation that speaking time be restricted to five minutes for members other than the Chair of the Committee responsible for a clause.

 The Management of Notices of Motion:

 At present, the Procedural By-law permits Notices of Motion to be tabled at any time prior to or during a Council meeting. Notices submitted five business days in advance of a Council meeting can appear on the Council agenda. Notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate. If no notice was given at a previous Council meeting, then a 2/3's vote of Members present is required to debate.

 Most parliamentary authorities require that notice be given for motions.

 A number of concerns have been raised with this process. Specifically, the logistics of managing motions without notice during meetings and the number of motions that must be voted on at the conclusion of each Council meeting has proven to be difficult. In addition, there is concern that major policy issues or other initiatives are being introduced through Notices of Motion and not subject to public consultation or proper staff review. When Notices of Motions are for staff reports, there is a delay in Council receiving reports as a result of current process. While there is a need for the process of managing Notices of Motion to be flexible enough to accommodate emergency situations and legal deadlines, tight definitions of these situations are required to avoid misuse. Finally, there is a concern that referring Notices of Motion to Committees is being used as a tactic to avoid issues.

 A number of options have been identified to address these issues. They are:

 (1)that, in general, all Notices of Motion must appear on the Council agenda;

 (2)that notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate by Council;

 (3)that a time limit be set during the first day of Council meetings for late Notices of Motion beyond which Notices of Motion will not be accepted. Council will only consider late Notices of Motion if it deals with emergency, legal and other deadline requirements.

 (4)that Notices of Motion be automatically referred by the Clerk to the appropriate Standing Committees or Community Councils, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee or Community Council, with emergencies, legal and other deadline requirements made the exception; and

 (5)that Notices of Motions requesting staff reports be submitted directly to Standing Committees or Community Councils as opposed to Council, with an appeal mechanism to Council.

 Options (1) to (5) are recommended for implementation.

 Options one and two ensure that sufficient notice is given to Members of Council and the public of any up-coming issues and allow sufficient time for public consultations and staff review prior to debate by Council.

 Option three will limit the number of motions received during Council meetings. It is unlikely to significantly reduce the number requiring a vote prior to the end of Council however.

 Options four and five resolve a number of issues and could streamline the political decision-making process and are recommended for implementation. They ensure that major policy directions receive appropriate review and analysis at both the staff and political levels. They also ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment on proposed directions at Committees or Community Council meetings. By the Clerk being directed to automatically refer motions that request staff to report directly to the appropriate Committee, the need to go to Council is eliminated and direction to staff is more timely. There is however a concern that this process could substantially increase the number of reports being requested from staff.

Finally, option four permits notices of motions that are time sensitive or that deal with emergency situations to go directly to Council. Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of the Chair, in consultation with the appropriate staff to determine issues that fall into these categories.

 Miscellaneous Procedural Issues:

 A number of proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law have been made that impact the political process at both the Council and Committee level. Some of these proposals enable the streamlining of the debate process, while others clarify or simplify normal Council practices. Issues addressed in this section of the report include the reopening and reconsidering of items, the definition of quorum at the committee level, the process through which items are held for discussion at Council and the use of prayer at Council meetings.

 Conduct of Business - Unprovided Cases:

 The current Procedural By-law provides that the rules and regulations contained in the By-law shall be observed in all proceedings of the Council and, where applicable, in the Committees thereof. Council referred to the Special Committee that section of the original draft by-law pertaining to the use of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for unprovided cases in the proceedings of Council. It has been suggested that the By-law be amended to provide that Bourinot, Beauschesne, Robert's or any other authority deemed appropriate be consulted in such circumstances.

 Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms set out the principles of English parliamentary law in the context of the Canadian Parliament. These authorities date back to 1916 and 1922 respectively and have been updated from time to time. Robert's Rules of Order is an American text dating back to 1876 and updated through the years to provide a reference manual of parliamentary procedures applicable within a club, organization, business or government structure. The current Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario date back to 1989 and provide for the conduct of business in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in its Committees. In recent years, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Robert's Rules of Order have often been referred to by municipalities in unprovided cases. It is recommended that the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be referred to in unprovided cases in the proceedings of Council or its Committees because these provisions are familiar and accessible to councillors, staff and the public; better reflect Canadian Parliamentary Procedures than Robert's Rules and are more up to date than Bourinot or Beauschesne.

 The Re-opening and Re-considering of Items:

 The current Procedural By-law permits the re-opening of an item at Council with a simple majority, if notice is given at the previous meeting of Council, and if the motion to re-open is moved by a Member of Council who voted on the prevailing side. Section 28 of the By-law requires that two thirds vote of Members present is required if that re-opening is proposed without prior notice. Standing Committees are not permitted to debate any issue that has already been decided on by Council unless Council has re-opened the matter.

 Traditionally, a matter is re-opened or re-considered if it is revisited within a twelve month period. After this period, a re-consideration of an issue is considered to be a new item.

 The Provincial Legislature does not permit the re-opening of an item in the same sitting. In Roberts Rules, support from 2/3 of the Members of the Legislative Assembly is required to re-open or re-consider an item after the first sitting.

 Given the current size of City Council, it has become relatively easy to re-open an issue. As a result, a number of significant items have been debated and decided at one Council meeting only to be re-opened and re-debated at the next, or even later in the same meeting when the vote may be seen to have shifted. Given the size of Council=s agenda, this has significantly prolonged Council meetings and the City=s decision making process.

 A number of options have been proposed to address this concern. They are:

 (1)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in the twelve months following the date of the original decision, unless supported by two-thirds of Members present;

 (2)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in eighteen months unless supported by two thirds of Members present;

 (3)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible during the term of Council unless supported by two-thirds of Members present; and

 (4)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be permitted during the meeting in which the item was originally debated, unless two-thirds of Members present vote in favour of the re-opening.

 It is recommended that options one and four be implemented and reflected in the Procedural By-law. This is consistent with that followed by the Province of Ontario and reflected in various Parliamentary Authorities.

 Holding Items for Debate at Council:

 At present, the Order Paper for Council includes reviewing all committee reports listed on the Council agenda to determine which are to be held for debate or amendment. The size of the Council and the volume of issues under its purview as a single tier government have resulted in this process consuming substantial time at the beginning of Council meetings.

 It has been proposed that the Procedural By-law be amended to require that members submit to the Clerk, in writing, a list of those items that they wish to be held. The deadline for submissions could be noon on the day prior to Council. Requests could be date and time stamped to facilitate identification of the first speaker. A list of all held items could then be circulated at the outset of all Council meetings and Members could amend the list at the start of each meeting. Items not on the list would be deemed to be adopted.

 To facilitate debate and to give priority to discussion of major issues at Council, it is also proposed that the Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, prepare and submit to Council at the beginning of each meeting a list of key items which should receive priority for debate at Council.

 These proposals are recommended for implementation. While Councillors could amend the list of held items at the start of each meeting, the need to review by calling out the entire agenda would be eliminated.

 Other Business on the Council Agenda:

 At present, the clause appearing at the end of Committee reports is an information item called AOther Items Considered by the Committee@. This item summarizes other actions undertaken by Standing Committees and Community Councils, such as deferrals, referrals or receipt for information which do not require Council action.

 In light of lengthy Council agendas, it is recommended that this clause be deleted from reports submitted to Council and that the Clerk circulates monthly, in the form of a communication to all Members, these information items.

 The Use of Prayer at Council Meetings:

 At present, the second item on the Council Order Paper, according to section 17.1 of the Procedural By-law, is a Moment of Silence for Members of Council to reflect as each individual sees appropriate. It has been proposed that this item be replaced with the Lord's Prayer or another appropriate prayer.

 In considering this issue, the following four options were identified:

 (1)that a Moment of Silence remain as part of the Order Paper and that it be renamed a AMoment of Silence and Personal Reflection@;

 (2)that a moment of personal reflection replace the Moment of Silence;

 (3)that a personal prayer, which would also be silent, replace the moment of silence; or

 (4)that the Lord=s prayer or an acceptable alternative prayer replace the Moment of Silence.

 After reviewing these options, it is recommended that a Moment of Silence and Personal Reflection is more inclusive and better reflects the diversity of Council and the community at large. As a result, it is recommended the Order Paper be revised to reflect this.

 Quorum:

 In the Interim Procedural By-law, the Mayor is an ex-officio member of all Committees and Task Forces of Councils. As such, he has voting rights and is included in the calculation of quorum. The demands on the Mayor=s time and the simultaneous timing of many of meetings makes his attendance difficult. Nevertheless, in a number of instances, achieving a quorum without the Mayor has proven problematic. In some cases, meetings have proceeded informally without quorum.

 To address this issue and to realistically reflect the availability of the Mayor, it is recommended that the quorum for all Council Committees and Task Forces exclude the Mayor from the quorum calculation. He would continue to be an ex-officio member and would retain his voting rights however.

 It is also recommended that the Procedural by-law be amended to require that if no quorum is present in any Committee or Task Force, that the meeting stand adjourned and not continue on an informal basis and that all business be deferred to the next meeting of that Committee or Task Force or at the call of the chair. This is necessary to ensure that the actions and recommendations arising from these formally constituted bodies reflect the interests of the majority of its Members.

 Public Access to the Political Process:

 According to existing Council/Committee procedures, public participation and questions of elected officials is accommodated at the Standing Committees and Community Council level. Council=s role is focussed on making decisions on recommendations coming forward from these committees and Community Councils.

 It has been proposed that the Order Paper for Council be revised to replace the AEnquires and Answers@ section with a AQuestion Period@ for citizens. The intent of this proposed amendment is to provide the public with opportunities to pose questions to the Mayor or Members of Council.

 A number of options exist for improving public access to elected officials. They are:

 (1)that Standing Committees and Community Councils continue to be the primary vehicles through which the public can formally access elected representatives but that other options for questioning Councillors and the Mayor be investigated;

 (2)that a sixty-minute period of time be set aside on the Council agenda for members of the public who have registered their name and question with the Clerk in advance to ask a question of Members of Council; and

 (3)that a question period be set aside for the public in the day prior to Council meetings.

 In option one, staff of the Corporate Communications function in the Clerk=s Division could be asked to research various opportunities through which the public could access elected officials. These opportunities could include cable television, radio, public meetings and other vehicles. The role of the Standing Committees and Community Councils in hearing from the public would be unchanged.

 In option (2), one question only would be permitted. Clarification as to who would respond would be required. This approach could further lengthens Council meetings and reduce the public=s interest in Standing Committee and Community Council consultation processes.

 Logistically, option three would be difficult to implement. The demands on the time of Members of Council and the diversity of meetings in which these Councillors are required to participate may make the scheduling of such sessions difficult.

 It is recommended that option one be implemented and that the City Clerk be asked to investigate other less formal vehicles through which members of the public can improve access to elected representatives.

 Use of Hansard:

 Hansard is the official, complete report of proceedings in a parliament or legislature. Traditionally, it is substantially a verbatim report of proceedings, with repetitions, redundancies and obvious mistakes omitted. Rules and practices governing Hansard are generally tailored to the body employing this model.

 In order to improve public access and understanding of the City=s decision making process, it has been proposed that consideration be given to implementing a Hansard Model in which actual Council debate as well as decisions are recorded and made available through a variety of sources to the public.

 At present, members of the public have access to the political process in a variety of ways. They can contact individual councillors, attend or depute to Community Councils and Standing Committees and observe Council meetings. While there is no verbatim recording of Council discussions, the present system provides the public with access to Council and Committee agendas, reports and decisions.

 Both the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Ontario use Hansard systems.

 In Winnipeg, which has a council of sixteen including the Mayor, a separate Hansard branch exists within the City Clerk=s Department. This branch records, transcribes and distributes all Winnipeg Council debates and decisions. The public can access the City=s Hansard by subscription or at the central Clerk=s office, Community Committee Offices and public libraries. The City=s rationale for instituting Hansard is that the public has a right to know both the decisions that were made by Council and the way in which those decisions were made.

 The gross annual cost of Winnipeg=s Hansard is $85,000.00 per annum, of which the majority of expenditures ($64.0 thousand) is staff. Some revenues are generated through subscriptions. Given the size of Toronto Council, the projected number of meetings hours and the distribution demands of the larger urban area, costs in the City of Toronto are likely to be significantly higher.

 In the Province of Ontario, the Hansard functions as a branch of the Office of the Assembly and reports to the Clerk of the House. Debates in the House and all committees are recorded using digital audio software. Speakers are identified on the recording by an audio operator and interjections are noted by shorthand writers. In its final stage of development, the Hansard is reformatted through desktop publishing and printed commercially. The total cost of the program, including salaries and equipment is $3.0 million. This includes the cost of providing services to committee meetings.

 In general, the benefits of a Hansard system are that the public is made aware of the rationale behind Council decisions, it is consistent with the concept of open government. It also provides staff with a context within which to positions future reports and actions. On the negative side, the model requires additional resources dedicated to the editing and production of the Hansard and for the purchase of equipment.

 Should Council elect to pursue a Hansard model, additional research is required into the staff, technical, financial, reproduction and distribution requirements. An assessment of Hansard objectives is also needed, for example a verbatim transcription, that is unedited, of Council meeting can only be accomplished within the complexities of the current procedural system.

 Conclusions:

 This report recommends a number of administrative changes to the Procedural By-law and proposes a number of amendments intended to streamline or refine political processes. Recommendations are based on comments from Members of Council, obtained at the inaugural meeting of Council and through individual interviews and a questionnaire circulated by Chair of the Special Committee. Further refinements to the By-law related to governance and membership issues will be submitted for Council consideration later in 1998, following the development of recommendations by the Special Committee in these areas.

 Contact Names:

 Elaine Baxter-Trahair - (416) 392-8668

 Mary Ellen Bench - (416) 392-7245

 Appendix 1

Summary of Recommended Changes to the Procedural By-law

(Note - Changes proposed by the Special Committee are italicized.)

 Administrative Changes:

 (1)In subsection (h) replace "Corporation of the City of Toronto" with "City of Toronto".

 (2)In subsection 1(m)(ii) add "save and except the ex-officio powers of the Mayor as a Member of a Community Council".

 (3)Delete subsections 1(m)(iii) and (iv) respecting Second and Third Deputy Mayor, subject to them being reinserted at a future date if Council chooses to appoint members to these positions.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (3) was referred back to the City Clerk and the City Solicitor with a request for a further report to the Special Committee.)

 (4)Amend subsection 3(2)(b) respecting the inaugural meeting of Council to permit Community Councils to meet in their usual meeting places to elect their Chair to facilitate community access to proceedings.

 (5)Amend subsection 5(1) respecting emergency meetings to clarify that 24 hours notification before the meeting be in writing and can include electronic mail.

 (6)Respecting the preparation of agendas for special meetings of Council, amend subsection 5(3) to clarify that it is the responsibility of the Clerk to direct development of the agenda for these meetings, in consultation with the Mayor.

 (7)Amend the definition of quorum for Council meetings in section 8 to clarify that quorum requires a majority of Members sitting in their assigned seats.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (7) was amended to require the Chair to ensure that a quorum is present at Council and Committee meetings when a vote is taken;

 (8)Respecting In-Camera meetings, rather than reference the Municipal Act, amend section 10 to set out the situations when a member can move a motion that Council meet in camera as set out in section 55 of the Municipal Act. This would allow members to determine when meetings may be held in camera by referencing the Procedural By-law and would eliminate the need to then reference the Municipal Act.

 (9)Amend section 11 respecting Council adjournments to add a new subsection providing that when Council meets on a Friday, it shall adjourn prior to sundown.

 (10)Subsection 15(a)(i) provides that Members of Council shall not speak disrespectfully of a diversity of parties, including City officials and, it has been recommended that "officials" be replaced by the broader term "employees".

(11)In subsection 25(7) respecting questions that are substantially similar in form and content to questions already asked, for clarity replace the words "substantially similar" with "substantially the same".

 (12)In section 38, simplify the language by deleting "The following are deemed to be procedural motions and shall be subject to debate, as follows:" and replace it with "The following are deemed to be procedural motions and shall be subject to consideration in the following order:".

 (13)Amend subsection 60(1) to provide that the Clerk will prepare and circulate a Bills index with the Council Agenda rather than the actual bills to reduce the amount of paper to Councillors, with copies of the bills available in the Clerk=s Office or in the Council Chamber during meetings for review.

 The Use of Speaker:

 (14)That the status quo, in which the Mayor is chair of Council but vacates the chair when speaking or moving a Motion, be maintained.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (14) was referred back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for report thereon to the Special Committee.)

 Conduct at Council Meetings:

 (15)That the status quo, in which a detailed definition of Aunparliamentary language@ is excluded from the Procedural By-law, be maintained and that it be the role of the Chair to determine language which offends the Council.

 (16)That portion of section 16 of the Procedural By-law, which defines those parties to whom Councillors cannot speak disrespectfully, remain unchanged.

(17)That subsection 16(b) of the By-law, which clarified those behaviours considered disruptive to the proceedings of Council, remain unchanged.

 Refining the Questioning Process:

 (18)That a briefing on key issues be held by staff prior to Council meetings and that questioning at Council pertain only to clarifying new information submitted at Council or clarification of Motions.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (18) was struck out.)

 Refining the Speaking Process:

 (19)That the Committee Chair responsible for an item be the first speaker, with a single extension in speaking time if supported by a majority vote of Council and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes, with no extensions unless supported unanimously by Council.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (19) was amended to read as follows:

 (a)that the first speaker be the Councillor who held the Clause, with a single extension in speaking time if supported by a majority vote of Council, and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes, with no extension unless supported by a majority of Council;

 (b)that the second speaker be the Chair of the Standing Committee, Community Council, Special Purpose Body, Sub-Committee, Special Committee or Task Force to which the clause applies;

 (c)that all questions of staff be taken before the beginning of the debate of any item; and

 (d)that only the Chair, or in his absence, the Councillor chairing the meetings be permitted to call staff to the floor for questioning later during the debate if necessary.@;@)

 The Management of Motions:

 (20)That when a motion to defer or refer an item has been tabled, further speakers be entertained only if they have amendments to the deferral or referral Motion, otherwise a vote be taken immediately.

 (21)That Members of Council submit their proposed motions (amendments to clauses in Committee Reports) to the City Clerk by noon of the day prior to Council to permit circulation of motions in advance of Council meetings.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (21) was struck out.)

 The Management of Notices of Motion:

 (22)That, in general, all Notices of Motion must appear on the Council agenda.

 (23)That notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate by Council.

 (24)That a time limit be set during the first day of Council beyond which late Notices of Motion will not be accepted and that Council only consider late Notices of Motion if they deal with emergency, legal and other deadline requirements.

 (25)That Notices of Motion be automatically referred by the Clerk to the appropriate Standing Committee or Community Council, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee or Community Council, with exceptions made for emergencies, legal and other deadline requirements.

 (26)That Notices of Motions requesting staff reports be submitted directly to Standing Committees or Community Councils as opposed to Council, with an appeal mechanism to Council.

 (The foregoing Section was amended by adding thereto the following new recommendation:

 "that Members of Council submit their notices of motion to the City Clerk who shall to ensure that such motions conform to the rules of Council.)

 Conduct of Business - Unprovided Cases:

 (27)That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be referred to in unprovided cases in the proceedings of Council or its Committees.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (27) was referred back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for further report thereon to the Special Committee.)

 The Reopening and Reconsidering of Items:

 (28)That reopenings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in the twelve months following the date of the original decision, unless supported by two thirds of the Members present.

 (29)That reopenings intended to change a Council decision not be permitted during the meeting in which the item was originally debated, unless two thirds of the Members present vote in favour of the reopening.

 Holding Items for Debate at Council:

 (30)That members submit to the Clerk, in writing by noon of the day prior to Council, a list of those items that they wish to be held.

 (The foregoing Recommendation No. (30) was amended:

 (1) to read as follows:

 "(30)that Members submit to the Clerk, in writing by 4:30 p.m. of the day prior to Council, a list of those items that they wish to be held;"; and

 (2)By adding thereto the following:

 "that Members of Council who hold items at the beginning of Council meetings be required to discuss those items with the relevant staff prior to the lunch break; and that the Chair canvass Council immediately after the lunch break to determine which items Members wish to release";)

 (31)That the Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, prepare and submit to Council at the beginning of each meeting a list of key items which should receive priority for debate;

 Other Items on the Council Agenda:

 (32)That the AOther Items@ clause be deleted from reports submitted to Council and that the Clerk circulate monthly, in the form of a communication to all Members, these information items.

 (The Foregoing Recommendation No. (32) was struck out.)

 The Use of Prayer at Council Meetings:

 (33)That the Council Order Paper be revised to incorporate AA Moment of Silence and Personal Reflection@.

 Quorum:

 (34)That the quorum for all Council Committees and Task Forces exclude the Mayor from the quorum calculation.

 (35)That if no quorum is present in any Committee or Task Force, that the meeting stand adjourned and not continue on an informal basis, and that all business be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee or Task Force.

 Public Access to the Political Process:

 (36)That Standing Committees and Community Councils continue to be the primary vehicles through which the public can formally access elected representatives but that other options for questioning Councillors and the Mayor be investigated by the City Clerk.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (April 20, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert, Scarborough-Highland Creek:

 This is in response to your memo of April 9, 1998, in which you requested opinion from Members of Council regarding proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law of Council. Rules of Procedure are not simple, nor are they mutually exclusive but inter-related, and in some cases, complex in relationship, and developed over a time of a Council. The new Toronto Council does not have the luxury of time, and unless some issues are resolved soon, the business of Council will grind slowly to a halt.

 I have chosen to answer each question within the category posed as succinctly as possible, acknowledging each is open to debate.

 (1)Use of a Speaker:

 We should first establish if the Toronto Act or the new Municipal Act allows for such a position. If not, then Council should immediately apply for a Legislative amendment, if Council concurs:

 (a)I support the principle behind such a proposal, but probably should not be a ASpeaker@ as this implies a parliamentary form of government, and municipal government is congressional in nature and form. The position should be a APresident@ of Council, or alternatively, a AChairman@ of Council, elected by majority vote of Council.

 (b)Chair should not be required to vote except in case of a tie vote.

 (c)Must leave chair to participate in debate, move motion(s), etc.

 (2)Questioning and Speaking by Members of Council:

 Prohibitions of ways and manners of speaking are valid with rules to maintain decorum of Council. Definition of Aunparliamentary@ language is required, and should include a prohibition of the word Aliar@, for use of that word will always start debate to degenerate. As well, the attribution of Amotive@ should be prohibited for the same reason.

 (a)Keep speaking limit to five minutes at all times - Member of Council can always request time extension with 2/3 vote, but this should be a mandatory recorded vote (with time stop). This speaking time should be displayed on a Acountdown@ clock.

 (b)Would support limits to questioning of staff. Idea of questioning only at beginning of debate worthy of investigation and support.

 (c)Staff briefings could be a waste of time as the dynamic of questioning of staff is valid only at Council meeting, certainly in the eyes of most Members of Council. There is always the need to question or clarify a motion, especially when most are not written out and are made off the top of one=s head.

 (d)The immediate vote on a motion to refer or defer has some merit, but could also be used as a tactic to divert or delay a debate. Also such a motion opens up a whole new debate as to defer with instruction, etc.

 (e)One way to improve the placing of motions is to insist they be in writing, which forces a Member to think through what they really want to propose or move.

 (f)The accumulation of amendments to the end of debate adds only to confusion and duplication (or arguments of duplication). There should be a limit of up to six amendments, at which a vote must be taken to clear the table. The further amendments treated in like manner. The issue of voting for up to 25 amendments on a motion or topic is not good government.

 (3)Reopenings:

 All reopenings should require 2/3 vote in all circumstances.

 (4)Notices of Motion:

 First and foremost all Notices of Motion falling under the jurisdiction of Committees or Community Councils should be automatically referred to the Committee or Community Council with only exception being that of Emergency or Legal deadline (this should also be defined).

 All Motions and Notices of Motion must be limited to a deadline. Do some Members of Council only think or read their agenda when they come to Council?

 (5)Public Access:

 Standing Committees indeed do provide the opportunity to question actions of the Mayor or Members of Council if the person making the deputation understands how to place rhetorical questions (or even direct questions). There is no provision in the rules of any legislative body to allow direct questioning by a member of the public - just reflect on the consequences and/or opportunity for complete disruption of the work of that body.

 I believe we could develop better information to advise the public on how to access the Council Members through committee, petition, etc.

 Hansard is a nice idea, but from experience I can tell you we would be looking at a multi-million dollar operation. The costs of direct transcription of debates in only the beginning, because there is always pressures to speed up delivery time and accessibility.

 (6)Order of Business/Moment of Silence:

 I firmly believe, that as a Council we should have an opening, non-denominational Invocation, which should serve to assist us, as Members of Council, to focus resolve on the task before us at each meeting of Council. I previously forwarded a draft of why my former municipality of Scarborough did before Council.

 (7)Schedule of Council Meetings:

 The existing four week rotation of Council wastes one week in four, as well as not accommodating the ability of Council to respond in a timely manner to issues. A simple referral puts off an issue for up to eight weeks. Most Committee meetings, Community Council meetings, and Special Task Force meetings could be accompanied by a three week rotation. The down side is that the Clerk=s operation will require reorganization and personnel to deal with the added time pressures to supply committee co-ordinators, agendas and minutes.

 Please accept by apologies for not being able to be present at your Committee=s meeting of Friday, April 24, 1998, but I am scheduled to be at the FCM Big City Mayors= meeting at that time. If you have any specific question on any of the above responses, please do not hesitate to call my office at 392-4007.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (April 21, 1998) from Councillor Bruce Sinclair, Rexdale-Thistletown:

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)Section 17.1 of the Council Procedural By-law be amended to delete the moment of silence and replace with an invocation, and to include a section instructing the City Clerk to contact religious leaders from the various major faiths to officiate at each meeting of City Council on a rotating basis; and

 (2)Religious leaders from major faiths be invited each year on a rotating basis to Toronto City Council to give a brief invocation at the beginning of each meeting.

 Discussion:

 During its consideration of the Council Procedural By-law, I would like the Special Committee to give consideration to the issue of the inclusion of a religious portion at meetings of City Council not limited to the Christian faith but inclusive of all religions.

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

 (a)(March 5, 1998) from Mr. Mark Stanisz, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Special Committee respecting the creation of a Toronto Hansard Service; and requesting the Special Committee to direct staff to report to the Special Committee summarizing the cost and timeline of setting up a Toronto Hansard Service, the ability to pay for bills and registrations online and setting up a live viewcam for Council meetings.

 (b)(April 14, 1998) from Ms. Liz Rykert, respecting the development of a Hansard Service for City Council; and recommending that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

 (1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Municipal Hansard Service for the City of Toronto; and

 (2)strike a working group of staff and interested citizens to develop the plan to implement the service and identify costs and operational implications.

 (c)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. Lumia-Alexander Heyno, requesting the inclusion of the Lord=s Prayer at Toronto City Council meetings.

 (d)(April 21, 1998) from Ms. Bobbi Speck, Eyes on Council Committee, Citizens for Local Democracy, advising that the Eyes on Council Committee of the Citizens for Local Democracy in their attempt to monitor meetings of Council and its committees have encountered two major difficulties; and requesting the Special Committee to include the following two items in their recommendations to Council respecting the Council Procedural By-law:

 (1)that Committee Members be given the right to request recorded votes at the committee level; and

 (2)that the Chair of Committee meetings be requested to make it clear to everyone what is under consideration and what the votes are for so that citizens in the audience are able to understand and following the meetings.

 (e)(April 18, 1998) from Ms. Sally Gibson respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system;

 (f)(April 22, 1998) from Ms. Tara Dier respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system; and

 (g)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. Roger Greenwald requesting that the Special Committee give careful consideration to establishing a Municipal Hansard system.

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

 -Mr. Mark Stanisz;

-Ms. Liz Rykert; and

-Ms. Lumia Alexander Heyno; and filed a written submission in regard thereto.

 (A copy of the Procedural By-law with the proposed amendments by Members of Council, referred to in the foregoing joint report from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)