The first example involved a staff report concerning two ponds needing repairs. Four alternatives were set forth in the report, with a recommendation that the second alternative be followed. This involved closing one ornamental pond and keeping the other in operation while investigating ways to repair more effectively its crumbling base. In response to a councillor question, staff agreed that if they had not taken into account the feelings of local residents, a recommendation to close both ponds would have been simpler and cheaper. No one questioned the notion that staff should exhibit this sensitivity to local political realities. Nor was staff limiting council to this option, since the report contained three other alternatives as well.
The second example arose when a councillor requested that staff prepare a report outlining what other municipalities were doing about the regulation of pit bulls – which were starting to become a cause for concern. Soon after, there were two attacks by pit bulls, one injuring a child. Given the changed context and the greater urgency of this issue, the CAO directed staff to extend their report to include a recommendation for a pit bull by-law and a draft by-law was also prepared and submitted to council, along with a process for public consultations. The result was that a councillor request for a general report on what other municipalities were doing about pit bulls was transformed into a specific staff recommendation for action, complete with draft by-law. One can view this as another example of staff being sensitive to community feelings and anticipating issues, but at least some councillors felt that staff had gone too far in essentially initiating a policy response to the pit bull situation.
It is reasonable for staff to anticipate questions and issues that may arise and to provide information in response. One can imagine that councillors would prefer staff who are sensitive to their working environment and who can anticipate upcoming events rather than just reacting to them. Yet staff must proceed carefully, since councillors also want to feel that they are still the ones deciding when policy action is needed.
A Closer Look at Just the Facts
When staff provide “just the facts,” their behaviour is consistent with the public service value of neutrality. When staff instead provide political advice, they allegedly undermine their professionalism. If they try to provide advice that is sensitive to the concerns of some councillors, they risk upsetting other members of council, whose views appear to be ignored. If staff become too concerned about how council will react to advice, they are apt to start telling council what they think it wants to hear, rather than what it needs to hear.
Further complicating this balancing act is the fact that there is no such thing as completely neutral, objective policy advice – since it inevitably reflects the background, training, values and biases of those who are offering the advice. Even to the extent that such “pure” advice can be offered, the result may not always be beneficial. Councils often react quite negatively to advice that is idealistic or unrealistic, indicating by their actions that they really do prefer advice that is practical, feasible, and tempered with local political realities. It is often said that the most effective administrators are better politicians than the councillors – in the sense that they are highly sensitive to community undercurrents and are able to reflect these insights in the policy advice that they offer. Such an approach, however, carries its own risks, and staff who are perceived to be advancing their own agenda rather than being neutral may end up on a collision course with council
So, what should it be? Should staff advice be “just the facts,” or should it be shaped by community considerations? Those who would give the best advice possible, regardless of its political impact, have – if they are prudent – alternative recommendations available if council reacts negatively to the first option presented. In other words, those who are pure of heart and mind (and policy advice) should also have Plan B in their back pocket.
The Key is Agreeing on Approach in Your Municipality
In my more than 40 years of council-staff workshops, I took the position that there isn’t a precise definition and differentiation of council and staff roles in the policy making process. What matters is that the councillors and staff of any specific municipality agree on how they are going to carry out these roles and then do so consistently. Toward the end of each workshop, I would lead participants through an exercise in which they identified what councillors and staff could reasonably expect from each other.
To get the discussion going, I always included this simple example: Councillors can reasonably expect that staff will provide a well-focused and organized agenda package, sufficiently in advance of the meeting. Staff can reasonably expect that councillors will open the agenda package (and read it) before the meeting. You will not be surprised to hear that this example received unanimous support.