Advisory Committees Staff Report

Finance & Administration Report

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: February 7, 2019 FROM: S. Jones, Corporate Officer; E. Bolster, Deputy Corporate Officer MEETING DATE: February 12, 2019

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Committee recommend Council disband the current advisory committees, form ad hoc committees as required, and develop general procedures for ad hoc committees for Council’s consideration (Option 2. of the Corporate Officer and Deputy Corporate Officer’s February 7, 2019 report entitled “Advisory Committees”).

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review a.) the Council liaison and staff liaison roles on advisory committees vis a vis advisory committee procedures; b.) the efficacy of advisory committees as a community engagement tool; and c.) options for changes to the advisory committee structure and procedures.

BACKGROUND:

March 1, 2016 marked the decision to amalgamate the Transportation Advisory Committee and Planning and Development Advisory Committee into the Community Development Advisory Committee with the Parks, Recreation and Environment Advisory Committee remaining unchanged. Council also approved amendments to the advisory committee mandates and procedures (see Attachment “A” for this still current document).

At that time (2016), the advisory committee structure had been in place for twelve years with various “tweaks” to procedures, structure, and mandates undertaken over time with a view to best meeting the Town’s needs.

Over the past several months, Council and staff have discussed the need to consider additional clarity regarding the function of the Town’s advisory committees, including the Council liaison role and communications with staff in relation to advisory committees.

DISCUSSION:

a.) Current Roles Clarification – Council and Staff Liaisons

As described in the “Advisory Committee Mandates”, advisory committees have been established to assist Council in advancing the municipality’s strategic priorities, including those listed in the Strategic Plan and other long-range documents, as applicable to each advisory committee, such as the Official Community Plan, the Parks Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.

Work of the advisory committees is to focus on matters referred by Council, specific projects and initiatives, and policies.

The “Advisory Committee Procedures” describe the roles of both the Council liaison and staff liaison at advisory committee meetings.

Specifically, the Council liaison is a non-voting member of the advisory committee but can take part in advisory committee debate. At the advisory committee meetings, the role of the Council liaison is to bring Council’s perspective to the table. As members of Council are able to bring items to Council and Committee of the Whole meetings directly, the Council liaison is not to lead/direct advisory committee recommendations on new initiatives for Council’s consideration; make pre-meeting arrangements with an advisory committee member or members to generate agenda items; or make commitments on behalf of the Town which are not already covered by Council-approved projects, initiatives or policies.

At Council meetings, the role of the Council liaison is to provide additional information to Council, if required, that may elaborate on or describe the rationale for the advisory committee’s recommendation(s).

Similarly, the staff liaison is also a non-voting member of the advisory committee but, unlike the Council liaison, is not to participate in advisory committee debate. Instead, the staff liaison is to contribute information and expertise in the operational/functional area under advisory committee discussion. For example, the staff liaison may have information to clarify Town policy, bylaws, or specific initiatives; such information can assist advisory committees in making informed, concise, and on-mandate recommendations to Council.

At meetings, the staff liaison is to neither provide verbal updates/reports on non-agenda items nor introduce new information or business items to the agenda.

The “Advisory Committee Procedures” set out that advisory committees are not to use staff resources to research and develop new policy initiatives that have not received prior approval of Council.

b.) Efficacy of Advisory Committees as Community Engagement Tool

Below is a summary of the advisory committees “by the numbers”, including number of meetings held, number of motions made, Council’s motion and advisory committee size since the 2016 restructuring to the end of December 2018:

Community Development Advisory Committee

• Of seventeen potential meetings, nine have been held and eight have been cancelled due to lack of agenda items and/or quorum.
• Seven motions have been made at the nine meetings. At Council, two motions were supported, two were referred to staff, one was changed significantly, and two were received.
• From March 2016 to December 2018, the advisory committee size has decreased from ten to seven members.

Parks, Recreation and Environment Advisory Committee

• Of seventeen potential regular meetings, fourteen meetings have been held plus one special workshop to consider the Parks Master Plan; three meetings have been cancelled due to lack of agenda items and/or quorum.
• Thirty-one motions have been made at the meetings. At Council, nine motions were supported, four were referred to staff, one was changed significantly, two were referred to budget deliberations, and thirteen were received. There were two instances of two-part motions – for one of these motions, Council supported part of the recommendation and received the other part; for the second two-part motion, Council referred part to budget deliberations and significantly changed the other part. As well, several recommendations over this time period addressed the same topic (for example, letters to BC Hydro for electric vehicle charging stations and trail construction at Eagle Creek Park).
• From March 2016 to December 2018, the advisory committee size has decreased from nine to seven members.

Feedback received in February 2016 from meeting with advisory committee chairs and vice chairs indicates that members want to feel that volunteer time spent is productive, meaningful and contributory to the Town’s wellness and Strategic Plan objectives. While the advisory committees are comprised of thoughtful, community-minded residents that seek opportunities to assist the Town in many ways, the data points to a struggling system with decreasing membership, flagging attendance rates, and diminishing recruitment results where many of the same volunteers generously agree to an advisory committee appointment term after term.

These challenges will be exacerbated if 2018 discussions of interest in the formation of an advisory design panel and potentially another advisory committee to provide advice on transportation issues come to fruition (though it should be noted that transportation issues are already included in the Community Development Advisory Committee’s mandate).

It is important to examine contributing factors to these challenges. As noted in the 2016 advisory committee review and still applicable today, there are changing circumstances in the municipality. These changes include:

• shifts in the larger economy which, in turn, impact the local real estate market and associated development application size, complexity, and volume in View Royal;
• a modernized and regularly updated Zoning Bylaw that triggers fewer applications than experienced under the prior Land Use Bylaw; and
• changing socio-economic patterns whereby it is increasingly difficult to attract and retain very busy, “plugged-in”, community-minded individuals (including for a specialized committee such as an advisory design panel) for on-going volunteer commitments.

As well, Town staff are readily able to review projects and utilize professional transportation engineers to provide and review reports and proposals that incorporate Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) safety standards and BC road design and construction specifications.

With respect to larger projects where additional processing time is anticipated, such as Christie Point, there are referrals to the advisory committees and feedback from the community’s perspective is able to be provided to Council. However, these periodic development referrals to advisory committees have not generated sustained interest.

Similarly, other sporadic referrals (non-development application ones) often result in additional staff time for unplanned initiatives that may either not be realized or may take significant time to accomplish. These outcomes may be frustrating to advisory committee members, diminishing the viability of this community engagement opportunity.

c.) Options for Change – Structural and Procedural

As terms are set to expire at the end of February for approximately half of the advisory committee members and given that Council is set to re-envision the Strategic Plan based, in part, on responses received from the community satisfaction and engagement survey, now is an excellent time to consider a new approach.

Structural Options for Change:

1. Disband or suspend the current advisory committees. It may be more appropriate to consider Council’s advisory committee requirements once the community satisfaction and engagement survey has been conducted and results reported (final report anticipated in April 2019) as themes and issues identified could be reflected in revised advisory committee mandates.

2. Disband the current advisory committees and form ad hoc committees as the need arises, from time to time, with staff only attendance (staff liaison and recording secretary). An ad hoc committee would be ephemeral, providing advice to Council on a specific matter and then disband. This nimble, lean format may be ideal as it can both address specific themes and issues identified in the community survey while also respecting limited volunteer capacity. As well, issue specific, short-term volunteer opportunities are expected to generate more outreach and engagement opportunities for the Town. An ad hoc committee may only be required to meet once or twice depending on the issue it is dealing with (for example, a large scale development project where Council wishes to receive input may only require an ad hoc committee to meet once to hear an applicant’s presentation and then discuss and provide feedback) and so a commitment may only last for one to perhaps up to several months. Mandates for ad hoc committees would change each time a new one is formed though on-going procedures for these types of committees could be developed.

3. Disband the current advisory committees and form select committees as the need arises, from time to time, with Council liaisons, staff liaison(s) and a recording secretary (as outlined in the Community Charter, section 142). A select committee would need to have at least one Council member and, like the ad hoc committee described in Option 2. above, this ephemeral committee would “consider or inquire into any matter and report its findings and opinion to the council” and then disband. Like Option 2., this format would be responsive, succinct and hold more appeal for potential volunteers. Mandates for select committees would change each time a new one is formed though on-going procedures for these types of committees could be developed.

4. Consolidate the current advisory committees to form one committee that meets quarterly with staff only attendance (staff liaison(s) and a recording secretary). With Option 4., a new mandate would need to be written and the existing “Advisory Committee Procedures” amended to reflect the structural change.

5. Consolidate the current advisory committees to form one committee that meets quarterly with Council liaisons, staff liaison(s) and a recording secretary. With Option 5., a new mandate would need to be written and the existing “Advisory Committee Procedures” amended to reflect the structural change.

If none of the above-listed structural changes are supported, it is recommended that the existing “Advisory Committee Procedures” be amended as follows:

Procedural Options for Change:

6. Section 2.6 “After serving two consecutive terms (four years) on the same committee, a Member is may be deemed ineligible to serve on that committee for a third term. However, if a member is deemed ineligible, the member is eligible to apply for and serve on another committee.” This amendment reflects a desire to increase engagement opportunities across the community with the goal of avoiding stagnation and volunteer burn-out.

7. Section 3.5 “All committees will meet on the fourth Tuesday of the following months every other month as follows: January, April, March, May, July, October, September, November. For urgent business, including development application presentations, committee meetings may be convened in months not listed in this section, to assist Council in its timely consideration of matters.” This amendment is intended to reduce the volunteer commitment required of advisory committee members as it reduces the number of potential meetings from six to four per year.

8. Section 3.14 “The committee secretary will solicit on-mandate agenda items from the Chair and the Deputy Corporate Officer, the Council liaison and the staff liaison; prepare the committee agendas; and keep minutes of meetings, including the attendance of members at each meeting. The committee secretary must publish minutes for the committee’s approval and make the minutes available to the public once approved by the committee.” This amendment will ensure that Council referrals are provided to the advisory committee from the “Clerk’s Office” and ensures that new topics provided stem solely from the volunteers, represented by the Chair.

9. Section 4.3 “Only committee members, including the Council liaison members, may take part in committee debate. Only committee members may and vote on a matter before the committee; however, the Council liaisons and Council alternate on a committee may not vote.” This amendment will ensure that the advisory committees are not steered in the debate and resultant potential motion making and voting by the Council liaison(s). It is appropriate that the Council liaison(s) speak to an agenda item at the introduction of the matter, given their role in bringing Council’s perspective to the table, but it is not appropriate to engage in the debate once an item has been introduced – positing direction, advice, or recommendations.

CONCLUSION:

The Town values its volunteers and appreciates the hard work and thoughtfulness that they contribute to the community. There are many opportunities for “hands-on” volunteers in View Royal – for example, View Royal Archives, numerous invasive species removal initiatives, the View Royal/Colwood Emergency Support Services program, Welland Legacy Park and Community Orchard, Volunteer View Royal activities, Canada Day and other special event planning and hosting. As well, the Town’s advisory committees provide advice from a resident’s perspective to Council on community development, parks, recreation, and environmental matters.

It is recognized that there are several challenges in the current advisory committee structure and procedures that may frustrate the volunteer members. With a new Strategic Plan about to get underway and as the terms end for approximately half of the advisory committee members, it is a good time to consider changes that can enhance the public engagement and outreach opportunity that committees provide.

Specifically, an ad hoc committee structure is nimble and requires only a time-limited commitment from volunteers. Specific issues can be explored and those interested from the community can engage and provide input to Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Committee recommend Council disband the current advisory committees, form ad hoc committees as required, and develop general procedures for ad hoc committees for Council’s consideration (Option 2. of the Corporate Officer and Deputy Corporate Officer’s February 7, 2019 report entitled “Advisory Committees”).

SUBMITTED BY: E. Bolster, Deputy Corporate Officer S. Jones, Corporate Officer

REVIEWED BY: K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer