ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager recommends approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy on public involvement is expressed through the City's Principles for Public Involvement (1998): http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/publicprocessguide/tipsheets/tipsheetp11.htm. Council policy on advisory bodies is contained in a number of by-laws and resolutions that reference over twenty bodies which Council creates and appoints.

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

During a Council term, there are typically over twenty Council appointed advisory bodies which advise on a range of issues and processes across the City. Over the years, these bodies have contributed to City decision making, the development of City policy, and public understanding of urban issues. Many of the advisory bodies were created at a time when there were limited opportunities for the public to access and participate in civic decisions. Since that time the City has developed and continues to develop a wide array of programs

that encourage the public to participate directly in civic processes. This calls into question the effectiveness of the current advisory body structure and whether there are more effective forms of civic engagement that achieve or could achieve the given mandates. Operationally, there are also a number of concerns that have been raised by staff and committee members, in terms of mandate, orientation, training, member selection, and communication. This report highlights the concerns with the current advisory body structure and operation and recommends an approach for making improvements within the next six months.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the City initiated the Public Involvement Review to review and improve the ways in which citizens participate in City programs and processes. The Review included a cataloguing of City processes which involve the public (1996), an evaluation by Context Research of how well the City does public involvement (1998), and implementation of a number of recommendations for improvement (since 1999). The Review included an examination of Council appointed advisory bodies. For more information, the following Review documents can be viewed on the City's website:

Consultant evaluation: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/pubinvolveguide/ Pubinv2.htm
Program update: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/011213/pe4.htm

There are other City initiatives that relate to the Advisory Body Review. The Community Industry Advisory Committee (CIAC) is a task force that was appointed by Council in 1998 to serve as an informal advisory body to staff conducting the Development and Building Review. The Committees' final report to Council is expected in the coming months. The report will address the idea of Community Planning Advisory Committees (CPACs)for early community involvement in development and building issues. This could build upon the Community Visions program which has implementation groups active in several neighbourhoods in the city. To this point, the City's experience with neighbourhood-based service delivery has been through the existence of multi-disciplinary Neighbourhood Integrated Service Teams (NIST), which address a range of issues, from problem premises to neighbourhood cleanups. This review of advisory committees should be considered in the context of various participatory initiatives underway and proposed.

DISCUSSION

During a Council term, there are typically over twenty Council appointed advisory bodies (see Appendix A), some required by legislation (e.g. Board of Variance, Family Court, etc.), others created by Council over the years to advise on particular issues (e.g. Seniors, Disabilities, etc.). In addition to these Council appointed bodies, numerous time-limited task forces and committees have been established as part of particular work programs, such as Financing Growth or CityPlan (see Appendix B for examples). This report deals specifically with the former group, Council appointed advisory bodies, although some of the recommendations may be relevant to time-limited task forces as well.

Changing Nature of Public Involvement

Many of the advisory bodies were created at a time when there were limited opportunities for the public to access and participate in civic decisions. However, since that time the City has developed a wide array of public programs that the public participates in directly. During Phase I of the Public Involvement Review, over 100 ways of involvement were identified across the city. This includes one time programs, ongoing processes, time limitedtask forces and partnerships with communities (examples are listed below). Technological innovations have also allowed for greater access to civic information on a day to day basis, such as the Community Web Pages, which list neighbourhood services and provide up to date information on events and activities occurring in each city neighbourhood, including rezonings, development applications and street construction.

These changes have raised the question if the current advisory body structure is the most effective approach for the City when many of the public programs and services have evolved to such a point that they are now meeting the objectives which some of these advisory bodies were created for in the first place.

Examples of Civic Engagement

Support Costs

The City provides support to Council appointed advisory bodies through administrative staff (who take minutes and provide administrative services such as compiling and sending out agendas), professional staff who liaise and / or make presentations to the groups, and hard costs such as room rentals and catering. Staff estimate conservatively that these support costs are at least $400,000 per year. It is not possible to quantify support costs exactly, because professional staff time consumed varies considerably depending upon what issues are currently under consideration. This figure does not include the staff time and incidental costs associated with the numerous public involvement programs and task forces associated with department programs, such as Financing Growth, Community Visions, traffic calming, etc.

Review Process and Results

Council appointed advisory bodies were evaluated as part of the City's Public Involvement Review (PIR) in 1998. The PIR was a multi phase review aimed at assessing and improving the ways that the City includes the public in its programs and processes. The consultant team which conducted the review found a wide variation in the performance of the committees, in terms of understanding and pursuing mandates, necessary Council and staff support, member selection and representativeness, and member orientation and training.

Staff have recently followed up on the consultant's work by conducting a committee member / staff survey, a workshop with committee chairs, and a workshop with the previous Council. The purpose of the survey and workshops was to better understand the current advisory body structure and to seek ideas for improvement. The results (summarized below) confirm and build upon the consultant's findings. More detailed information on the results is provided in Appendix C.

Effectiveness

The results of the consultation show that there are a number of strengths displayed by the current advisory bodies. Groups that have clear mandates and work programs have created timely resolutions and responses to emerging issues. As well, most bodies provide a variety of perspectives and expertise on issues, and most act as a forum for information sharing and education that is open and transparent.

However, both committee members and staff have identified a number of areas that need improvement. The mandates for many bodies are either unclear or sufficiently vague to leave the members unsure of the group's focus. This leads to wandering agendas and work programs outside the committees' mandates. Orientation, training and protocols were also cited as areas needing improvement, leaving members insufficiently equipped and prepared to undertake the duties of their appointment. The member selection process also needs review to ensure that people with appropriate skills and expertise are recruited for the advisory bodies. Finally, communication between the bodies and Council, staff and the community were cited as weaknesses which need attention. This was particularly the case with the relationship with Council. Many committee members feel that Council is not being informed of the bodies' contributions in their topic areas.

Approach to Making Improvements

Owing to the varying degree of advisory body integration with civic processes, a mix of strategies is proposed to approach improvements to the current advisory body structure and operations (see Appendix A for a summary).

I. Bodies Fully Integrated Into City Business Practices and/or Required by Legislation

Some bodies, either through legislation or de facto integration, are so integral to the functioning of City processes that major changes could unduly affect civic business practices. Therefore, only minor improvements such as improved training and orientation are recommended for these types of bodies. Appointments will take place as usual in the coming months.

Bodies Fully Integrated Into City Business Practices and/or Required by Legislation:
· Vancouver Public Library Board;
· Vancouver Police Board;
· Vancouver Civic Theatres Board,;
· Archives Advisory Committee;
· Vancouver Athletic Commission;
· Family Court/Youth Justice Committee;
· Board of Variance/Parking Variance;
· Development Permit Board Advisory Panel;
· Urban Design Panel; and
· Building Board of Appeal.

II. Non-Profit Bodies

This category includes the Heritage Foundation and Economic Development Commission, two registered non-profit societies to which Council appoints members, but which operate independently of the civic structure. It is proposed that these two bodies continue to be reviewed annually when their contracts come up for renewal, as is the current practice.

III. Topic and Area-Based Advisory Bodies

Over the years, Council has created a number of advisory bodies that advise on specific interests or developments proposed in different areas of the city (see examples below). With the evolution of public involvement and the diverse opportunities available for citizens to participate in City programs, Council may wish to consider alternative forms of civic engagement to achieve the given mandates. One alternative is the task force approach, whereby a group is brought together by either staff or Council to advise on a specific issue. Another option is integrating special interests into department-appointed work groups consistent with existing City practice (examples are shown in Appendix B). There may also be a number of operational improvements that can be made to improve the effectiveness of advisory bodies, including improved orientation, training, protocols, member selection and communication.

An Advisory Body Task Force is proposed to assess the effectiveness of this form of civic engagement over the next six months and to make recommendations for improvement. The Task Force would be appointed by Council and consist of representatives from City Council, City staff and members of the public. The Task Force will need to take into consideration and possibly link up with a number of initiatives that may affect the outcome of this review, including recommendations of the CIAC for Community Planning Advisory Committees, the Community Visions Implementation program, and the City's NIST program.

Existing members of the topic and area-based advisory bodies would be asked to sit for an additional six months, or temporary appointments made, so that the bodies could continue providing input into their respective City processes during this period.

Topic and Area-Based Advisory Bodies:
· Vancouver Heritage Commission;
· Public Art Committee;
· Council Special Advisory Committee on Seniors;
· Council Special Advisory Committee on Disabilities;
· Council Special Advisory Committee on Cultural Communities;
· Bicycle Advisory Committee;
· Fire Services Citizens' Advisory Committee;
· Vancouver City Planning Commission;
· Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee;
· Chinatown Historic Area Planning Committee; and
· First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel.

Conclusion

There are typically over twenty Council appointed advisory committees within the City. Both staff and members have a number of concerns with the effectiveness of these bodies, in terms of mandate and operation. This report highlights those concerns and recommends an approach for making improvements within the next six months.

pe030116.htm

Approach to Improving Advisory Body Effectiveness

Category

Action

Notes

I. Bodies Fully Integrated into City Business Practices and/or Required by Legislation

Appoint bodies whose absence would unduly affect civic business processes or are required by legislation

Provide improved orientation and training

Vancouver Public Library Board

Appointed for 2003

"

Vancouver Police Board

Appoint ( appointments are currently handled by the Mayor's Office)

"

Vancouver Civic Theatres Board

Appointed for 2003

"

Archives Advisory Committee

Appoint when vacancy occurs (none at this time)

"

Vancouver Athletic Commission

Appointed for 2003

need to review City involvement in professional fighting

Family Court/Youth Justice Committee

Appointed for 2003

need to review City involvement in Family Court issues

Board of Variance/Parking Variance

Appoint when required (current term ends Sept. 30, 2003)

provide improved orientation and training

Development Permit Board Advisory Panel

Appoint when required (current term ends Sept. 30, 2003)

"

Building Board of Appeal

Appoint when required (current term ends June 30, 2003)

"

Urban Design Panel

Appoint

"

II. Non-Profit Bodies

Continue to review annually

  

Vancouver Heritage Foundation Board

Appointed for 2003

  

Vancouver Economic Development Commission

Appointed for 2003

  

III. Topic and Area-Based Advisory Bodies

Have Task Force review the effectiveness of this form of civic engagement; appoint advisory body members for a six month period

Consult with bodies to discuss issues and options

Vancouver Heritage Commission

Appoint for 6 months

"

Public Art Committee

Appoint for 6 months

"

Vancouver City Planning Commission

Appoint for 6 months

"

Council Special Advisory Committee on Seniors

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Council Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Council Special Advisory Committee on Seniors on Cultural Communities

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Bicycle Advisory Committee

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Fire Services Citizens' Advisory Committee

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee

Appoint for 6 months*

"

Chinatown Historic Area Planning Committee

Appoint for 6 months*

"

First Shaugnessy Advisory Design Panel

Appoint for 6 months*

"

* requires re-creation through Council resolution before appointments can be made

    

Examples of Council Appointed Task Forces and Committees Attached to Specific Departmental Programs

Groups appointed by Council

Citizens' Advisory Group on Property Taxation
Community/Industry Advisory Committee
City Perspectives Panel (CityPlan Visioning)
Bus Impact Task Force
Sidewalk Task Force
Financing Growth Task Force
Anti-Graffiti Task Force

Groups established by staff

Hastings-Sunrise Community Liaison Group (CityPlan)
Renfrew-Collingwood Community Liaison Group (CityPlan)
Kensington-Cedar Cottage CityPlan Implementation Committee
Sunset CityPlan Implementation Committee
Victoria-Fraserview - Killarney CityPlan Implementation Committee
Broadway-Commercial Skytrain Station Precinct Working group
Grandview-Woodlands Resident Committee (Traffic Calming)
Blenheim Neighbourhood Group(Traffic Calming)
Contractors Liaison Group (Engineering)

Groups established by Park Board, Police Board and Library Board

23 Park Board Community Centre Associations
Van Dusen Botanical Gardens Society
Dr. Sun Yat Sen Garden Society

Stanley Park Ecology Society
Chief Constable's Diversity Advisory Committee
Friends of Vancouver Public Library

Appendix C
Page 1 of 3

Review of Advisory Bodies - Consultation

From July - September 2002, as part of the Review of Advisory Bodies, members and staff of 14 Council-appointed Boards, Commissions and Committees were surveyed about their formats, mandate, communications, and efficiency, and asked to assign priorities to areas needing improvement. There were 65 responses (43 members, 22 staff) from 15 of the civic agencies. Members and staff alike saw numerous opportunities for improvements

On September 18, 2002, a workshop was held for Chairs and Co-Chairs to discuss the results of the survey. There were 14 Chairs and Vice-Chairs in attendance representing 9 advisory bodies, as well as 6 staff from the review working group and an outside facilitator. A copy of the notes taken by the facilitator at the workshop are on file in the City Clerk's Office.

The results of the survey are summarized below and in a table on the following pages.

Strengths and Weaknesses

All Committees expressed at least partial satisfaction with their current efforts and ways of doing things.

Members frequently cited the following strengths, roughly in descending order of occurrence:
· timely resolutions and response to emerging issues (even when the advice was not taken);
· broad representation, differing perspectives; information sharing (insufficiently broad representativeness was also cited as a weakness);
· some noted good results and achievements in accordance with their respective mandates;
· consensus, flexibility, good will, commitment and cooperation;
· good, well-qualified, committed members (lack of such members was also cited as a weakness);
· an open, transparent, independent process, with respectful listening and committee rules fairly and equitably applied.

Staff frequently cited the following strengths, roughly in descending order of occurrence:
· good working relationships with staff, a resource for staff dealing with issues related to their mandates ;
· a resource to Council;
· a diversity of opinions is represented;
· provide a regular forum for feedback/ motions on issues;
· committees relay updates to their respective communities and are a resource for the public;
· shared group decision-making and inclusiveness;
· informal style encourages participation.

Members frequently cited the following weaknesses, roughly in descending order of occurrence:
· although members were substantially satisfied with the clarity of Committee mandates, almost every committee was interested in re-visiting/re-vamping its mandate, usually to make it broader, clearer or more topical.
· not enough feedback - Committees understand that their advice won't always be taken, but there is not always an adequate explanation of why not;
· more direction is needed from the City/Council - what do they want the Committees to do;
· some members have their own agendas, promote their own issues;
· there is not always enough understanding of the committee's responsibilities;
· too much time is spent on current events and not enough on the big picture/being pro-active;
· duplication of committees' efforts (more joint meetings of committees with similar interests might help);
· groups have much to offer and could be better utilized.

Staff frequently cited the following weaknesses, roughly in descending order of occurrence:
· not always focused enough (discussion is too informal, decisions are not clearly stated, committees spend too much time on matters outside their mandates; meetings are more like workshops; better adherence to parliamentary procedure is needed);
· demands on staff time and need for more staff resources which cannot be readily allocated;
· lack adequate orientation to civic structure and issues, need training;
· not made aware of reports/issues in time to comment on them;
· some members lack adequate qualifications, experience;
· lack of communication with the communities represented.

Survey Priorities for Improvements
(Shown in descending order)

Priority #

TOTAL

MEMBERS

STAFF

 

I. Preferred Format *

I. Preferred Format

I. Preferred Format

1

Task Force

Task Force

Other

2

Issues Committee

Issues Committee

Issues Committee

3

Other

Other

Task Force

* The majority of members and staff considered their existing format to be a good one. However, if members and staff had to choose an alternative to their existing format, they would rate the alternatives as shown above.

Priority #

II. Mandate & Communications

II. Mandate & Communications

II. Mandate & Communications

1

regular communication with Council

regular communication with Council

regular communication with Council

2

clearly defined role within civic organization

clearly defined role within civic organization

regular communication with staff

3

well-defined relationship -community

well-defined relationship -community

well-defined relationship -community

4

clarity re expectations

clarity re expectations

clearly defined role within civic organization

5

clarity how advice/ input received

clarity how advice/ input received

work plan articulated in first two meetings

6

well-defined relationship -Council

well-defined relationship -Council

clarity re expectations

Priority #

TOTAL

MEMBERS

STAFF

Priority #

II. Mandate & Communications (Continued)

II. Mandate & Communications (Continued)

II. Mandate & Communications (Continued)

7

well-defined relationship -dept.

well-defined relationship -dept.

well-defined relationship -Council

8

work plan articulated in first two meetings

work plan articulated in first two meetings

members expertise

9

well-defined relationship -staff

well-defined relationship -staff

clarity how advice/ input received

10

regular communication with staff

regular communication with staff

well-defined relationship -staff

11

clearly defined mandate

clearly defined mandate

well-defined relationship -dept.

12

members expertise

members expertise

clearly defined mandate

Priority #

III. Efficiency

III. Efficiency

III. Efficiency

1

orientation to city organization

training for members

training for members

2

training for members

clarity of protocols

member selection process

3

meetings focus

orientation to city organization

orientation to city organization

4

time management

time management

meetings focus

5

size of group

length of term

time management

6

length of term

member selection process

clarity of protocols

7

number of meetings during term

meetings focus

staff resources

8

staff resources

staff resources

length of term

9

clarity of protocols

size of group

size of group

10

member selection process

number of meetings during term

number of meetings during term

* * *

pe030116.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver