Information isn’t flowing the way it should, say several past and present city advisory committee members who sometimes feel as though their input is treated as little more than “token” consultation.
“We kind of get the feeling that we’re being heard, but we’re not really being heard,” said Mike Greer, chair of the accessibility advisory committee. “Sometimes I get the feeling that (council) takes the staff report and then that’s it.”
As city staff is preparing to launch regular reviews of the committees, as directed by council last fall, members offer a number of suggestions on how to improve the flow of information with the aim of giving council a more thorough understanding of their ideas, concerns and, in many cases, expert opinions on issues that impact residents.
Draft policies are currently being crafted that would launch those reviews at least once every four years, explained deputy clerk Dylan McMahon, in addition to policies that impact all of the committees such as the appointment process.
“Whether that review comes out and requires changes to each terms of reference, I think will vary,” he said. “You’ll see some where you’ll have significant changes, some where you have no changes and some where you have minor changes.”
The city has 20 advisory committees which offer input on things such as heritage, accessibility, public art, tourism, transit and solid waste management. Some committees, including the council remuneration advisory committee, are not always active.
“It’s not about better rules, it’s about better relationships and letting some freedom of thought come through,” public art advisory committee member John Fisher said of improving the process. “You can’t rule your way out of ineffective committees.”
Though not common, there can be discrepancies between information presented to council by staff and the opinions of committees.
Chief among the ideas floated by committee members who spoke with GuelphToday – several either declined comment or failed to respond during a weeks-long process – is that councillors should sit on advisory committees or, at least, observe what goes on in order to provide council with a more fulsome perspective of committee recommendations.
“When there are no councillors on these committees, it facilitates them becoming dysfunctional,” said Doug Minett, who resigned from the downtown advisory committee out of “frustration” last fall. “With councillors there to understand first-hand ... the discussions and the issues, it makes a huge difference.
“If the only way council hears what transpired at a committee is through a staff report, you don’t hear what happened at the committee.”
Having councillors on advisory committees would establish a “better connection” and provide “better understanding of the raw emotion” of committees, added Greer.
“It’s that human approach as opposed to just reading something on a piece of paper,” he said. “I think that gives them better perspective to hear it straight from those thought leaders in that specific area on the challenges they’re facing.”
Inviting advisory committee chairs to make presentations to council on important issues, such as municipal election voting methods or cultural heritage preservation, would also go a long way, committee members concurred.
In the eyes of Stan Kozak, former member of the now-disbanded river systems advisory committee, there is a “key procedural flaw” that needs to be addressed – council-ready reports going to committees for input with a staff recommendation prepared in advance.
“Staff should not be bringing recommendations already drafted to advisory committees. We want the broadest range of views from the people on them. They generally have expertise, they have insights,” he said of committee members.
“I acknowledge we’re only bringing one perspective on every development or every issue and there are going to be a whole bunch of different (perspectives). That’s for council to decide,” Kozak continued. “When they don’t get that range of views, then I think they make poorer decisions.”
Several committee members are disappointed with the “strict” rules and limits to what they can provide input on, feeling the scope of their committee is too narrow.
“I just think we’re missing tons of opportunities,” said Fisher, who would like to see the public art advisory committee consulted on a broader range of projects, such as the inclusion of public art in the police station expansion and renovation, trails enhancements and heritage plaques.
“It’s basically designed to exclude input rather than include input,” he said of projects deemed outside of committees’ terms of reference. “We end up straight-jacketing everybody and not being able to take a step forward. … I don’t think we’re flexible enough.”
Though committee comments and concerns often result in changes to projects, sometimes “they’ve just been ignored or removed at a later date,” said Greer, lamenting the “siloed approach” of city departments.
“Sometimes I wish we had more ability, more power in terms of the comments we give, to give direction to staff,” FIsher added. “We are the thought leaders and we volunteer our services because we care so much about the community in those specific areas and we want to see greater improvement in these specific areas to ensure that, especially from an accessibility perspective, we are the voice for those who don’t have a voice.”
City council approved regular committee reviews last fall in response to acknowledged tension and “mistrust” between Heritage Guelph and city staff regarding the then-proposed cultural heritage action plan. Council also agreed to bring in a mediator.
The plan has since been approved.
During discussion of the plan, which was unanimously rejected by the committee, questions were raised about the committee’s ability to comment on the final draft.
