Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer with the exception of Recommendations Nos. (4), (5), (7), (11) and (16); and subject to:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (8) to provide that Parks and Recreation report to Council through the Economic Development Committee; and

(2)striking out Recommendations Nos. (13), (14) and (15); and the Board of Health continue to report directly to Council.

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

(1)referred Recommendations Nos. (4), (5), (7) and (11) and the role and composition of the Policy and Finance Committee, to the Office of the Mayor and Councillor David Miller, Chair of the Special Committee, for further discussion and report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998;

(2)requested the City Clerk to report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998:

(i)in consultation with the City Solicitor, respecting Recommendation No. (16) embodied in the report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, on a mechanism to manage Council's agenda, such report to include comments on the Deputy Mayor meeting with the Chairs of Committees prior to Council to prepare a priority list for the Council agenda; and

(ii)in consultation with the Mayor, on:

(a)committees being required to identify those items that have a high priority;

(b)Members of Council being required to give prior notice with respect to special time slots for items being considered; and

(c) any other issues of concern with respect to the management of Council's agenda; and

(3)referred the following motions to the Office of the Mayor and Councillor David Miller for inclusion in their deliberations:

Moved by Councillor Moeser:

"That Standing Committee members and the Chair of Standing Committees be selected on a yearly basis."

Moved by Councillor Feldman:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Moeser be amended to provide that the Chair of a Standing Committee, if he/she has the confidence of the Committee, be elected to a second term."

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

(a)outline the results of a review of the current interim Council-Committee structure;

(b)highlight issues with the interim structure; and

(c)recommend revisions to the structure in response to the issues.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the principles set out in the section of this report entitled "Guiding Principles" be adopted as the means to guide the performance of the Council-Committee structure;

(2)effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated in figure 5 in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control", be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee;

(3)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April 1999, fleshing out the budget setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial control protocols, including:

(i)the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the annual budget process;

(ii)the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting budgets for the whole range of City programs;

(iii)the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting process; and

(iv)guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas within standing committees' portfolios;

(4)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on the concept of a time-limited Budget Advisory Committee as described in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control";

(5)the proposed Policy and Finance Committee be chaired by the Mayor;

(6)the chairs of all standing committees and community councils, other than the Policy and Finance Committee and the Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the members of the respective standing committees and community councils;

(7)appointments to standing committees and community councils continue to be made for each half-term of Council and, with the exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair the same standing committee or community council in consecutive half-terms of the same Council;

(8)the committee structure described in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee Portfolios" be adopted for implementation effective June 1, 1999;

(9)the Commissioners review all pre-existing advisory committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant standing committees, setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect to their continuation;

(10)with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex-officio member of all committees of Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit committees) shown in Figure6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee Portfolios";

(11)the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council, and the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the Appointments Committee;

(12)the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions report through the proposed Policy and Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the standing committee with responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters;

(13)Council request the Provincial Government to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997(No. 2) to confer upon Toronto City Council the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health;

(14)when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of Health, public health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council, and Council establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have meaningful input to the development of public health policy;

(15)until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health, the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council;

(16)the Mayor may assign to the Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting Agenda, as described in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Manage Council's Agenda", and the City Clerk and City Solicitor be requested to report further on how this recommendation can be implemented;

(17)the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give effect to the changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a schedule of Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the Procedural by-law for Council approval;

(18)the Council-committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18 months following the implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every three to five years; and

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

Council Reference:

At the inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council adopted an amended version of the committee structure recommended by the Toronto Transition Team. Council established the structure on an interim basis and requested the Special Committee to review and comment on the interim structure as part of its mandate.

Review Process:

Interviews were conducted during August and September with approximately one-third of the Members of Council including the chairs of the standing committees, all but one of the Community Council chairs and a sample of other Members of Council. Staff who provide secretariat support to Council and its committees, the Commissioners and a sample of senior management staff were also interviewed.

On October 16, 1998, the Special Committee reviewed a staff discussion paper that summarized the results of the interviews. The discussion paper highlighted issues with the interim structure and outlined a framework for developing options to resolve the issues. Following the Special Committee s deliberations, the discussion paper and a questionnaire seeking feedback on guiding principles and options for changing the Council-Committee structure were sent to all Members of Council and a selection of senior staff on October 22, 1998. Seventeen Members of Council and the Commissioners responded to the questionnaire.

The recommendations contained in this report are based on input gathered through the interviews and questionnaire responses. The Commissioners and City Clerk have been consulted throughout the review process.

Discussion:

Toronto's Interim Committee Structure:

The basic Council-committee structure is illustrated in figure 1.

The structure consists of 17committees. It includes 6 geographically focused community councils, six policy oriented standing committees and a Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. These 13committees make recommendations directly to City Council. A Budget Committee makes recommendations to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. Initially, an Audit Committee reported to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. In July, Council decided that the Audit Committee should report directly to Council. A Striking Committee and a Nominating Committee make recommendations directly to Council on the appointment of councillors and citizens respectively to various bodies.

At the January 1998 meeting, Council created a further nine special committees and task forces and adopted a motion to have the Board of Health report directly to City Council. Since January, Council has established numerous additional committees and task forces.

Assessment of Toronto s Interim Committee Structure:

Generally, the structure is working and Council business is being done, but there are some clear stresses and strains in the political decision-making system. As illustrated in Figure 2, the source of these pressures is the combined impact of the existing structure of committees and task forces and the existing legislative process:

(a)Structural Issues:

The number of committees and task forces presents some logistical challenges. A review of the bodies to which the Striking Committee recommends appointments reveals that the basic Council-Committee structure consists of at least 49 standing committees, special committees, sub-committees of standing committees and task forces that report to Council either directly or through standing committees. These 49 committees and task forces constitute the political decision-making structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. This number does not include the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions such as the Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Police Services Board or Boards of Governors of Exhibition Place and the Zoo. Nor does it include the myriad community based organizations on whose boards of directors Members of Council sit. As of August 1998, the Striking Committee had recommended appointments of Members of Council to at least 225 bodies.

The 49 committees and task forces noted above constitute the political decision-making structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. They are listed in Appendix1.

A direct consequence of the sheer number of committees is the difficulty in scheduling meetings. This has lead to scheduling conflicts forcing Members of Council to choose between attending a standing committee meeting or a meeting of a task force or ABC. The scheduling problems are reflected in the difficulty many committees experience in maintaining quorum. The combination of scheduling and quorum problems means that, on occasion, meetings must be cancelled, delayed or wrapped up before the agenda is complete. When this happens, the committee s business is deferred and begins to pile up.

The heavy schedule of committee and task force meetings can take a personal toll, too. The demands on Councillors' time may be excessive. There are huge blocks of time when Councillors are committed in committees, community councils and task forces. Some feel they are being "scheduled to death." However, time management may be more of an issue for some Councillors than for others. Several Members of Council suggested during the interviews that they were too ambitious in regard to the number of committees and outside organizations in which they enlisted. They are reviewing their commitments. Nevertheless there is a concern that the Council and committee workload is eating into the time available for constituency work.

(b)Co-ordination Issues:

The number and scope of committees and task forces have a bearing on how Council makes decisions. The range of committees and task forces has produced a very fragmented approach to dealing with Council s business. In part, this has to do with the way in which many of the task forces were established. In several cases, working groups or task forces were established through a motion on the floor of Council without consideration of how the work of the task force would relate to mandates and priorities of standing committees.

In addition, the number of committees and task forces increases the possibility that the same issue will be dealt with by more than one committee. For example, overlaps were identified between the Environmental Task Force, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee and between the Task Force on Community Safety and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. The role of the World Cities Committee was called into question by the creation of the Economic Development Committee.

The greatest concern about duplication and overlapping mandates relates to the respective roles of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee. Much of the concern over the respective roles of the Strategic Policies and Priorities, Corporate Services and Budget Committees focused on the absence of an executive committee in the City's political decision-making structure. The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee does not perform an executive committee function and will not as long as typical executive committee resource control functions are split between it and the Corporate Services Committee. Some Members of Council felt that this diffusion of executive responsibilities, coupled with an underwhelming performance by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee to date, had caused the Budget Committee to expand its mandate beyond that set out in the Procedural By-law to attempt to become a broader financial priorities committee.

The net result of a fragmented approach to committee work and the existence of duplication and overlapping mandates is insufficient co-ordination of Council business. When matters arrive on the Council agenda in an uncoordinated fashion and without the context of an overall set of strategic policy or financial priorities, Council s decision-making suffers.

(c)Procedural Issues:

Council and its committees function within a framework of rules and procedures that constitute the legislative process. The legislative process is a significant part of the overall governance structure. The way the legislative process interacts with the committee structure affects the quality of Council s debates and decisions.

The legislative cycle is very crowded. It is organized to stream the deliberations of all standing committees and community councils into a single meeting of City Council each month. Where an issue must go to more than one committee, most commonly financial matters that may go to a standing committee, Budget Committee and then Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on their way to Council, the lead times are considered too short. This situation is exacerbated when one committee requests an additional report to accompany a staff report to the next step in the decision-making sequence. It places extraordinary pressure on staff. Conversely, in some instances, the time taken from the preparation of a report to a Council decision is considered too long.

A problem inherent in the current legislative cycle is the number of last minute reports that are added to committee and Council agendas. Often this is a direct consequence of the schedule and sequence of meetings. Some people have suggested that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee is limited in its capacity to review matters thoroughly because it meets so soon after the committees that feed issues to it, such as the Budget Committee.

Last minute reports, in combination with the sheer volume of reports, leaves Members of Council with insufficient time to read their agendas. This problem is made worse by the "layering" of information as a report progresses from staff to committees to Council.

When Members of Council do not have the time to read their agendas they risk debating matters without the benefit of much of the background information. When Members of Council are insufficiently briefed or are ill-informed, the quality of debate suffers and the quality of the decisions made by Council can suffer.

The current legislative cycle which has Council meeting once a month to debate reports from all community councils and standing committees, which meet on the same monthly cycle yields unwieldy and potentially unmanageable Council agendas. Large Council agendas create long and, from some Members' perspectives, unfocused and unbalanced Council meetings. The length of Council meetings is not solely the result of the size of the agenda. Debate over procedure has proved to be very time-consuming, too. Council routinely votes to waive some of the procedures in place to streamline and improve Council debates.

The pattern at long Council meetings has been to devote a lot of time to the debate of a few items at the beginning of the agenda. Too little or no debate is devoted to many items that are approved at the last minute towards the end of a Council meeting when Members are exhausted and the quorum is at risk. When this occurs the quality of Council's decision-making can suffer.

(d)Impact of Structural Issues on Citizen Participation:

The above-noted comments about the governance structure focus on its impact on internal players, that, is Members of Council and the administration. These seemingly internal issues also impact on citizens at large.

The Council-committee structure and legislative process provide an important means for citizens to participate in the governance of their city. Committees, community councils and task forces all have the potential to provide opportunities to participate in the debate of civic issues and the formulation of the municipal agenda. For the system to be accountable to the public, the decision-making process must be transparent, responsibilities need to be clearly assigned and procedures and timelines should be well defined. For example, recommendations adopted by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, to distinguish the roles of community councils and standing committees and to require the development of protocols that define what is a local versus a citywide matter are intended to make the decision-making process more understandable and therefore more accountable.

The current large number of committees and task forces and sometimes indistinct dividing lines between their mandates has diffused responsibility among a large number of bodies. Blurred or overlapping mandates are confusing and can confound accountability. If people are not sure who is dealing with an issue, it is more difficult for them to participate.

The issue of last minute reports and agendas and difficult to interpret documentation also impinges on the public's capacity and right to know and comprehend what their municipal government is up to.

Resolution of Governance Structure Issues:

The City of Toronto's political decision-making structure will be shaped over time by the demands placed upon it by its environment. That environment of expectations, needs, values and mandate form the context within which the City government functions through its organizational structures. It is important to understand this context in order to resolve the issues with the interim structure in a way that is relevant to its context.

(a)Some Basic Assumptions:

It is possible to make the following general assumptions about what is expected of City Council.

(1)The twin challenges facing City Council during its first and even second terms are:

(i)to build the new, single, integrated City of Toronto; and

(ii)to continue to provide municipal services efficiently and effectively.

(2)Meeting these challenges requires a Council-committee structure:

(i)with strong policy and co-ordinating capacity; and

(ii)that conducts the business of the municipal government efficiently and effectively within the municipality s financial means.

(3)The Council-Committee structure must provide Council with an efficient decision-making forum, with public input and access, to continue to build the new City. The structure is evolving over the first term of Council and, during the first two terms at minimum, should be considered a work in progress.

(4)The Council-Committee structure must enable Council to receive public input on issues in a timely fashion.

(5)The Council-Committee structure provides a forum for administrative staff to provide input and make recommendations to Council on all issues.

(b)Guiding Principles:

The above-noted assumptions help to indicate what the Council-Committee structure has to be capable of doing. It is also important to identify principles to guide how the Council-Committee structure should be capable of performing. The following ten guiding principles were developed based on input by Members of Council via their interview and questionnaire responses. It is recommended that these principles be adopted as the means to guide the performance of the Council-Committee structure.

(1)The Council-Committee structure should enable Council to set goals and priorities and to adhere to these.

(2)The Council-Committee structure should enable control of municipal expenditures.

(3)All committees of Council should add value to the political decision-making process.

(4)Every Member of Council should have an important role in the decision-making process.

(5)The Council workload should be shared as evenly as possible among Members of Council.

(6)The Council-Committee structure should be simple and understandable to the public.

(7)The Council-Committee structure should allow for meaningful opportunities for public input to Council s decision-making process.

(8)The Council-Committee structure should enable councillors to be held accountable for their decisions.

(9)The Council-Committee structure should enable councillors to spend time in their constituencies.

(10)Standing committees are where policies should be developed for recommendation to Council and where the implementation of policies should be monitored.

(c)Framework for Resolving Governance Structure Issues:

The interview and questionnaire responses revealed that there is not unanimity over the specific issues or their seriousness. A number of diametrically opposed points of view were expressed during the interviews. However, most of the input does lead to consistent conclusions that:

-the objective, or desired outcome of the Council-Committee structure and legislative process is well considered, timely, effective and accountable decision-making by Toronto City Council. Any changes to the structure should result in improved Council decision-making;

-certain structural and procedural conditions are necessary to achieve the desired outcome; and

-specific decisions must be made to create the required conditions.

These conclusions constitute a framework for looking at options to make changes to the governance structure. The framework is summarized in figure 3.

(d)A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control:

In order to achieve the desired outcome of improved Council decision-making, the political decision-making structure must be capable of managing the Council's agenda. This involves having the capacity to co-ordinate the issues that form the agenda.

An effective mechanism needs to be in place to set goals and priorities to guide debate and issue resolution throughout the political decision-making structure. The structure also needs to be capable of integrating key policy decisions and financial and budgetary priorities.

This type of integrating and priority setting mechanism performs a control function in municipal government and is often provided in the form of an executive committee. A key consideration, therefore, is whether and how to provide typical executive committee control functions in Toronto's political structure.

Feedback from Members of Council on this matter reveals two competing yet strongly held values that need to be reconciled. These are:

-a deep concern about vesting too much power and control in the hands of a small group of people; but, at the same time; and

-acknowledgement of a need to vest responsibility for corporate control functions such as the establishment of financial priorities, corporate strategic goals and corporate-wide policies to control the management of human resources, real estate and other assets in a dedicated committee of Council.

A critical issue for Council in the present review of the Council-committee structure lies in finding a way to reconcile these apparently competing values of corporate control and power decentralization.

Reluctance to vest control in the hands of a small group of people reflects opposition to an executive committee composed of the chairs of standing committees, which plays a role in vetting the recommendations emanating from other committees of Council. This type of executive committee is perceived to create two classes of councillors. On a large Council, the majority is excluded from membership of the executive committee. Their exclusion carries with it the risk that executive committee recommendations will be held down and opposed in full Council on principle. This would slow business down, would duplicate the deliberations of the executive at Council and would make it difficult for the executive to add significant value to the political decision-making process.

In Toronto's situation, because of the volume of business, it would be impractical to route all standing committee reports through an executive committee. Such a process would generate an enormous amount of paper and would likely create a serious bottleneck in the conduct of Council business. This type of situation is already evident in the practice of routing certain standing committee reports through the Budget and Strategic Policies and Priorities Committees and needs to be corrected, not reinforced.

One of the guiding principles outlined earlier in this report speaks to the need for the Council-Committee structure to be simple and understandable. A simple, understandable and, therefore, accountable structure is one in which each issue need go to just one committee. This suggests giving consideration to flattening the Council-committee structure.

A flatter Council-committee structure provides the means to reconcile competing expectations of corporate control and power decentralization. Within a flatter structure, it is possible to achieve both. At issue is the capacity for Council to make decisions on specific issues in full confidence that it has the necessary information to do so. Responsibilities would be divided between standing committees, each of which reports directly to Council. Each committee would play a role in providing information required by Council to make its decisions.

Responsibility for analyzing and recommending on program policy would remain vested in standing committees whose focus is on services to the public as is the practice now. The role of these standing committees will be to monitor the management of current programs and review service levels. They will propose modifications to service levels, bearing in mind strategic plan directions and fiscal parameters set by Council. Standing Committees will also develop policies to meet emerging issues and guide future program improvements, which will provide input to budget development in subsequent years.

Responsibility for recommending on corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental issues and corporate international activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating and capital estimates, tax policies and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included within approved allocations would be vested in a separate standing committee which would replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee.

Consideration was given to merging the responsibilities currently assigned to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Budget Committee and the Corporate Services Committee into a single Corporate Finance and Administration Committee. These responsibilities would include the financial and corporate priority setting role already described, the range of corporate administration responsibilities and review of intergovernmental and international activities.

During this term of Council, the Corporate Services Committee is dealing with the development of many administrative policies as part of the amalgamation process. There are also many amalgamation-related real estate items, the move to City Hall and impending labour contract negotiations. The City is playing a more active role in AMO and the FCM and is soon likely to become involved in the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board. Thus, intergovernmental affairs are requiring more careful and focused attention. Therefore, a single Finance and Corporate Administration Committee would have a large agenda. It would have to establish a number of specific sub-committees to handle its responsibilities. This is illustrated in figure 4.

The difficulty with this option is that it reintroduces some of the problems inherent in the current structure. It does not satisfy the simplicity and understandability principle. In addition, this option still relies on a hierarchy of committees reporting to another committee. It therefore runs the risk of recreating scheduling difficulties and bottlenecks.

A Corporate Finance and Administration Committee may be a viable option in the next term of Council once many of the administrative policy issues associated with amalgamation have been dealt with. As a stepping stone in that direction, for the second half of this term of Council it is concluded that a separate Corporate Administration committee is still required to deal with the amalgamation-driven issues and many day-to-day administrative items that need committee consideration and Council approval. Accordingly corporate-wide policies to control the management of human resources, real estate and other aspects of the corporate administration should continue to be recommended through a separate Corporate Administration Committee. A Policy and Finance Committee should be established to deal with corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental issues and corporate international activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating and capital estimates, tax policies and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included within approved allocations.

It is recommended that, effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated in figure 5 in this report, be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee.

This recommendation is a logical step in the evolution of the City s governance structure. In reality, because of the way it was defined by the Transition Team, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee never really functioned as an executive committee. The Transition Team itself was apparently confused since, in the same section of its report, it said that the SPPC was and was not an executive committee. In any event, the responsibilities that the Transition Team ascribed to the SPPC were so diluted and were countered by similar responsibilities vested in the Corporate Services Committee so as to make it impossible for the SPPC to function as an executive, resource control or leadership committee. In practice, the Budget Committee attempted to fill the void and assume the role of a vetting body even though it did not have the mandate to do so.

To be effective, the type of non-hierarchical committee structure being proposed in this report must be complemented by clear and rigorous financial control procedures. These are necessary to ensure that budgets are developed in a co-ordinated and consistent manner, allocations within budgets reflect Council s relative priorities and financial means, and allocations and, therefore, priorities are not undermined by ad hoc and piecemeal in-year changes. Financial control procedures are necessary, too, to hold staff accountable for the service levels that Council establishes through the budget process. Protocols will be needed to guide the instances when the proposed Policy and Finance Committee becomes involved in the review of in-year operation of programs within the purview of other standing committees.

As a general rule, the budget should be considered a service level contract. From the point when Council adopts the budget, staff will be held accountable for delivering on the budget contract and service levels contained therein. The budget setting process for the following year must be undertaken with all competing priorities on the table together. This approach should not leave room for ad hoc in-year changes.

An underlying expectation of the protocols will be that in-year change to the approved budget is an unusual event. An example might be the impact of a higher than anticipated welfare caseload. Such an instance would be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee through normal variance reporting mechanisms. The Policy and Finance Committee would review the impact of the matter and would make recommendations to Council regarding the adjustment of priorities to accommodate the increased expenditures required in the affected program area.

It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April 1999, fleshing out the budget setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial control protocols, including:

(i)the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the annual budget process;

(ii)the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting budgets for the whole range of City programs;

(iii)the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting process; and

(iv)guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas within standing committees portfolios.

Some Members of Council have suggested that a Budget Advisory Committee be established to assist the Policy and Finance Committee with the preparation of the annual Capital and Operating estimates. Such a group would be advisory to the Mayor and the Policy and Finance Committee and would exist only for the duration of the annual budget process. It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on this concept of a time-limited Budget Advisory Committee.

Responsibility for the establishment of strategic corporate goals and priorities, corporate financial priorities and the budget gives the Policy and Finance Committee a critical role in setting the parameters for the operation of the municipal corporation. It is appropriate that the Head of Council chair this committee. It is recommended that the Policy and Finance Committee be chaired by the Mayor. It is further recommended that the chairs of all standing committees and community councils, other than the Policy and Finance Committee and the Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the members of the respective standing committees and community councils.

One of the ways to ensure that disproportionate power is not concentrated in a small group of councillors is to limit the term of chair of a standing committee or community council to a half term of Council. It is recommended that appointments to standing committees and community councils continue to be made for each half-term of Council and that, with the exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair the same standing committee or community council in consecutive half-terms of the same Council.

The approach outlined in this section of the report is consistent with the proposed guiding principles in that it will enable Council to set goals and priorities and adhere to them. It will also enable control of municipal expenditures within the financial capacity of the City.

(e)Standing Committee Portfolios:

A further condition that must be met for Council decision-making to improve is that committees must play a constructive part in the decision-making process. As noted in the proposed guiding principles, committees must add value to decision-making. For this to happen there must be sufficient time in committees to debate the issues that are before them. This requires that there is a reasonable division of responsibilities among committees. There must also be sufficient time for the whole of Council to review and understand the committees actions.

In the interviews and the questionnaire, Members of Council were asked for their views about the standing committees clusters of responsibilities. Their responses suggest that there should not be a radical change in the number of standing committees at this time. Most respondents seem comfortable with between six and eight main standing committees, including the Policy and Finance Committee and Corporate Administration Committee already discussed, and in addition to the community councils.

A larger question arose about whether it is appropriate to recommend any changes at all to standing committee portfolios at this time. Council has yet to adopt its strategic plan and related policy sectoral plans. These plans could have implications for the way Council wants to focus standing committee responsibilities. Most of Council s task forces have not yet issued their final reports. Their recommendations, too, may have some implications for committees clusters of responsibilities. For these reasons, and because experience of the interim structure is still relatively short, some people have suggested that now is not the time to recommend major changes.

Nevertheless, based on the input received during this review of the Council-committee structure, it is appropriate to recommend some adjustments to committees portfolios. These are illustrated in Figure 6.

It should be noted that Figure 6 does not involve changes to the administrative structure or the departmental responsibilities of the commissioners. The recommended changes are to the political decision-making structure. The political and administrative structures do not and need not mirror one another.

It is recommended that the committee structure described in Figure 6 be adopted for implementation effective June 1, 1999.

The changes being recommended include:

-combining the Striking and Nominating Committees into a single Appointments Committee;

-regrouping the responsibilities of committees that focus on services to the public into clusters that look after urban and built form and its regulation, the economy and its development, physical infrastructure, and services that affect the social and physical well-being of people;

-eliminating the need for a separate Emergency and Protective Services Committee because its functions are deployed to other standing committees; and

-changing the names of standing committees to reflect their mandates more accurately.

This structure will replace existing standing committees and their sub-committees. The new standing committees will have to decide whether it is necessary to re-establish sub-committees. At present, numerous advisory committees exist. By and large, these advisory committees were inherited from the former municipalities. Their status and relationship to the formal departmental and standing committee structures needs to be reviewed and rationalized. It is recommended that the Commissioners review all pre-existing advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant standing committees, setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect to their continuation.

Consistent with the proposed guiding principles, every Member of Council should have an important role in the decision-making process and the Council workload should be shared between Members of Council. Therefore, it is recommended that, with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex-officio member of all committees of Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit committees) shown in figure 6.

At present, the Striking Committee is chaired by the Mayor and is composed of Members of Council appointed by the Mayor. Because of the political nature of many of the appointments that will be made by the proposed Appointments Committee, the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor should chair this committee. The Mayor, as the head of Council, should have the authority to recommend to Council the membership of the Appointments Committee. It is recommended that the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council and the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the Appointments Committee.

(f)Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

In order to clarify and simplify the Council-committee structure, the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions are not listed in the recommended structure. By definition, the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions are not part of the committee structure. They set their own policies and their administrations are accountable to their boards. Their primary relationship to City Council is financial. Council funds them and therefore is responsible for approving their budgets. It is recommended that the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions report through the proposed Policy and Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the standing committee with responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters.

In some instances, Agencies, Boards and Commissions do have need to seek approvals from City Council. For example, the City's Management Agreement with the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place requires Council approval of certain Board decisions, such as demolition of buildings, and certain leases. On other occasions, an agency, board or commission may wish to ensure that a policy direction is in synchronization with Council s objectives. In these instances, the Agencies, Boards and Commissions should report to Council through the standing committee that has responsibility for the particular policy field.

The relationship is less clear-cut in the case of the Board of Health for the Toronto Health Unit. This is a Board established under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. However, under the City of Toronto Act, 1997, Council is responsible for the appointment, reappointment and dismissal of the Medical Officer of Health and Associate Medical Officers of Health as well as for providing to the Board municipal employees necessary for the Board to carry out its functions. In addition, the Board of Health has functioned in a somewhat similar manner to standing committees in that it has been reporting directly to Council. A review of agendas shows that there has been some overlap in the policy issues, for example, homelessness, coming before the Board of Health and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee. Thus, unlike other Agencies, Boards and Commissions, the Board of Health is already quite integrated into the City s organization. This integration could be complete if the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health were conferred upon City Council.

A precedent for this does exist. Section 49 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act sets out the composition and term of office for boards of health. However, paragraph 49 (9) (c) states that the provisions do not apply to "a regional corporation that, under the Act establishing or continuing the corporation, has the powers, rights and duties of a.board of health." This is the case in the regional municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. Under the Acts establishing them, they are granted these powers, rights and duties. The Medical Officer of Health and public health staff are integrated into the municipal administration and public health matters are reported to Council through a standing committee of the regional government.

It is recommended that Council request the provincial government to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) to confer upon Toronto City Council the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health. It is further recommended that, when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of Health, public health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council and that Council establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have meaningful input to the development of public health policy. It is also recommended that, until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health, the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council.

(g)A Mechanism to Manage Council s Agenda:

To make effective use of the information provided by its standing committees, Council must have the ability to integrate and co-ordinate the information. In other words, to function effectively, a flattened Council-committee structure must be complemented by a strong and dedicated agenda management function. It is recommended that the Mayor may assign to the Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting Agenda. This role would entail responsibility for assisting the Mayor, in consultation with the City Clerk, Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners, to formulate the order paper for Council meetings including the identification of key items and the grouping of items on the agenda to ensure co-ordination of related matters.

Council Agenda management also entails assisting the Mayor in managing the business portion of Council meetings, including chairing meetings of Council; maintaining order and decorum; and deciding questions of order, subject to appeal to Council. The Solicitor has advised that Section 57 of the Municipal Act requires that the Mayor, as head of Council, chair Council meetings. The Act authorizes Council to appoint a substitute to act in the Mayor s place and stead when he is absent or refuses to act. Council has exercised this power in appointing Councillor Ootes Deputy Mayor.

The Municipal Act does not allow for the Mayor s power to be split between two individuals. Therefore, the assignment of responsibilities described in this section of the report to a Deputy Mayor and a separate Manager of the Council Agenda would likely require changes to the relevant portions of the legislation, if the role includes chairing Council meetings when the Mayor is absent or refuses to act. In that event, Council would have to request the province to amend the Municipal Act or provide special legislation that would authorize the City to appoint a speaker or a person other than the Mayor to chair meetings of Council. Legislative changes would not be required if the responsibilities of manager of the Council Agenda were part of the duties of the Deputy Mayor.

It is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor report further on how to implement the proposal to assign a manager of the Council meeting Agenda.

(h)Task Forces and Special Committees:

A key issue that emerged during the interviews revolved around the role of task forces and other ad hoc committees within the Council-committee structure. Ad hoc or special committees recommend to Council on a particular issue or advise on the management of a particular initiative or project. They tend to be temporary or cross-functional. Municipal governance texts suggest that ad hoc committees provide important evidence of a municipal government s responsiveness and adaptability to its environment.

Structural flexibility is an asset. At the same time, it is important for the basic structure of standing committees to be seen to have the capacity to deal with key priority or extraordinary issues without the need to set up accompanying structures. A balance must be found. The present review has found that, in the absence of a balance, ad hoc committees will proliferate resulting in some of the issues and pressures described earlier in this report.

Council has already recognized the need to think carefully before creating ad hoc committees. On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 17 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Status of Special Committees and Task Forces." In adopting the clause, Council approved the following guidelines that should attach more rigour to the establishment of ad hoc committees in the future:

-Before creating a special committee or task force, Council should ensure that:

(1)the work cannot be undertaken by an existing standing committee of Council;

(2)the mandate of the new special committee or task force is time limited by a sunset date and Council approval is required for continuation beyond the sunset date;

(3)the special committee or task force will report to Council through a standing committee where appropriate; and

(4)the staff and other resources required to support the work of the special committee or task force are identified and available within existing resources.

Those principles will guide future actions. The question remains about the continuation of the existing task forces and special committees. Some people suggested ending their mandates now. This is not recommended for two main reasons. First, most of the major task forces are scheduled to complete their mandates by the end of 1998 or during 1999. Second, the task forces are dealing with important issues regardless of whether or not these issues could have been addressed within standing committees. Termination prior to the completion of their mandates could result in the waste of some of the effort and resources that have already been invested in them. It could also confuse external stakeholders and the general public who may have been involved in the work of the task forces and special committees.

Some Members of Council suggested that, in principle, task forces should be made up entirely of citizens and should be advisory to standing committees, where policy deliberations should occur. This may be appropriate in some instances but not necessarily in every situation. It is important to understand what are appropriate mechanisms for doing pieces of specialized policy work. There may be models that the city can try to adopt to continue to involve citizens in ongoing policy work. Staff who have been providing support to the task forces have been amassing experience and information about how they have worked and what lessons may be learned. Each task force experience has been different. While it is tempting to come up with a blanket rule about how to approach specialized policy work, the experience to date is suggesting that one size may not fit all situations.

(i)Improving the Legislative Process:

Revisions to the Council-committee structure can only go so far in addressing the issues described earlier in this report. The efficacy of the Council decision-making system also depends on the rules and materials that go with the structures and on the willingness of the participants to be constrained by the rules. The decision-making structure will be as good as the councillors ability to make it work. It follows that, in order to improve Council decision-making, councillors workloads must be manageable. This means that their agendas must be comprehensible. They must be sufficiently briefed about the matters they are considering. In short, councillors must have sufficient time to read necessary reports and background materials.

Members of Council must also be able to attend the meetings of their committees and not be forced to choose from within conflicting schedules.

For these conditions to be met, decisions must be made about the rules, procedures and sequence of events that make up the legislative process. The cycle of meetings must be refined. Should Council meet every two weeks with smaller, more focused agendas? Decisions must also be made about the form of documentation that supports and records the political decision-making process. It must be user-friendly.

The City Clerk is examining these matters as part of her review of the Council legislative process.

Conclusions:

The interim Council-committee structure has been in place for less than one year. That is a relatively short period on which to base too many conclusions. In addition, information is not yet available from the task forces, strategic plan or policy sectoral plans, which could influence the political decision-making structure. For these reasons, the recommendations in this report do not represent a radical departure from the current structure. Rather, they are revisions, which in combination with actions arising from the City Clerk s review of the legislative process, are intended to relieve the stresses described in this report.

The changes recommended in this report are intended to take effect on June 1, 1999 when the mid-term reappointments occur. Thus the changes should not be disruptive. In the interim, it is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give effect to the changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a schedule of Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the Procedural by-law for Council approval.

The changes recommended in this report do not deal with the longer term. How the Council structure evolves after the present term of Council will depend, among other things, on the size of the Council. Toronto City Council's dilemma is that it is the size and complexity of a provincial legislature, yet it is bound by rules that make it try to function like a small town council. How can the two factors be reconciled? Are there any procedural characteristics that can be borrowed from provincial/federal legislatures that will deal with Toronto s size and volume of business?

In the longer term, the practices of Members Statements and Question Period may provide models for Toronto's legislative process. In adopting Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure" on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council signalled its tolerance for the delegation of final decision-making responsibility to other levels within the decision-making structure. A future Council may focus more on the passage of enabling legislation, thereby vesting more authority for making final decisions in the standing committees, community councils and administration. It is recommended that the Council-Committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18months following the implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every three to five years.

The recommendations in this report represent a step. As noted in the section of the report entitled some basic assumptions , the structure is evolving over the first term of Council and, during the first two terms at minimum, should be considered a work in progress. The structure will continue to evolve and adapt to Council s and Toronto's needs.

--------

Appendix 1

Standing Committees, Sub-committees, Working Groups and Task Forces Dealing with Business for which Council has Direct Responsibility

-Task Force for Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights

-Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions

-Working Group on Amalgamation of Fire Department

-Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force

-Audit Committee

-Budget Committee

-Working Group on Co-ordination of By-law Enforcement Functions

-Children s Action Committee

-Sub-Committee on Collision Reporting

-Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee

-Task Force on Community Safety

-Corporate Services Committee

-Council Strategy for People without Homes

-East York Community Council

-Economic Development Committee

-Emergency and Protective Services Committee

-Environmental Task Force

-Etobicoke Community Council

-Working Group on Budget of Fire/Ambulance Services

-Sub-Committee on Gambling

-Task Force on Gardiner/Lakeshore

-Task Force to plan Toronto s role in the year long activities for the Year 2000 Millennium

-Municipal Grants Review Committee

-Nominating Committee

-North York Community Council

-Special Committee to consider the issue of Pay Duty Policing

-Personnel Sub-Committee

-Special Committee on Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall

-Road Allowance Sub-Committee

-Scarborough Community Council

-Senior s Task Force

-Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee

-Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

-Striking Committee

-Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry

-Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee Toronto 3Rs

-Toronto Community Council

-Working Group on Budget of Toronto Licensing Commission

-Working Group on Restructuring of Toronto Licensing Commission

-Working Group on Budget of Toronto Police Services Board

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

-Task Force for the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design

-Urban Environment and Development Committee

-User Fee Committee

-Work and Utilities Committee

-World City Committee

-York Community Council

-Toronto Cycling Committee

-Toronto Pedestrian Committee

________

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:

(i)(December 3, 1998) from Mr. David McKeown, writing in opposition to Recommendations Nos. (13) and (14) embodied in the report (November26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer;

(ii)(December 3, 1998) from Mr. Loren Freid, Executive Director, North York Harvest Food Bank, expressing concern respecting the proposed plan to abolish the Board of Health and transfer its powers to City Council;

(iii)(December 4, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Filion, from Ms. Connie Clement, forwarding information respecting the history of the establishment of the Board of Health;

(iv)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. Ruth Crammond, Executive Director, Davenport Perth Neighbourhood Centre, writing in opposition to the transfer of the Board of Health to City Council;

(v)(Undated) from Dr. Rosana Pellizzari, forwarding comments respecting the transfer of the Board of Health to City Council;

(vi)(December 5, 1998) from Ms. Anita O Connor, Executive Director, Parkdale Golden Age Foundation; and

(vii)(December 4, 1998) from Ms. Kathryn Scharf, FoodShare Toronto and Co-Chair, Toronto Food Policy Council.

Mr. Phillip Abrahams, Senior Corporate Management and Policy Consultant, Strategic and Corporate Policy Division, Chief Administrator's Office, gave an overhead presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure", and filed a copy of his presentation material.

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. Lee Zaslofsky, Chair, Citizens for Public Health;

-Mr. Rick Lines, Prisoners HIV Aids Support Action Network (PASAN);

-Ms. Fiona Nelson; and

-Councillor John Filion, North York Centre.