Trimming governance structure makes sense

Paring back city council’s cumbersome governance structure is a good idea. Even those who asked for a pause on the changes said so.

So why did the plan to cut the number of portfolios city councillors hold by more than half — 27 became 12 — draw so much heat last week?

There was a mixed bag of concerns, but the one that drew the most passion had nothing directly to do with portfolios.

Several people deeply involved in local environmental protection and climate change reversal work told council they believe the city’s environmental advisory committee is under threat.

They say a section of the bylaw that enacts the new portfolio system gives the councillor who holds a particular portfolio the power to dissolve existing committees — and the environmental advisory committee could be a victim.

At least two councillors share that concern. Mayor Jeff Leal and senior city staff strongly disagreed.

There is some grey area around the future of advisory committees in general, but the mayor’s interpretation of what the bylaw section does and doesn’t allow is accurate.

Section 9 gives portfolio chairs the power to “strike and dissolve advisory committees comprised of such individuals other than City staff as the Portfolio Chair considers appropriate to advise the Portfolio Chair respecting matters related to the Portfolio.”

A selective reading of the section focused entirely on the word “dissolve” leads to the fears expressed at council.

But the full reference is to new committees created by the new portfolio chair. Leal and senior staff said the intent is to allow a chair to create committees as issues arise, and shut them down when their work is done.

Scrapping an existing committee still requires a vote of the full council.

They also said there is no intention to dissolve the environmental advisory committee now or in the future.

The bylaw wording and that promise seem clear, unless you don’t trust either the mayor, the administration or both.

If the environmental advocacy side has been given reason not to trust them, and to believe the committee is being undercut and is on its way out, they should detail their concerns.

Trust is always a factor when change is underway. Clarity is important to develop and maintain trust, and one section of Leal’s report recommending the new system could have been clearer.

It provides for a future staff report “respecting the status and roles of the City’s current advisory committees in relation to the opportunities for Portfolio Chairs to establish advisory committees pursuant to section 9 of the proposed Portfolio Chairs Bylaw.”

That could be read as a simple exercise to make sure what exists and what might be created don’t overlap. There is already an environmental committee (and a homelessness advisory committee, and an airport one) so no new version would be needed.

Or, despite what Leal and staff promised, they could recommend the current environmental committee be replaced by one created by the portfolio chair, which could be dissolved unilaterally as feared.

But should that recommendation come — which is very difficult to believe — it would need a majority vote of council to be enforced.

The entire bylaw could have been deferred for more discussion, but didn’t need to be. The changes were introduced in committee, considered by council, then ratified two weeks later after hearing public concerns.

Detail on how committees could be affected will go through the same process.

Leal and the current administration are committed to streamlining city bureaucracy. The portfolio revamp is one piece of the exercise.

It does not include killing the environmental committee, which we trust will become clear as the process continues.