The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCRPS-10-021 - Procedural By-law ReviewREPORT TO: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council DATE OF MEETING: February 22, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: R. Gosse ext. 2801 PREPARED BY: R. Gosse ext. 2801 WARD(S) INVOLVED: n/a DATE OF REPORT: February 15, 2010 REPORT NO.: CRPS-10-021 SUBJECT: PROCEDURAL BY-LAW REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion BACKGROUND: In accordance with the Municipal Act, every municipality must have a procedural by-law that governs how council and its committees/boards will conduct meetings. The current by-law (Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code) came into effect in September, 1993 and since then there have been several minor amendments. In light of the fact that a new council will be elected in October of this year and more importantly, the new council will have at least 4 new members, staff has commenced a review of the current by-law. REPORT: The decision to undertake review of the procedural by-law at this time was based on the fact that a new larger council will be elected this year and a number of its members will be new to local government processes. Consideration was given to the notion of conducting the review in 2011 and, allow the new council to make decisions on any recommended changes however, staff believe that the current council possesses a large amount of experience that would be more beneficial in providing advice and direction. In addition, with a fairly large number of new councillors, it would be beneficial for the new council to have a by-law in place that reflects changes required for the larger council. This would not preclude the new council in future to amend the by-law as they require. The intent of the review is to recommend any necessary housekeeping and wordsmith changes, incorporation of best practices from other municipalities and, bring forward any major issues for council's direction. The current review of the procedural by-law was started in 2009 and involves examining the format, content and structure ensuring the by-law is up to date and meets legislated requirements. As well, staff reviewed the procedural by-laws of 6 other municipalities similar to the City of Kitchener and found that for the most part all the by-laws are very similar in format, content and structure. One area where there appears to be some differences is in the structure of the various standing committees. In addition to the 6 municipalities already being reviewed, it was decided to look at the standing committee structures of 4 more municipalities. What staff found was that 2 municipalities had 3 or more committees, 3 had 1 committee and 5 had 2. The 2 with 3 or more function much like the current structure in Kitchener and those with 1, would receive all staff reports, delegations and conduct public meetings under the Planning Act. The 5 municipalities with 2 committees have a general committee to deal with staff reports and a planning committee to deal with planning reports and public meetings under that act. In light of these findings, staff is looking for council's feedback and direction with respect to the current structure of its standing committees and if there is merit in restructuring the committees. Below is a chart outlining the results of the review of other municipalities' standing committee structure: Municipality Size of Council No. of Committees Councillors/committee Oshawa 11 4 5 + Mayor Hamilton 16 3 + Board of Health 5-7 + Mayor Mississauga 12 2 All St. Catharines 13 1 All Barrie 11 1 (split into 4 sub committees All Markham 13 2 All Peterborough 11 2 All Brampton 11 2 All Cambridge 7 1 All Waterloo 8 2 All *audit and/or budget committees are not included as they meet less frequently Question #1 With the larger council do all members sit on all standing committees? ^ Alternative is to have 4-5 Councillors and Mayor sit on each of the committees o Smaller committees may operate more efficiently but, could cause longer discussion at Council meetings with issues being re-hashed; o All members on all committees allows everyone opportunity to debate and ask questions at the same time. Question #2 Should Kitchener maintain the current 3 standing committees or move towards a General Committee and aPlanning/Development Committee? o General Committee would essentially combine FCS, CSC and non- planning/development items of DTS; o Planning & Development would continue hearing planning applications and DTS items requiring public input with meetings held in the evening. An alternative would be to include any item requiring a public meeting notjust planning matters; o Most municipalities similar to Kitchener (size and/or proximity) use General & Planning/Development committee model. Question #3 Should a schedule be developed to rotate councillors as chairs &vice-chairs of the standing committees? Currently the appointment of chairs and vice-chairs of the standing committees are made annually by council as per the terms of reference for each committee. The current chairs have held those appointments since 2003. A schedule would be based on the number of committees and meetings per year ensuring equal number of meetings per councillor and not to rotate for each meeting. o Rotation provides experience and opportunity for every councillor; o May make it difficult for staff and/or public to know who is chair during a certain period of time. Question #4 Should a new system be established whereby, all reports are listed on the agendas and the committees decide which items require discussion; those that don't are adopted by a single motion? Currently each agenda has a consent section where reports deemed by staff as not requiring discussion, are placed. This allows for efficient disposition of items resulting in a more efficient meeting. However, often consent items are discussed and, staff not anticipating discussion, are not always available for questions. As well, there have been meetings where reports were listed under discussion yet were not discussed and simply adopted; causing staff who have waited to lose valuable time. o Staff involved with a report would attend meetings and within the first few minutes, will know if they must remain for an item or can return to their work; o In cases where a presentation is beneficial and has been prepared, these reports could be listed under a new section (presentations), which would indicate they are for discussion purposes. Next Steps Staff will continue reviewing the procedural by-law making housekeeping and minor amendments and, based on council's direction will incorporate any changes with respect to standing committees. If during the review other issues considered major are found, interim reports looking for direction will be presented to council. The intent is to present to council in August 2010, either a new by-law or simply amendments to the current by-law dependant on types of changes being recommended. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n/a ACKNOWLEDGED BY: T. Speck, General Manager of Corporate Services