Download
1 / 28
280 likes | 410 Views
Council Governance Workshop. June 24 th , 2010. Prepared by: Caryl Arundel, Senior Associate Lionel Feldman, Senior Associate Jim Mackay, Managing Partner Dr. Andrew Sancton, Senior Advisor. Agenda. Setting the Stage Project purpose, scope and activities
E N D
Council Governance Workshop June 24th, 2010 Prepared by: Caryl Arundel, Senior Associate Lionel Feldman, Senior Associate Jim Mackay, Managing Partner Dr. Andrew Sancton, Senior Advisor
Agenda • Setting the Stage • Project purpose, scope and activities • Framework for upper tier governments in Ontario • Findings • SWOT & Interviews • Survey Results • Comparative Upper Tier Municipalities • Highlights & Comparative Implications • Implications for Change in Simcoe County Governance – Discussion • Wrap-up & Next Steps
1. Setting the StageProject Purpose & Scope • A summary of stakeholder views about the strengths / weaknesses and the opportunities / threats facing the current governance model • A summary of insights from comparable upper tier municipalities including: • Governance structure and optional models • Good practices relevant to developing effective decision-making, communications and relations across municipalities • A strategic assessment of the implications of the feedback and findings about the current governance model and advice to Council concerning potential optional models and transitions
1. Setting the StageWorkshop’s Purpose • Present findings from interview program and survey • Provide a context for looking at Simcoe’s governance structure and comparisons to other upper tiers • Present some preliminary views of Simcoe’s situation as a basis for engaging a conversation among Council members • To receive feedback from Council as a basis for completing the fact-finding
1. Setting the StageWork Plan Timing & Progress Work Plan Timing Workshop Ongoing &Kick Of SWOT –County Consultation Comparable Municipalities FinalReport May 11 May 24 to June 18 May 24 to June 18 June 24 August 24 • Interviews with 25 of 32 County Councillors • Interview with Mayor of Orillia • Survey results from 22 of 32 Councillors • Focus group with 12 past Wardens • Focus group with senior staff team (6 attending) • Comparative analysis of upper tiers and detailed assessment of 6 prime comparables – partially completed especially re good practice / experience • Documentation review
1. Setting the Stage Governance Form Follows Context & Needs Upper Tier Type • County / Restructured County / Region Context & Needs • Governance Form Weak Strong • Why Stronger Form? • Deal with broader area-wide issues and services • Address growth and investment planning • Create needed vision and direction • Create opportunity for more cohesive political leadership to address strategic issues
1. Setting the StageUpper Tier Governance Framework Upper Tier Type • County Restructured County Region Context & Needs Largely Rural, Limited Growth Population growth Narrow Scope Infrastructure $$ Few Issues needing area-wide oversight or planning Broad functions Rationalization Opps • Governance Form Weak Strong Large councilCouncil Smallcouncil, more meetings Indirect, 1 year Head of Council Directly elected, solely upper, 4 yr, Vice-head Double Direct Councillors Directly, solely upper, cross local wards Small $ & time Compensation & Support Higher $ and supports
2. Findings • Summary of Survey on governance • Summary SWOT (strengths / weaknesses, opportunities / threats) from 26 interviews • Other interview highlights and focus groups
2. FindingsSurvey Overview • Large number of non-responses (31% did not respond) • Disinterest? Apathy? Frustration with governance discussion? • Does this lead to bias in the findings? • Distinct groups of responses, however the results are not always strong or convincing • Comparison with 2008 survey shows growing support for some changes and declining support for status quo
2. FindingsSurvey Findings • County Council • 55% of respondents supported 16 member Council • If 16 members, they should be Mayors only (75%) • Deputy Head of Council – 72% in favour • Same term as Head of Council (81%) • Act in absence of Warden and represent County (71%) • Meetings • Daytime (73%) • Once a month is enough (59%)
2. Findings Survey Findings…cont’d • Decision Making • Majority say the system does not work (59%) • Standing Committees • Are effective parts of County decision making (87%) • Review focus (58%) • Review purpose and focus of current sub-Committees and Advisory Committees (73%) • Governance Committee should report directly to Council (68%) • Limited support (23%) for Committee of Whole • Limited support for increasing the number of Standing Committees (33%) • Committee Chairs – 43% supported 2 year renewable terms
2. FindingsLearning from County Decision Making • Worst Decision Making – Site 41 ‘a short term decision on a long term issue’ • Reactive • Highly controversial and contentious • Sense of limited and incomplete information • Communication and media relations failure • Series of incremental decisions • Best Decision Making – Homes for the Aged expansion, Organics Program, Official Plan, Best Start Program • Information was available • Pilot tested the initiative (organics) • Opportunity for clear decision and impact • Not contentious • Proactive, feel good issues
2. FindingsExpectations & Orientation – Implications for Governance • Orientation for County Councillors is limited, poor, inadequate and needs to be improved • Expectations are not clear to candidates running for Mayor or Deputy Mayor – described as trial by fire • Time demands • County role and responsibilities • Time Demands • Varies between 12 – 25 hours per month • Increases for Committee Chairs and other leadership positions • Some reported 40 to 80 hours a month on County related work
2. FindingsInterest in Stronger Role in County Decision Making • Strategic planning, budget, financial reporting processes were recognized as good but…. • Want more input and involvement in setting strategic and financial directions for the County • Need clearer vision and priorities • Communications recognized as much improved but…. • Want less gloss • More proactive messages and communication about role and responsibilities of County, not just services it delivers • Use of new technology • Support from staff was recognized as good but… • Want greater information sharing and options discussion
2. FindingsCurrent and Future Issues will Challenge County Governance Issues facing County include: • Waste management • Infrastructure • Growth • Aging population and increasing Human Service needs • Efficient service delivery
2. FindingsSimcoe in the Governance Framework Upper Tier Type • County Restructured County Region Context & Needs View #1 View #2 • Governance Form Weak Strong Simcoe Simcoe
3. Review of ComparatorsOverview • Place Simcoe across Upper Tier municipalities by size with and without separated cities where relevant • Focus on Prime comparators • Compare strength of governance form / features and identify ‘interesting practices’ • Summarize highlights and implications • Note – still completing some of research
3. Review of Comparators Comparing Governance Form/Features…cont’d
3. Review of Comparators Interesting Practices • Compensation approach in Essex • Salaries in Essex for Warden, Deputy Warden, and county elected councillors are indexed to lower-tier salaries • Councillors’ salaries vary slightly depending on which municipality they represent • Some moving to Committee of the Whole approach • Standing committees abolished in Essex in 2007 • Some have different approach – City/County Councillors (Lambton)
3. Review of Comparators Positioning Upper Tier Type • County Restructured County Region Context & Needs • Governance Form Weak Strong Essex Oxford Lambton Simcoe Halton Niagara Waterloo
4. Implications for ChangePreliminary Implications for Governance • Surprised at lack of consensus that governance needs have changed and some strengthening of County governance model therefore needed • Size of budget – accountability and oversight • Emerging area-wide issues • Need to coordinate with separated cities & regions re growth issues • Issue of how far is a Council judgement • Appears to be a constraint to any movement to strengthen the County governance model • Debate about the features or governance format but issue is need to respond to new emerging growth demands
4. Implications for Change Simcoe Governance Situation Upper Tier Type • County / Restructured County / Region Context & Needs In Practice • Simcoe Situation • Needs suggest some movement to stronger governance form • Constraint might be fear of a slippery slope to go too far • No logical reason that stronger County means shift to region in practice • Provincial domain • Triple majority • What is holding back change? • Governance Form Weak Strong
4. Implications for Change Council Discussion • What are the main messages you are hearing? What is your reaction to these messages? • Do you agree with the consultants’ view that there needs to be some “strengthening” of the County governance? • What needs further clarification and advice from us?
