Cuff Report and City governance update

A while ago I promised an update on Victoria City Hall’s efforts to update its Governance Model in the wake of the release of the Cuff Report (previous post here).

I held off updating until I could do a bit more research but really wasn’t able to attend as many meetings as I should in order to give an informed report. But I will try anyway to describe what I’ve observed over the last year, along with some insight from people closer to the action than me.

It’s hard to say whether things at City Hall are more streamlined. Surely, their effort at fast-tracking the replacement for the Johnson Street Bridge backfired terribly as Council, Mayor and Engineering Department greatly underestimated public sentiment for the old bridge while critics expressed doubt over the justification for replacement.

The replacement of the old committee structure with a new model was supposed to ease the workload of Councillors. The old Committee of the Whole–the twice-a-month meeting of Council was replaced by five separate committees. One of the new committees, Planning and Land Use is typical: the committee only uses three of the eight Councillors. Their reports on development permits, rezonings and heritage matters are then referred to a full meeting of Council. This is intended to cut down the workload for Council.

Sounds like a more efficient use of resources, right? Problem is, Planning and Land Use is probably the most vital committee, along with Governance and Priorities but while Governance has all eight Councillors, the other four committees have only the three attendees. Yes, their findings will eventually reach everyone at the next Council meeting but this means the majority of Council doesn’t get to see an item until it’s well into the process. They’re used to seeing something appear at the old Committee of the Whole before it gets its shot at the Big Leagues Thursday night. This puts some Councillors at a disadvantage: three will have seen the initial rezoning or environmental report etc. and had time to digest it. The rest are seeing it for the first time.

To compensate, some Councillors sit in on meetings anyway, even though they technically can’t contribute and must sit on their hands while their colleagues get to ask the questions. So in many cases, the amount of time spent in meetings is comparable to the old model but there is less expertise at the table.

The other most notable change is in communications. As noted by writer Yule Heibel in a recent issue of FOCUS magazine, City Hall went on a post-election hiring binge. Many of the new hires were in the communication department as the City tries to reign in Councillors or City staffers who might “go rogue” by saying something (innocently or otherwise) to the media not already cleared for public consumption. I find it interesting that the City’s Heritage Department, which normally keeps a watchful eye on every crumbling brick and windowsill has been totally silent about the imminent loss of this one-of-a-kind and truly historic bridge.

The City is also increasingly turning to the Internet as a means of reaching the public. While a long-awaited overhaul of the City of Victoria website drags on, communications staff have spun off several stand-alone websites, like the one covering the bridge replacement or the new Official Community Plan. While attractively laid out and full of information, their home outside the structure of the main site sets a dangerous precedent. Will every initiative get its own site? There’s a strong push within the City to make it so but will visitors to the main site overlook the numerous spinoffs?

So which of these breakthoughs will stand the test of time? Which will be quietly dropped or tweaked? We’ll probably find out not long before the next municipal election.

So it’s a work in progress. No-one, including Mayor and Council, expected this model to work right out of the box.