Making Connections: Municipal Governance Priorities Today
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Making Connections • IAPC IPAC ICURR • CIRUR Making Connections: Municipal Governance Priorities Today 13NO. 13 MAKING CONNECTIONS: MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PRIORITIES TODAY REPORT ON THE “CHOOSING MUNICIPAL PRIORITIES” SYMPOSIUM, OTTAWA, 2003 Edited by Michael McConkey Researcher Patrice Dutil Director of Research Institute of Public Administration of Canada NEW DIRECTIONS – NUMBER 13 ©L’Institut d’administration publique du Canada, 2004 ©The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 2004 All Rights Reserved/Tous droits réservés The Institute of Public Administration of Canada The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) is the leading Canadian organ- ization concerned with the theory and practice of public management. Its scope covers governance from the local to the global level. It is an association with active regional groups across the country. The Institute recognizes and fosters both official languages of Canada IPAC/IAPC 1075, rue Bay Street Suite/bureau 401 Toronto, Ontario M5S 2B1 CANADA Tel./tél: (416) 924-8787 Fax: (416) 924-4992 e-mail/courriel: [email protected] Internet : www.ipaciapc.ca L’Institut d’administration publique du Canada L’Institut d’administration publique du Canada (IAPC) est la principale institution cana- dienne qui s’intéresse à la théorie et à la pratique de la gestion publique tant au niveau local qu’au niveau mondial. C’est une association composée de groupes régionaux actifs à travers tout le pays. L’Institut reconnaît et promeut les deux langues officielles du Canada. Acknowledgements This IPAC project was made possible by And the members of IPAC, who are dedicated to excellence in public administration. Thank you CONTENTS Part I: Assessing the Current Municipal Landscape Introduction: Municipal Priorities for Today and Tomorrow 3 Introduction: Priorités municipales d’aujourd’hui et de demain 6 1. The Problem of How “New Public Organizations” Choose their Priorities 10 2. Urban Planning under Globalization 22 Part II: Information, Knowledge and Strategy 3. The Integrated Business-Planning Process: The Case of Oakville, Ontario 33 4. Implementing a Strategic Performance Measurement System at Mississauga Transit: Establishing Operational Priorities 46 5. Managing Sustainable Performance in “Smart Communities”: A Future Priority for Municipalities 56 6. Knowledge-Sharing for Alberta Municipalities: A Catalogue of Practices for Local Government 69 Part III: Municipal Engagements 7. Alberta’s MuniMall: Engagement for Better Governance and Decision-Making 85 8. Citizens’ Input into Priority-Setting: The Evolution of Public Participation in Halton Region 97 9. Public Involvement in Municipal Priority-Setting: The City of Vancouver’s Public Involvement Review 108 10. A Pragmatic Sharing of Power: Rethinking Intergovernmental Practices and Priorities 124 PART I ASSESSING THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL LANDSCAPE page 2 blank INTRODUCTION: MUNICIPAL PRIORITIES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW Judy Rogers City Manager City of Vancouver The Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research (ICURR) organized a two-day symposium in Ottawa in November 2003 entitled “Choosing Municipal Priorities: Purple Zones, Strategic Plans and Intergovernmental Relations.” In naming the conference, the two institutions inten- tionally cast the net widely. The process of choosing priorities at the municipal level in Canada is as mysterious as it is important. The manner in which decisions are made is a complicated process that involves many governments, many decisions, and the unique interplay of political and administrative forces. Priorities can change as suddenly as forest fires and ice storms. Priorities can also come out of failed social policies, failed economies and failed politics. Remarkably, this important and sensitive topic had never been covered on Canadian terri- tory, and the response to the IPAC-ICURR call for papers was strong. Clearly, we had touched a nerve, and the symposium that ensued saw a stimulating exchange of ideas on what works and what does not work in setting priorities to deliver the public good. How do we set our priorities? The topic is wide, it is complex, and it is a moving target. And yet, this is what we do everyday as public servants: we set priorities. We consciously or uncon- sciously give some matters more attention than others. Is there logic to this process? I would say that there are many logics, and what is interesting is how these logics inter- twine. Take the “Purple Zone,” a place where I spend a good deal of my working life. The “Pur- ple Zone” is the area where the administrative structure (the blue) meets the political struc- ture (the red) in a vital priority-setting discussion that blends both colours (hence the purple) and it is of vital concern to anyone interested in public-sector management. There is no doubt that the often shifting political structures at the municipal level have a great say in setting priorities. How do we, as public administrators, manage this sometimes con- tradictory process? This symposium was more than a reflection on past practice. In the process of finding solutions to improve the process of setting priorities, many contributors wrote about the process of “making connections” as an effort to better set priorities, so we decided to give this title to this publication. In some cases, this making of connections might appear more obvious, as the papers in Part III, “Municipal Engagements,” show. New techniques to expand the purview of citizen participation, or looking to pragmatically reinvent intergov- IPAC Making Connections: Municipal Governance Priorities Today 3 ernmental practices, may be obvious ways of making new or better connections with the public or with the provincial and federal governments. If municipal civil servants are to succeed in their larger mandate of serving the public, it is imperative that they establish effective connections of trust, respect and responsibility with both council and the citi- zenry. These performance measurement and enhancement instruments provide a voice for municipal civil servants to express their success in meeting their larger mandate of public service. The papers in Part II, “Information, Knowledge and Strategy,” are no less concerned with making connections. Here the contributors address connection-making at two levels. At a basic level, between desired ends and the best-calculated means to achieve those ends, dis- cussions of knowledge management and strategic planning aim to identify the most demonstrably effective means to achieve specified ends. Successfully making this connec- tion is the essence of accountability. The papers in Part I, “Assessing the Current Municipal Landscape,” explore an often over- looked need for better “connections.” They make their own: connecting our present prac- tices with historical and global developments in municipal public administration theory and practice. They demonstrate how our present connections are constantly caught up in these larger, relentless currents of change. The currents of opinion, evidence and politics flow so swiftly today that complacency about present priorities puts one in constant dan- ger of sudden irrelevance. How do we as public administrators stay on top of the priority of the moment and anticipate a certain shift of priorities flowing from around the bend? As chair of the symposium, I asked some challenging questions in regards to the current focus on performance measurement. I pointed out that while strategic plans and perform- ance measurement have become part of how we do business, they defy the measurement of the larger economic and social vitality of a community. Is there evidence that all these plans actually make for better government, for better service to the community? I’ll repeat here the questions I asked there: How do our sophisticated strategies, perform- ance evaluations and business plans help us to prepare for the future? Do these tools help us build better communities? Do they give us better tools to be creative? Do they help us in securing meaningful partnerships with organizations that can help municipalities meet their never-ending needs? In short: do we, as cities, have the tools to dream? I would argue that our current fever for performance measurement will only become a per- manent feature in municipal public management priorities if we have the means to apply the lessons described by this collection of papers. Similarly, the energy and ingenuity applied in the efforts described in the papers of Part II can only succeed generally if we cultivate forms of public engagements that will dovetail with our applications of informa- tion, knowledge and strategy. How do we make the connection between the invaluable input of both scholarly experts and the democratic will with our sophisticated systems of knowledge management and strategic planning in such a way that allows for nimble response, continued relevance, and IPAC Making Connections: Municipal Governance Priorities Today 4 the achievement of our mandate to serve the public good? This perhaps is the connection we must explore next. The value of this fine collection of papers, from scholars and practitioners across the coun- try, is that it serves this dual purpose. They provide an excellent overview of the state of the art and science of setting municipal priorities in Canada today and open the door to tomorrow’s challenges for the municipal future. Clearly, strategic plans, business plans and performance measurements have become an essential part of how municipalities set – and just as importantly, communicate – their pri- orities. At the same time, it seems clear to me that there is no single path to success and that the process used to choose priorities is loaded with assumptions about the economic and social vitality of a community that are difficult to measure. In closing, I want to posit a final concern on the process of setting priorities. I have always believed that the main priority for us working in city administrations was the provision of safe, effective infrastructures: clean streets, traffic lights that work, sewers that flow, good buildings for schools, reliable bridges and tunnels.