THE ISSUES - DISMANTLING PUBLIC COMMITTEES
OVERVIEW
Ever since the (now-defunct) Finance Committee was formed in 2012, consisting only of Council members and supported by staff, the majority of the Township's public committees have been a target for elimination. The public committees would be replaced by a Committee of the Whole system - a committee consisting only of Council members (no voting members of the public). The official line has always been about saving costs.
But the truth is, eliminating most of the existing committees would only save about 0.25% in taxes (less than $10,000, total). When you consider the hours of work done by these committees, and the public voice that they bring to the table (with an actual vote), one 1/4 of one percent seems like extremely good value.
Do you suppose this is more about control, and the inconvenience of active public participation, than it is about money?
But the truth is, eliminating most of the existing committees would only save about 0.25% in taxes (less than $10,000, total). When you consider the hours of work done by these committees, and the public voice that they bring to the table (with an actual vote), one 1/4 of one percent seems like extremely good value.
Do you suppose this is more about control, and the inconvenience of active public participation, than it is about money?
DETAILS
NOTE: This was topic #1 of 5 in a comprehensive survey/petition which we circulated in the Fall of 2012. If you're interested in reading the original background material for this topic (which we circulated as part of the survey at the time), along with Council's official written response (which they subsequently mailed out to the 300+ participants), we have a separate page dedicated just to that. A word of warning - there might be a lot of reading there, too.
[Click] to see the Background Info and Council's Official Response regarding Public Committees.
Otherwise, if you trust us, you can skip that and just keep reading on, below.
Our "position statement" on the topic was as follows
[Click] to see the Background Info and Council's Official Response regarding Public Committees.
Otherwise, if you trust us, you can skip that and just keep reading on, below.
Our "position statement" on the topic was as follows
I feel that, even though there is a cost associated with running the Waste Management Committee, the Committee plays an important and valuable role in the Township proceedings. It should remain intact in its present form, and should not be replaced by a “Committee of the Whole” approach.
As with all 5 topics, the results were extremely clear and compelling. 97.7% of residents agreed with our position regarding the Waste Management Committee (and, by extension, most public committees).
( click on the image to view a larger version )
Council formed a Finance Committee in the Summer of 2012, based on a Committee of the Whole system. That's a system where Council - all the same members, with no public positions - assemble under more relaxed meeting rules. The Finance Committee was supposed to do a top-to-bottom review of all operations in the Township, looking for cost saving opportunities by "doing things differently" (a term they have worn out by using it over and over, but never really doing it).
The Finance Committee met a handful of times over a 6 month period - but it never published any of its minutes to the Township's website until after it voted to fold itself in November 2012, and it never did post any of its meeting dates on the website calendar ... period. A rather stealthy process, wouldn't you say?
One of the things which came out of the Finance Committee, was the idea of dismantling most of the public committees and replacing them with a Committee of the Whole system (with only Council members). During the review process, the Finance Committee made each of the other committees justify their existence. Yet, the Finance Committee never prepared any kind of a report to justify its own existence. That's no surprise. By the time the dust settled, we think they would have been hard pressed to tally up much in they way of meaningful savings from their efforts.
Ironically, the total honourarium paid to that committee (plus overhead for staff time, etc.) may actually have been more than the total savings they found. We'll probably never really know, since the Township has never bothered to appoint an Auditor General (but that's a topic for another day). One thing we do know - senior staff have openly said that the Finance Committee didn't do what it was supposed to do.
Naturally, there was a lot of resistance from the public committees when they realized they were going to be on the chopping block. That was to be expected. But we wanted to know how the residents, themselves, felt about the value of public committees - so we included the topic in our survey. The survey's primary author was heavily involved in the Waste Management Committee at the time, so the focus was on that particular committee - but as we went door-to-door, people made it very clear to us that their expressed opinions applied to all committees in general.
Ultimately, Council decided to leave well enough alone; at least, for the time being. Council promised - by way of an official resolution - that if it decided to give the committee structure further consideration, it would hold a public meeting.
Speaking of Accountability ...
If you've already read the background material and Council's official response (available [here]), you'll know that they make some interesting claims, including that the municipal system has checks and balances just like the provincial and federal systems, and that "laypersons" appointed to the public committees can represent their own interests and are not held to account by the public.
The reality is, there is NO check and balance in the municipal system. The Municipal Act has no tooth. It contains a great deal of latitude for Councils - far too much, actually. There are some references in it to "shall" and "may", but it contains basically no consequences. For instance - even if a Council is found, by the Ombudsman, to have violated the "Sunshine Law" (which governs the process of closed sessions), the only result is a slap on the wrist by way of a report, and perhaps a bit of public embarrassment. No real consequence at all. The Municipal Act doesn't contain any consequences for Council breaking its own by-laws, either. We spoke directly with experts at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and they confirmed that - with very few exceptions - they do not really get involved in enforcement of the Act. If a Council fails to follow their own procedural by-law, for example, it would be up to the residents to take Council to court! The list of Municipal Act absurdities goes on and on.
The federal and provincial systems each have official opposition parties, who have basically the same resources and access to information as the governing parties. And they have a vested interest in exposing irregularities, etc. So, at those levels, the design of the system does have a check and balance (regardless of how well it does, or doesn't, actually work). But at the municipal level, you vote in Council members every four years, and that's the end of it - for that four-year term, the foxes guard the hen house. There is no opposition. Don't kid yourself - the Township's politically-trained staff are well aware of this, and they are also well aware of the limitations of the Municipal Act. They apply this knowledge to the benefit of Council and themselves, not necessarily to the benefit of the people.
Do you see a check and balance in any of that? We sure don't.
As for "laypersons" not being held to account by the public at any time - that's a very interesting interpretation. In Council's mind, it seems the issue of non-accountability hinges on the fact that committee members are not elected by the public. Fair enough. So let us now look at staff - who are also not elected. By extension of Council's own logic, staff must obviously not be held to account either.
On more than one occasion, committee members have heard the Mayor's veiled threat that "all committees sit at the pleasure of Council". Put in plain English, it means that Council can appoint, remove, or replace members, and even create or eliminate entire committees, at any time, as it sees fit. But by contrast, it is much more difficult (some may say impossible) to remove a staff member - especially, a senior one. The threat of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit always looms, and municipalities rarely escape from those types of things unscathed, so there is a considerable deterrent. While Council does conduct routine performance reviews for some staff positions, the public is never privy to the results.
So, if part of the reasoning behind the idea to replace public committees with a Committee of the Whole system is to gain so-called accountability (and pardon us if we're skeptical), it only seems logical to also replace staff with some kind of elected system - for the same reason - wouldn't you say?
In March 2014, the topic of committee structures was very much back on the table ... and yet, there still has been no public meeting dedicated to the matter. And in May 2014, Council decided to go ahead and fold one of the major public committees into a Committee of the Whole system (using the excuse of a membership shortage - and again, without any public meeting).
Specifically, after the Chair of the Waste Management Committee resigned, Council went through a cute little maneuver to basically turn that committee into a Committee of the Whole instead. From a very technical standpoint, it is still considered the Waste Management Committee ... but all Council members have now been appointed to it, and it now meets back to back with the Public Works Committee of the Whole, on the same night. You can call a skunk by its scientific name (Mephitidae) if you like - but it still stinks. Make no mistake ... regardless of how they actually label it, the Waste Management Committee is most definitely operating as a Committee of the Whole.
Interestingly, discussions on committee structures have gone completely silent since then.
Do you suppose it was really always just about the Waste Management Committee, all along? Or maybe it is too close to the election to take any chances on rocking the boat now. Perhaps they'll attack the committee structures again after the election - unless, of course, the new Council (wisely) feels there are more important things to concentrate on.
The Finance Committee met a handful of times over a 6 month period - but it never published any of its minutes to the Township's website until after it voted to fold itself in November 2012, and it never did post any of its meeting dates on the website calendar ... period. A rather stealthy process, wouldn't you say?
One of the things which came out of the Finance Committee, was the idea of dismantling most of the public committees and replacing them with a Committee of the Whole system (with only Council members). During the review process, the Finance Committee made each of the other committees justify their existence. Yet, the Finance Committee never prepared any kind of a report to justify its own existence. That's no surprise. By the time the dust settled, we think they would have been hard pressed to tally up much in they way of meaningful savings from their efforts.
Ironically, the total honourarium paid to that committee (plus overhead for staff time, etc.) may actually have been more than the total savings they found. We'll probably never really know, since the Township has never bothered to appoint an Auditor General (but that's a topic for another day). One thing we do know - senior staff have openly said that the Finance Committee didn't do what it was supposed to do.
Naturally, there was a lot of resistance from the public committees when they realized they were going to be on the chopping block. That was to be expected. But we wanted to know how the residents, themselves, felt about the value of public committees - so we included the topic in our survey. The survey's primary author was heavily involved in the Waste Management Committee at the time, so the focus was on that particular committee - but as we went door-to-door, people made it very clear to us that their expressed opinions applied to all committees in general.
Ultimately, Council decided to leave well enough alone; at least, for the time being. Council promised - by way of an official resolution - that if it decided to give the committee structure further consideration, it would hold a public meeting.
Speaking of Accountability ...
If you've already read the background material and Council's official response (available [here]), you'll know that they make some interesting claims, including that the municipal system has checks and balances just like the provincial and federal systems, and that "laypersons" appointed to the public committees can represent their own interests and are not held to account by the public.
The reality is, there is NO check and balance in the municipal system. The Municipal Act has no tooth. It contains a great deal of latitude for Councils - far too much, actually. There are some references in it to "shall" and "may", but it contains basically no consequences. For instance - even if a Council is found, by the Ombudsman, to have violated the "Sunshine Law" (which governs the process of closed sessions), the only result is a slap on the wrist by way of a report, and perhaps a bit of public embarrassment. No real consequence at all. The Municipal Act doesn't contain any consequences for Council breaking its own by-laws, either. We spoke directly with experts at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and they confirmed that - with very few exceptions - they do not really get involved in enforcement of the Act. If a Council fails to follow their own procedural by-law, for example, it would be up to the residents to take Council to court! The list of Municipal Act absurdities goes on and on.
The federal and provincial systems each have official opposition parties, who have basically the same resources and access to information as the governing parties. And they have a vested interest in exposing irregularities, etc. So, at those levels, the design of the system does have a check and balance (regardless of how well it does, or doesn't, actually work). But at the municipal level, you vote in Council members every four years, and that's the end of it - for that four-year term, the foxes guard the hen house. There is no opposition. Don't kid yourself - the Township's politically-trained staff are well aware of this, and they are also well aware of the limitations of the Municipal Act. They apply this knowledge to the benefit of Council and themselves, not necessarily to the benefit of the people.
Do you see a check and balance in any of that? We sure don't.
As for "laypersons" not being held to account by the public at any time - that's a very interesting interpretation. In Council's mind, it seems the issue of non-accountability hinges on the fact that committee members are not elected by the public. Fair enough. So let us now look at staff - who are also not elected. By extension of Council's own logic, staff must obviously not be held to account either.
On more than one occasion, committee members have heard the Mayor's veiled threat that "all committees sit at the pleasure of Council". Put in plain English, it means that Council can appoint, remove, or replace members, and even create or eliminate entire committees, at any time, as it sees fit. But by contrast, it is much more difficult (some may say impossible) to remove a staff member - especially, a senior one. The threat of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit always looms, and municipalities rarely escape from those types of things unscathed, so there is a considerable deterrent. While Council does conduct routine performance reviews for some staff positions, the public is never privy to the results.
So, if part of the reasoning behind the idea to replace public committees with a Committee of the Whole system is to gain so-called accountability (and pardon us if we're skeptical), it only seems logical to also replace staff with some kind of elected system - for the same reason - wouldn't you say?
In March 2014, the topic of committee structures was very much back on the table ... and yet, there still has been no public meeting dedicated to the matter. And in May 2014, Council decided to go ahead and fold one of the major public committees into a Committee of the Whole system (using the excuse of a membership shortage - and again, without any public meeting).
Specifically, after the Chair of the Waste Management Committee resigned, Council went through a cute little maneuver to basically turn that committee into a Committee of the Whole instead. From a very technical standpoint, it is still considered the Waste Management Committee ... but all Council members have now been appointed to it, and it now meets back to back with the Public Works Committee of the Whole, on the same night. You can call a skunk by its scientific name (Mephitidae) if you like - but it still stinks. Make no mistake ... regardless of how they actually label it, the Waste Management Committee is most definitely operating as a Committee of the Whole.
Interestingly, discussions on committee structures have gone completely silent since then.
Do you suppose it was really always just about the Waste Management Committee, all along? Or maybe it is too close to the election to take any chances on rocking the boat now. Perhaps they'll attack the committee structures again after the election - unless, of course, the new Council (wisely) feels there are more important things to concentrate on.
RESOURCES and SUPPORTING MATERIALS
[Click] - Township Report A-12-92. A report to Council, authored by Township staff, with a comparison of the existing Standing Committee structure (in other words, "public committees") versus a Committee of the Whole system.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article on the lead-up to the presentation of our survey/petition to Council.
Note: Our petition lead-up also got coverage on CKWS TV's evening news - but the online video clip is no longer available on their website, so we are no longer able to link to it.
[Click] - Background Info Package which was provided to anyone who participated in our survey/petition.
[Click] - Sample Survey/Petition Sheet.
[Click] - Survey Guide outlining the design details and methodologies used in the survey/petition to ensure that it was accurate, meaningful, and statistically representative of the entire population.
[Click] - Presentation/Speech. The "script" which EK-COG's spokesperson, Brant Burrow, used when we were recognized as a delegation at Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting, in order to present Council with our survey/petition results.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article covering Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting at which we presented the compelling results of our survey/petition.
[Click] - Letter of resignation (March 2014) from the Chair of the Waste Management Committee.
(will be added soon) - Township's Full/Official Response to the Survey/Petition.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article on the lead-up to the presentation of our survey/petition to Council.
Note: Our petition lead-up also got coverage on CKWS TV's evening news - but the online video clip is no longer available on their website, so we are no longer able to link to it.
[Click] - Background Info Package which was provided to anyone who participated in our survey/petition.
[Click] - Sample Survey/Petition Sheet.
[Click] - Survey Guide outlining the design details and methodologies used in the survey/petition to ensure that it was accurate, meaningful, and statistically representative of the entire population.
[Click] - Presentation/Speech. The "script" which EK-COG's spokesperson, Brant Burrow, used when we were recognized as a delegation at Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting, in order to present Council with our survey/petition results.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article covering Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting at which we presented the compelling results of our survey/petition.
[Click] - Letter of resignation (March 2014) from the Chair of the Waste Management Committee.
(will be added soon) - Township's Full/Official Response to the Survey/Petition.
PLEASE ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS
The clearest, most effective message you can send to Council, is to attend their meetings. So long as the public gallery is empty, they will get the impression that no one cares.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.