HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-15-107 - Review of Procedural By-law Changes & Proposals to Promote Meeting Effectiveness Staff Report
rTC.�r R finance and Corporate Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: August 10, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director, Legislated Services /City Clerk, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7809
PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Manager of Council and Committee Services /
Deputy Clerk, 519-741-2200 ext. 7278
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: July 15, 2015
REPORT NO.: FCS-15-107
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROCEDURAL BY-LAW CHANGES AND PROPOSALS
TO FURTHER PROMOTE MEETING EFFECTIVENESS
RECOMMENDATION:
That the proposed changes to enhance meeting effectiveness, as attached in
Appendix `A' of Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-15-107,
be approved; and further,
That staff be directed to prepare a by-law to amend the City of Kitchener
Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), as necessary, to incorporate the
proposed changes.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 10, 2013 Council meeting, direction was given for staff to undertake a
review of the City's meeting procedures and report back with suggested measures to
provide for a more effective meeting process. Report FCS-13-177 was presented at the
December 9, 2013 special Council meeting. It contained a comparison of ten urban
municipalities, with an average composition of 11 Council members to determine if
Kitchener's standing committee and council meetings were on par. A review of those
municipalities revealed their Council meetings averaged 2.36 hours per meeting
whereas, Kitchener City Council meetings averaged over 4 hours in 2012. With that in
mind, Report FCS-13-177 reviewed the existing conditions possibly contributing to the
length of meetings and 22 proposals were put forward for consideration. These were
generally grouped under the following headings:
1. Accelerated Standing Committee Agenda Publication;
2. Corporate Reports Pending List;
3. Changes to Standing Committee Agendas & Meeting Procedure;
***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
4 - 1
4. Changes to Council Agendas & Meeting Procedure;
5. Presentations;
6. Delegations;
7. Questions to Delegation;
8. Process for Handling Discussion Items;
9. Delegations Wishing to Appear before Council; and,
10.Motions.
In total 17 of the 22 recommendations were adopted, with some minor amendments, at
the January 13, 2014 special Council meeting.
As outlined during the discussion that took place in December 2013, Section 225.(b) of
the Municipal Act, 2001 stipulates that it is the role of the head of council, to preside
over council meetings so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively. It
was observed that delegations would leave meetings before their item came forward
due to the amount of time taken on earlier items. Report FCS-13-177 highlighted that
exceeding the allocated time on the initial items listed on an agenda results in members
of the public, staff as well as paid consultants waiting for several hours until their item
comes forward. It was pointed out that not adhering to the schedule can adversely affect
public participation and result in additional costs being incurred by the Corporation.
Parliamentary procedures were created to ensure the basic tenets of democracy are
followed, enacting the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority;
thereby ensuring that meetings are meaningful.
At the March 23, 2015 Council meeting, a motion was brought forward to amend
Chapter 25 (Procedure) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code to increase the
allotment of time for Councillors to ask questions from 5 minutes to 10 minutes per
round of questions; and, to increase the amount of time delegations have to address
Council from 5 minutes to 10 minutes. At that time it was agreed to refer consideration
of that motion to a later date to allow time for a report to be prepared as to the impact of
the previous changes to Chapter 25 (Procedure) and any additional measures which
could be implemented to promote meeting effectiveness.
REPORT:
The purpose of using parliamentary procedures, such as those found in Robert's Rules
of Order, is to facilitate the conduct of a meeting so the deliberate will of the majority is
achieved, while still protecting members' rights. In the December 9t" Report it was noted
that achieving more effective meetings would not only require buy-in from the Mayor
and Committee Chairs, but from all members of Council; who should hold each other
responsible for ensuring the agreed upon rules are being followed.
It is a difficult task to definitively quantify the success rate of the previously approved
procedural changes to determine whether meetings are more efficient and effective
compared to 18 months ago. This report provides a snapshot of the current conditions
and where possible quantifiable statistics have been provided in an attempt to show where
meeting effectiveness has been enhanced, regressed or remains unchanged.
4 - 2
Attached hereto as Appendix `A' is a list of recommended proposals to further enhance the
effectiveness of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure). Additionally, included throughout
this Report are suggested means by which measures currently contained in Chapter 25
could be reinforced.
Accelerated Standing Committee Agenda Publication
One of the approved proposals included an accelerated timeframe whereby Standing
Committee agendas would be posted to the City's website ten days in advance of a
meeting, as opposed to the previous five day timeframe. One intent behind this change
was to provide members of the public with a greater amount of time to be notified of a
matter and register as a delegation. Anecdotally, over the past 18 months staff cannot
recall a delegation who attended a regularly scheduled Standing Committee meeting
and commented that the agenda materials were not supplied within an adequate
amount of time to prepare for a meeting. Thus, from the perspective of delegations, the
accelerated agenda timeframe has been helpful in ensuring the public have adequate
notice for upcoming matters.
The accelerated timeframe was also implemented to afford a greater amount of time for
members to review agenda materials and seek clarification from staff in advance of a
meeting. This was enacted as it was identified that a significant amount of time was
being spent in meetings with members seeking clarification or requesting additional
information from staff. Accordingly, clause two of the motion which changed the agenda
timeframe stipulated that questions of clarification and/or where the answer to a
question has been conveyed in the materials circulated with the agenda, should be
deemed out of order by the Chair.
Attached hereto as Appendix `B' is a chart which gives an overview of the deliberation
process used for 17 discussion items considered at Council / Standing Committee
meetings since March 2015. It shows that approximately 30% of the overall time spent
on an item can be attributed to asking questions of staff. For some matters, such as the
Sidewalk Infill Policy, 74 minutes were spent at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee meeting asking questions of staff; and, a further 41 minutes were spent
asking questions on that matter at the following week's Council meeting.
Reinforcing • Members are encouraged to seek clarification from staff in advance of
Existing a meeting, and,
Practice:
• Chairs should endeavour to more closely adhere to the previously
adopted provision and deem out of order any questions of clarification
and/or where the answer to a question is conveyed in the circulated
agenda materials.
For the 17 discussion items analyzed in Appendix `B', members of Council spent 510
minutes asking questions of staff. It has been observed that questions to staff and
delegations sometimes veer away from the subject being discussed and/or are
accompanied by comments. Other municipalities have provisions contained in their
4 - 3
Procedural By-laws which set out specific examples of a line of questioning that would
be deemed out of order. To provide clarity to the City's process, it is suggested that a
similar provision be included in Chapter 25 (Procedure).
Proposal 1 Questions of delegations, presenters or staff should seek additional
facts or further specific information only relating to the subject matter
on the table. Questions cannot expand the scope of the delegation's/
presenter's remarks or include the member's own statements /
comments. Questions such as `are you aware', `do you agree' or
`wouldn't you say' are not permitted as they do not seek additional
relevant information. Members will not engage in debate regarding
any matter presented during questioning.
Changes to Standing Committee Agendas & Meeting Procedure
Listing reports on a Consent agenda is a common parliamentary practice and is viewed
as an efficient method of dealing with uncontentious items or items of a fairly routine
nature. The City employs a rigorous process to ensure Consent and Information Items
are placed under the appropriate category on the meeting agenda. For those items, no
discussion or debate is supposed to take place and one over-arching motion should be
taken on the Consent Items. Committees, however, routinely review each Consent Item
individually and discussion of both Consent and Information Items often involves
questions to staff seeking further information contained within a report.
The charts below show that from January 2014 to June 2015, discussion took place on
almost half of all Consent and Information Items for a total of 509 minutes. Of the 76
items discussed during that time, in all but 5 instances Council eventually adopted the
recommendation contained in the original staff report.
Consent Items (January 2014 to June 2015)
Total # Time Changes
of Discussing V.
Consent #of Items % Items #of Overall
Items Discussed Discussed (mins) Changes Items
FCS: 35 20 57% 95 2 6%
CIS: 104 46 44% 230 2 2%
PSI: 1 0 0% 0 0 0%
TOTAL: 140 66 47% 325 4 3%
Information Items (January 2014 to June 2015)
Time Changes
Total # Discussing V.
of Info #of Items % Items Actions Overall
Items Discussed Discussed (mins) Taken Items
FCS: 10 4 40% 80 0 0%
CIS: 12 5 42% 100 1 8%
PSI: 3 1 33.3% 4 0 0%
TOTAL: 25 10 40% 184 1 3%
4 - 4
Similarly the December 2013 report, identified that in 2012 discussion took place on
59% of Consent Items, with a changed being enacted for 7% of those items discussed.
This equates to a change per every 14 items discussed in 2012, verses a change per
every 35 items discussed in 2014/2015. If discussion were to have occurred on only
those matters that resulted in changes to the staff recommendation, members of
Council would have spent 493.5 minutes or 8.5 fewer hours in meetings over the past
year and a half.
Reinforcing . Based on the amount of discussion that continues to occur on
Existing Consent and Information Items, members are encouraged to enhance
Practice: their utilization of the time prior to a meeting to ask questions of staff.
As part of the previously adopted meeting efficiencies, it was agreed that any report that
was strictly for information would be placed under that heading on the agenda and
would only be discussed by a majority vote of the Committee. Requiring a motion to
consider Information Items ensures the basic democratic tenet of majority rule is
employed when a member is seeking to use a portion of a meeting to speak to a matter
not originally intended to be discussed. In keeping with this tenet, it is proposed that a
vote be required to discuss a report listed as a Consent Item, as similarly no time is
provided for those items on the agenda.
Proposal 2 That Section 25.10.9 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), be
amended to require a majority vote to discuss a report listed as a
Consent Item.
Delegations
As noted, in March 2015, a motion was put forward to increase the amount of time that
delegations have to address Council from 5 minutes to 10 minutes. A chart was
included with the December 2013 report, which depicted the amount of time taken by
delegations in relation to various items considered over the course of seven meetings.
That chart has been expanded below.
Meeting Date # of Avg. Time Per Duration of
Delegations Delegation Item
May 11, 2015 Council meeting - Withdrawal 6 13.3 minutes 2 hours
of Notice of Intention, 156-158 King Street 32 minutes
April 23, 2015 Special Council meeting - 5 16.4 minutes 3 hours
Withdrawal of Notice of Intention, Mayfair 1 minutes
February 2, 2015 Public Budget Night 10 11 minutes 1 hours
56 minutes
December 8, 2014 PSI Meeting Fairway/ g 15.8 minutes 3 hours
Lackner Zone Change 22 minutes
June 23, 2014 PSI Meeting - Williamsburg 5 15 minutes 1 hours
South 45 minutes
April 28, 2014 FCS Meeting - Food Trucks 8 12.75 minutes 3 hours
2 minutes
4 - 5
February 24, 2014 FCS Meeting - Food g 11.5 minutes 2 hours
Trucks 3 minutes
March 25, 2013 Council Meeting - Tier 2 5 15.2 minutes 5 hours
Community Grants 25 minutes
January 7, 2013 Public Budget Meeting 14 14 minutes 3 hours
17 minutes
November 27, 2012 Special PSI Committee 15 17 minutes 5 hours
Meeting 37 minutes
January 9, 2012 Public Budget Meeting 9 13.3 minutes 2 hours
May 26, 2011 Special Council Meeting on 22 13.5 minutes 4 hours
the LRT 50 minutes
The chart depicts that over the course of the 12 meetings noted above, Council took 38
hours and 48 minutes to hear from 117 delegations. This equates to an average
allocation of 14 minutes per delegation. While the Procedural By-law prescribes only 5
minutes to hear from delegations, in practice delegations are usually allocated
additional time by the chair to wrap-up their comments even after their 5 minutes has
elapsed. Additionally, once questions have been asked, on average delegations have
been afforded almost three times what is prescribed to convey their position on a
particular matter.
Meeting Date # of Avg. Time Per
In recent memory the only Delegations Delegation Duration
time where a delegation was April 30, 2013 1 hr
held strictly to the 5 minute Special Council 22 5 minutes 48 mins
time limit was during the two Meeting - Casino
special Council meetings April 23, 2013 Special Council 26 5 minutes 1 hr
held on the casino matter. Meetin - Casino 48 mins
At those meetings, Council
was able to hear from 48 delegations in 3 hours and 36 minutes. This is just under half
the amount of delegations compared to the 12 meetings mentioned above, but in only
9% of the time. As demonstrated during those two meetings, 5 minutes is usually an
adequate amount of time for a delegation to express their position. When it is not,
Section 25.5.4.6 of the Procedural By-law already contains a mechanism to allocate
additional time to delegations. Examples of where that has been used are the
December 2, 2013 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting (15 minutes
provided to the delegations speaking to the Statue project) and, the March 30, 2015
Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting (10 minutes allocated to the
delegations from the Centre in the Square and the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony). This
existing mechanism is in keeping with the tenets of democracy, whereby the majority of
members must agree to provide additional time to a particular delegation.
In looking at the time provided to delegations by 20 municipalities (16 of the largest
municipalities in Ontario as well as local comparators), included as Appendix `C', the
vast majority allocate only 5 minutes for members of the public to address Council and
Committee meetings. Of note, Kitchener is one of only three municipalities that allow
last minute / walk-in delegations; thus, highlighting the ease with which members of the
public can currently access Kitchener City Council.
4 - 6
In comparison, at the Ontario Legislature, delegations receive 15 minutes to make a
presentation. If after their presentation is completed, and the allotted time has not
expired, Committee members are then permitted to use the remaining time for
questions. This 15 minute time limit can also be decreased based on the overall time
available for the Committee meeting.
If someone was hoping to have something presented to the Federal Legislature they
would have to collect a petition and lobby their Member of Parliament (MP). There are
limited opportunities for a member of the public to address an issue as a witness at a
Federal Committee meeting, which is subject to the discretion of the Chair. There are
no formal provisions which permit delegations to address Parliament at any time.
Reinforcing . Based on the existing mechanisms provided for in Chapter 25, and
Existing the standards utilized by other municipalities, staff are not
Practice: recommending any changes to alter the amount of time afforded to
delegations.
Questions
It has been noted that, from time to time, people who have registered to speak at a
Council meeting leave before their item is considered. As documented in this report as
well as previous staff reports, the greater the amount of time taken per delegation, the
fewer the number of people who can be heard at a meeting.
For the 17 discussion items outlined in Appendix `B' 933 minutes or 15 hours and 33
minutes were spent by Councillors asking questions. The second part of the motion put
forward at the March 23, 2015 Council meeting related to increasing the allotment of
time for Councillors to ask both their initial and secondary round of questions from 5
minutes to 10 minutes in each round. If each Councillor were to take their prescribed 20
minutes, when extrapolated, it could take 3 hours and 40 minutes to ask questions of a
single delegation. As outlined in Appendix `C', 16 of the municipalities surveyed have a
5 minute time limit on Councillors per round of questions. Therefore, the City's existing
time allocation appears to be in keeping with the standard applied by most large
municipalities in Ontario.
Given the concerns raised over the set time limit on Councillors for asking questions,
one option could be to remove the time limit and adopt a provision that each Council
member be permitted to ask two questions of delegations, presenters and staff to seek
further specific information only relating to the subject matter on the table. If a
Councillor still did not receive the additional information they needed after that many
questions, they could ask Council to waive the rules to allow for an additional question.
This would also create an incentive for routine questions of clarification to be addressed
outside of the meeting.
Two questions per Council member should be sufficient to obtain information from a
delegation; given that it would give Council the potential of asking 22 questions.
4 - 7
Enacting such a provision would be in keeping with the procedure that was utilized for
the April 2013 special Council meetings on the casino topic when questions were asked
of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).
Agenda Items
One of the procedural changes previously implemented pertained to requests to
address Council and/or a Standing Committee with respect to a matter that may not be
within the municipality's jurisdiction. The procedural change enacted a process by
which these kinds of requests could be referred for consideration to the next available
Standing Committee Agenda Setting meeting. The intent was to implement a process
to ensure Council was dedicating its time towards matters where it could take some
degree of action and/or materially move forward the business of the Corporation.
Often times these kinds of requests are from groups/organizations seeking to increase
awareness for a particular matter by making a presentation to Council. Typically, no
formal action was requested of Council, or the action would relate to a request for the
municipality to advocate on behalf of the group to another level of government. At times
these requests include issues that fall under the authority of the Region of Waterloo, the
provincial or Federal governments.
Reinforcing . Staff will continue to ensure that when these kinds of requests are
Existing received the spheres of jurisdiction are clearly conveyed and the
Practice: person making the request is referred to the appropriate level of
government which has jurisdiction over the particular matter.
It is easier for members of the public to access a municipal council than addressing the
Federal or provincial governments. However, there is a need to balance that ease of
access to promote democracy with ensuring Council and/or Committee meetings are
being utilized to move forward the business of the Corporation; otherwise, Council could
spend its time on issues over which it has no formal authority.
Process for Handling Discussion Items
Members Comments
Appendix `13', also includes a column demonstrating the amount of time that was spent
per item on comments by members of Council. On average, members spent 29% of
their time making comments, which can contribute to items exceeding their allotted time.
On average, Council/Committee exceeded its allotted time by 53 minutes per item, of
which 28 minutes were dedicated to comments. One measure previously adopted to
improve meeting efficiency was a provision that "Committee Chairs will ensure that
matters are considered within their allotted time, which may include the need to call the
question or defer the matter." There is no legislative requirement for a chair to allow
comments on an item. There are instances outlined in Appendix `13', such as the April
257 2015 special Council meeting, where the meeting exceeded its scheduled time by
61 minutes, 43 minutes of which were spent making comments.
4 - 8
Reinforcing • Where a meeting is already past its scheduled end time, members
Existing may wish to consider letting their votes speak for themselves as
Practice: opposed to making comments, and,
• Chairs may wish to curtail comments on a matter that is approaching
its scheduled end time as a means of ensuring the meeting schedule
is adhered to, and,
• Utilize `calling the question.' This can be used by any member who
has not commented on an item and would like to see a vote be taken
to move forward the business of the Corporation.
Housekeeping Amendments to Procedural By-law
Over the course of the past 18 months since the Procedural By-law was amended,
some inconsistencies have come to light. The most glaring of these pertains to
`suspending the rules.' Currently it takes only a two-thirds vote of the whole of Council
to suspend the rules; however, it takes a unanimous vote to have a meeting extend past
11:00 p.m. In this instance, it would only take a two-thirds vote to suspend something
that would normally require unanimous consent. It is felt that if the rules that are to be
adhered to are going to be set aside, than everyone who is subject to those rules should
agree to this change.
Proposal 3 That Section 25.2.2 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), be
amended to require the unanimous consent of all members present to
suspend the rules outlined therein.
Requiring New Information
It has been observed, particularly in relation to Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee meetings, delegations may appear on behalf of an application and give a
presentation in support of the staff recommendation. Those delegations then attend the
next subsequent Council meeting, to speak in support of the same matter.
Municipal Code Chapter 25.5.5(h) currently sets out that delegations wishing to present
new information subsequent to an earlier presentation to Council and/or a Committee
should whenever possible provide that information in writing to the Clerk by no later
than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The intent of this measure is to
reduce the possibility of hearing the same information multiple times on the same topic.
It is suggested this provision should be strengthened to not permit someone from
speaking to the same matter unless they have new information, which has been
provided in advance of the meeting. In recognition that it might be difficult for a
delegation to adhere to the existing Wednesday deadline, it is proposed that this
timeframe be extended. It is interesting to note that certain municipalities have
provisions within their procedural by-laws that prohibit the same person from addressing
Council, regardless of the issue, more than once in the span of three months.
4 - 9
Proposal 4 That Section 25.2.2 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure) be
amended to provide that members of the public who have addressed
Council or a Committee on a particular issue will not be permitted to
address Council / Committee on that same matter, unless they are
providing new information, and,
That this new information must be outlined in a delegation form
submitted to the Clerk or designate by 8:30 a.m. on the day of a
Committee meeting or 3:00 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting, and
further,
That should a member of Council feel that the submitted materials do
not represent new information, than this may be raised through a point
of order prior to hearing from the delegation, if the point of order is
sustained, Council shall move forward without hearing from the
delegation.
Question & Answers
The ninth and tenth agenda headings provided for in Section 25.5.1 of the Municipal
Code are 'Questions' and 'Answers.' Under the current practice, this is an opportunity
for members of Council to request that staff report back on various matters. At times,
this can result in significant work that is required to be carried out by staff to provide a
response. It is important to note that in accordance with the Code of Conduct for
Members of Council, no one member of Council is permitted to independently direct the
actions of staff.
Robert's Rules of Order provides that every voting member has a right to previous
notice. The reasoning for this is if a person has a right to vote, then they have a
fundamental right to attend. A person cannot attend a meeting if they do not know what
will be discussed. Notice requirements are also in place to ensure that openness and
transparency are maintained as part of the meeting process. If an item is not listed on a
meeting agenda, then there is no way for an interested member of the public to be
informed that Council may be discussing that matter.
In total over the past 18 months, there were 43 times where direction was given or a
motion was taken at Council during Questions and Answers without any prior
notification being given to the general public. This would appear to be inconsistent with
to the intent behind the notice requirements in the Procedural By-law.
It is important to note that alternative mechanisms are already in place to compensate
for the removal of Questions and Answers from the Council agenda. A member of
Council could give notice that they intend to bring forward a motion at the next following
Council meeting to direct staff to provide additional information on a particular item. A
Councillor could also submit such a motion to the Clerk's Office by noon on the
Wednesday prior to a scheduled meeting and it will be included as part of the meeting
agenda. Finally, a member could still request that the notice requirements be waived to
allow for an item to come forward that was not listed on the agenda.
4 - 10
Proposal 5 That Section 25.5.1 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure) be
amended to remove Questions and Answers from the Council
agenda.
Administrative Improvements
When collecting the background information for this report, it was observed that a
number of municipalities utilize a form to solicit specific information as to why a
delegation is requesting to appear before Council / Committee. These forms ask a
delegation to identify: the nature of their request; if they will be appearing in support or
opposition; if they have undertaken any discussions with staff; and, any potential timing
implications associated with their request.
The provision of these new forms would have several benefits. They would serve to
clarify the reasons why a delegation is seeking to appear before Council; thereby
potentially reducing the number of questions members may need to ask. For repeat
delegations, it should help to identify if the person is seeking to provide new information.
Additionally, should the delegation need to leave a meeting prior to being heard, this will
still afford Council the opportunity to know the position of that member of the public.
Staff are hoping to have these forms available on the City's website by the end of
August 2015. Given these forms would contain personal information, they will be
circulated confidentially to Council in advance of a meeting where possible.
Staff Presentations
As part of the previously implemented meeting efficiency measures, it was agreed the
majority of staff presentations would be limited to 10 minutes. At other municipalities,
staff rarely, if ever, give presentations in support of their reports. It is viewed their report
conveys sufficient information that it should speak for itself. It is proposed that save and
except for the following matters, staff would no longer give a presentation in support of
their reports:
• budget,
• audit,
• strategy session,
• statutory public hearings, as deemed necessary; and,
• other major items, as approved by the Committee Chairs at an
agenda setting meeting.
Where approval has been given for a presentation during the agenda setting process,
this will subsequently be noted on the meeting agenda.
Report Template
It has been observed that of the questions asked of staff during a meeting, a portion are
typically dedicated to seeking details that have been previously conveyed at other
meetings. This is particularly true of tender reports, where additional information is
4 - 11
being sought about the details of a project, which has already received approval and
may have been discussed as part of the budget deliberations process. As a means of
proactively addressing such matters, it is proposed that the report template be revised
to include a section documenting when a matter has been previously considered. This
should enhance transparency for the public and serve to benefit Council's deliberation
of those items.
Delegation Timer
It is proposed that a visual timer be installed for delegations / members of Council as
well as two digital wall clocks. Currently, there is no method by which members of the
public can keep track of the time in the Council Chamber, outside of their own personal
devices. The meeting administration system in the Council Chamber provides a timer,
which automatically shuts off the podium microphone after five minutes. To provide
some level of indication that a delegation's timing is about to expire, at the 4 minute
mark the Clerk or Committee Administrator rings a bell. It has been noted this can be
startling to some delegations who may lose their train of thought as a result of the bell.
Additionally, methods vary as to how each chair keeps track of a Councillor's allotted
time for asking questions and making comments. To standardize and enhance the
transparency of this process, it is proposed that a two sided digital timer be added to the
end of the Clerk's table. This timer would be operated remotely by the chair, with one
side facing the delegation podium and the other side providing a visual indication to
Councillors as to how much time they have left to speak.
Proposal 6 That a two-sided digital timer and the two digital wall clocks be
installed in the Council Chamber.
Impact of Service Growth
The following is a comparison of the previous 4.5 years of Council and Standing
Committee meetings with the current composition of eleven members, as compared to
the preceding 5 years when they were composed of only seven members. The chart
shows that Council and Standing Committee meeting times have increased by one-third
over that timeframe. For the 5 year span from 2006 to 2010 the average Council
meeting lasting 2 hours and 18 minutes; as compared to the average for the past 4.5
years of 3 hours and 32 minutes. This represents an increase of 54% longer Council
meetings. For comparison, Regional Council meetings, which are composed of 16
members, had an average run time of 1 hour and 18 minutes in 2014; including
meetings where matters such as the LRT and the River Road Extension were
discussed.
The times outlined in the following chart may seem to suggest the procedural changes
approved in January 2014 have positively impacted the length of meetings; however, it
should be noted there were fewer meetings held in 2014 due to the Municipal Election.
Based on the year to date averages, it can be projected that by the end of 2015 the total
time spent in Council and Standing Committee meetings for this year would be
4 - 12
approximately 217 hours and 42 minutes; which is consistent with the totals for 2011
and 2013. This would also increase the total time spent in meetings for that time period
from 970 hour and 11 minutes to 1067 hours and 48 minutes.
5 Years Prior to Current
Composition 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* TOTAL
Total Time in Council
Meetings*** 46:16 48:15 52:30 46:12 52:40 245:53
Standing Committee 88:51 109:09 75:52 109:52 99:57 483:41
Total Council & Standing 135:07 157:24 128:22 156:04 152:37 729:34
Avg. Council Meeting Times 2:08 2:08 2:21 2:31 2:22 2:18
4.5 Years After Current
Composition 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015** TOTAL
Total Time in Council
Meetings*** 73:13 77:25 74:20 69:22 50:46 345:06
Standing Committee 145:10 149:34 143:40 117:22 69:19 625:05
Total Council & Standing 218:23 226:59 218:00 186:44 120:05 970:11
Avg. Council Meeting Times 2:58 4:05 3:19 3:43 3:35 3:32
(Time shown in hours minutes)
* Fewer meetings due to municipal election
** Stats from January to June 29, 2015
*** Does not include in-camera meetings
To date, the overall time spent in meetings has increased by 240 hours and 37 minutes
since the increase in the size of Council, which equates to over 48 additional hours
spent in Council and Standing Committee meetings annually. This increase of time
appears to be the new norm for these meetings; rather, than an anomaly, as suggested
when the previous report was considered. This new trend in the length of meetings has
impacted the staff responsible for administering Council and Standing Committee
meetings as more time spent in the Council Chamber leaves less time during regular
work hours to produce minutes along with issuing statutory notices and correspondence
relating to meetings.
2014 Council & Standing Committee
In comparing the amount of time Legislated Administration
Services staff spends in meetings with that
of other local area municipalities, it can be No. of Total Time
seen that Kitchener staff facilitated 59% Mtgs in Mtgs**
more meetings than any other in the Guelph 65 108:45
comparator group and spent 72% more Waterloo (City) 41 55:27
time in meetings than the next closest Waterloo (Region) 61 65:10
municipality.
Cambridge 44 57:00
Appreciating the challenges of defining a Average: 52.75 71:35
comparator group, this measurement is Kitchener 7 84 186:44
valuable in terms of benchmarking overall **Does not include any in-camera or closed sessions of
service delivery in relation to an average council.
staffing complement seen within other similarly functioning Clerk's Departments.
4 - 13
In 2006, there was 4 staff servicing Council and Standing Committee meetings, which
was further reduced in 2013 to the current complement of 3 staff. It is important to note
that while staffing levels have decreased and meeting times have grown by one-third,
deadlines and service level expectations have remained constant.
Legislated Services staff continues to look for ways to streamline processes and to create
capacity to address increasing workload demands. There is the possibility, however, that
despite these continuous improvement initiatives, the length of time spent in meetings will
eventually impact the division's ability to cope without additional resources.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The proposed procedural changes aimed at promoting more effective meetings align
with the following areas of the City's Strategic Plan:
Community Priorities: Quality of Life, Leadership and Community Engagement and
Diversity.
Effective and Efficient Government Priorities: Organizational Governance and
Communications, Marketing & Customer Service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The costs associated with installing three clocks in the Council chamber would be
funded from within existing budgets.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — A copy of Report FCS-15-107 was published on the City's website with the
meeting agenda in advance of Council's consideration and was emailed to
approximately 21 members of the local print, radio and television media.
CONSULT — Leading up to January 13, 2014 meeting, every two days Communications
staff used the City's social media accounts to post the link to the `Effective Meetings'
webpage, encouraging people to provide feedback on the previously proposed
procedural changes. Despite extensive media coverage, outside of one delegation who
attended the December 9, 2013 meeting, no other public input was received on those
procedural changes.
Based on this experience, staff undertook a more selective form of engagement this
time, by conducting a survey of the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the City's advisory
committees. This was undertaken as these members of the public have direct
experience with using the City's Procedural By-law. This survey sought feedback on
their utilization of the Procedural By-law as well as any suggestions they may have for
moving forward. A Council / Committee Services staff member attended the June 23,
2015 Advisory Committee Chair meeting hosted by Compass Kitchener to encourage
those in attendance to complete the survey. Thus far nine responses have been
received, which indicate that while the By-law is utilized it is done so in a less formal
4 - 14
fashion compared to Council meetings. It was noted by several respondents that they
rarely have members of the public attend their meetings, but when they do the timelines
set out in the By-law generally provide a good guide for maintaining order.
CONCLUSION:
At the August 26, 2013 Council Strategy Session, Fred Dean conveyed that the degree
of thoroughness given to a matter does not necessarily relate to the amount of time that
is spent debating it; but rather, the quality of the discussion that took place.
If approved, the proposals could be utilized for as long as Council deems them to be
useful. If the measures are found to be ineffective, Council could always revert back to
the existing procedures or incorporate new changes into the Procedural By-law. The
recommendations contained herein are intended to provide for productive meetings
while ensuring effective citizen engagement and promoting the tenets of democracy.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance & Corporate Services
Attached: Appendix `A' — List of Proposed Changes
Appendix `B' —Analysis of 17 Discussion Items since March 30, 2015
Appendix `C' — Time Allotted to Delegations & Questions in 20 Municipalities
4 - 15
APPENDIX `A' - REPORT FCS-15-107
Proposal 1 That Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), be amended to include a provision
that questions of delegations, presenters or staff should seek additional facts or
further specific information only relating to the subject matter on the table.
Questions cannot expand the scope of the delegation's / presenter's remarks or
include the member's own statements / comments. Questions such as `are you
aware', `do you agree' or `wouldn't you say' are not permitted as they do not seek
additional relevant information. Members will not engage in debate regarding any
matter presented during questioning.
Proposal 2 That Section 25.10.9 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), be amended to
require a majority vote to discuss a report listed as a Consent Item.
Proposal 3 That Section 25.2.2 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure), be amended to
require the unanimous consent of all members present to suspend the rules
outlined therein.
Proposal 4 That Section 25.2.2 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure) be amended to
provide that members of the public who have addressed Council or a Committee
on a particular issue will not be permitted to address Council / Committee on that
same matter, unless they are providing new information; and,
That this new information must be outlined in a delegation form submitted to the
Clerk or designate by 8:30 a.m. on the day of a Committee meeting or 3:00 p.m.
on the day of a Council meeting; and further,
That should a member of Council feel that the submitted materials do not
represent new information, than this may be raised through a point of order prior
to hearing from the delegation; if the point of order is sustained, Council shall
move forward without hearing from the delegation.
Proposal 5 That Section 25.5.1 of Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure) be amended to
remove Questions and Answers from the Council agenda.
Proposal 6 That a two-sided digital timer and the two digital wall clocks be installed in the
Council Chamber.
4 - 16
'- R Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O L o 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0) E r N Cl) M V (O N O O I- O V co O 0)
0 0 ~ N co M N N V - N N V In M N
O
c
s E
U L) U
Y
Y
E d Y E In r O r M V N O O M In V In W
H Q M M N V N co N (O co (O co N
CO O
U
'- R Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° co V O N r- V N co In co co I- 00 a0 O
(n o 0 ~ M In N co N co N 00 co N co N N M
N
C N
O C
r 0 E O
N r O In O In O I- co O co In V O M O
W y N N 00 V V N O co r V M
V '- R Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S O 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0
I- In V (O O a0 O O O N co r O co V O
d o 0 ~ V N N N N M M N M N
N
C N
O 7 O O N E 's � O In 'IT r M O M N O 4) O O � M N
H
Ol
LO a
c
(� '.2 O - V I- In In V V O V V O In M M
LL R y d ° V N (O V Cl) O Cl) co V In r - M
~0 L
0 N
W r c r
C y V V N In O (O (O Cl) CO N CO 00 00 r In N N
0
m —
� '- f6 Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O_ O "0 E 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 C
X O N r °O V O O M M N r co Cl)
ar o 0 ~ M N M M Cl) N M N N N N
D c
Z y
W d (M9 - N N ° V M Cl) r (fl M O O N co a0 N
a
a
a > i
r ON M co O co N M M
(O V N M
m Q
R O C E
Y r °_ (O I- N O O N N V O C
V R N I- M In In co a0 In N N a0
Q ~ ~ O
-a W
0) r E D
z (0 o � o�L z QQ
W
m w >
Q
0)
as
,� min
N 3 N 0 0 w Q N D O w
a) o a) > m e c p m c Y c 2 c Y c 1
�.
CU -a
m � Q m 0 � Y c � � o00Y a � Y �
U N0010 E5 U > Z � (n (nU W LLSZ � (nd � MdaI- U -
_O _O _O _0)
C O 0) O 0)
_ _
N U C 2i C C C
U M M O M Q O O U O (n O U O
L U M U a cn U U LL U a U LL U
d L L L L L
� R Q Q Q Q � R R � � �
C a c a a 4 - 17
M N N N M M T
r N r N
APPENDIX `C' - REPORT FCS-15-107
Time Limit at Time Limit at
Municipality Committee Council Time Limits on Councillors Walk-Ins Permitted
5 mins
Barrie 10 mins 10 mins No
(extended for 5 mins by a motion)
Brampton 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins x 2 No
5 mins x 2
Burlington 5 mins 5 mins (encouraged to provide questions to No,except for Planning meeting
staff prior to the meeting)
Cambridge 5 mins 5 mins 10 mins No-must sign-up prior to noon on
day of the meeting
Greater Sudbury 10 mins 10 mins 10 mins Yes with a motion of 2/3 of Council
Guelph 5 mins, 10 mins 5 mins 5 mins No
for Planning
Hamilton 5 mins No delegations at 5 mins x 2 No
Council
Kitchener 5 mins 5 Mins 5 mins x 2 Yes
(extended by a motion)
London 5 Mins No delegations at No member will speak more than once No
Council to an item
Markham 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins one time Yes
Mississauga 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins x 2 No
Oakville 10 mins 10 mins 5 mins x 2 Not at Council
Oshawa 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins Yes when a motion is passed
(extended by 5 mins with a motion)
No delegations at Committee-5 mins x 2,
Ottawa 5 mins Council Council-5 mins one time,excluding No delegations at Council
staffs response
Yes,if Council passes a motion,if
Richmond Hill 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins once presented at Committee cannot
present at Council
No delegations at 5 mins
Toronto 5 mins No
Council (extended with a motion)
Vaughan 5 mins No delegations at 5 mins Yes
Council
Waterloo(City) 10 mins 10 mins 5 mins once After Agenda deadline 5 mins
Waterloo(Region) 10 mins 5 mins 10 mins Discretion of the Chair-3 mins
(unless extended by a motion) Council/5 mins Committee
5 mins
Windsor 5 mins 5 mins (all questions shall be in writing, No
comments limited to 3 mins)
Synopsis of Munici alities
#with 10 Only 3 municipalities,including
Minute Time 5 4 3 Kitchener,freely permit walk-in/
Limit: last minute Delegations
#with 5 Minute 15 11* 16**
Time Limit:
*5 municipalities do not permit delegations at Council
**1 municipality has no time limit on Councillors,but limits them to only speaking once
4 - 18