Micromanaging the staff - again

[Bill(2)]

Last night Councillor Glover (seconded by Councillor Schmolka) put forth a motion that requires staff to report on all contracts signed by staff in excess of $20,000. The reasoning behind this was that there was no accountability and that by producing this report on a regular basis Council will be kept better informed and there is the implied "we are watching you, so don't try anything" message.

Now this is getting ridiculous. First of all, all contracts and other activities are being reported as part of the budget management process. Maybe not specific contracts, but by reviewing ongoing project reports, this information should be readily available. Second, with a limit of $20,000 a staff member could, if they wanted to be really sneaky, or to find ways to 'hide' information could simply keep the contracts at $19,500. That way they do not have to report the contract and the same alleged 'hiding of the facts' would occur.

Sorry, but this is just more work that would prove no value. I haven't seen budget tracking reports on the projects that are of concern, but I would think that all information is included in existing reports. One just needs to know where to look. The way it was discussed last night, I get the impression that the motion was written without researching how else the information would already be available, negating the need for this report.

Give it a rest people. Find out what the current (recently assigned) staff are doing or could do to get the requested information out rather than impose upon them more workload with minimal benefits. By the way, what will happed to the report other than councillors saying 'OK' - or rubber stamping staff decisions.


Arrgghh!:eek:

[Lydia]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Bill, you criticize the very councilors who won't HIDE DETAILS. These councilors are not trying to MICRO MANAGE anything. They are being RESPONSIBLE to the people who ELECTED THEM.

Had the three stooges, Leonore, Ed and Harvey, actually told the truth before elections, I wonder if they would be there now.

Refreshing to know that these new councilors are taking the time to UNDERSTAND THE COSTS of things BEFORE signing this city to bankruptcy.

Refreshing to know that these new councilors are taking the time to WORK WITH STAFF instead of using them as scapegoats for failures and cost overages.

I wonder if in your business, you would allow others to hide important facts that affect YOUR BOTTOM line and not tell you about it.

The staffers have never been at fault. THE FAULT LIES WITH THE PREVIOUS COUNCILORS ONLY.

By the way the Mayor of Mississauga, Micro manages EVERYTHING. Just maybe this city would be wise to do the same.

[Bill(2)]

There is a difference between micro-managing and effective managing. Mayor McCallion's management style works for her because it is her. That doesn't mean that style will work for everyone. She has also earned the right to work closely with her staff due to her longevity.

Another good example is former North York and Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman. He had a close working relationship with the staff at North York. He was involved, but not quite micro managing everything. He knew what was going on because he grew with North York. And after Toronto amalgamated, he was a great first Mayor because of his style - no -nonsense, let's get on with the job. However, in order to do that he had to step on toes, break existing fiefdoms and well, annoy a lot of people who left as a result, but since a lot didn't want to work in the 'new world' it was just as well. His biggest mistake was to run for re-election. He was a good, first Mayor for the new city but

But let's get back to our local activities. Micro manage items for which you are knowledgeable and comfortable with. If you are learning, then that is OK - but learn first. Do not impose reporting for reporting's sake, but rather make sure it has value. As I mentioned earlier, micro management is a management style - which means it does not work for everyone, or in every situation.

Yes it is good that they are taking an interest, and working with staff to get the answers that they are looking for. I do not believe that the answers are being 'hidden' or withheld by anyone.

Effective management is also setting direction, outlining expectations and then letting the people who's job it is to get on with it. This does not mean that the details need to be outlines, and tracked to the minute detail. We could get caught in what is known as analysis-paralysis if too much time is spent on tracking details. What is needed is is better exception reporting - this will identify when things go astray. Do I have all of the answers? - Nope. But I think that the way things are being done is not the best.

[Lydia]

Do not impose reporting for reporting's sake,

I could agree with you more on this. That is why I say that this council needs to get a FULL REPORT with all possible scenarios before they approve anything. How many times have the Federal and Provincial governments indicated that they would give grants to Kingston only to pull out and Council made decisions on those grants? No one has a crystal ball and things happen but when you start being out by 50 to 75% of your figures then you need to examine where the problems are and repair them.

I agree staff are not hiding the information only witholding the information until asked a direct question about decision that council wants. Maybe Staffers could offer up issues that might apply to a situation (a what if scenario). I believe 95% of the staffers are excellent and are not hiding anything.

Details are important only to the staffers who are responsible to have effection reporting. Council doesn't need to be involved with that end of things UNLESS the Staffer is found out as one who does not do a good job at reporting the whole truth as they understand it. I admire Staffers who tell the councilors, "I don't have the answers here but I will get them for you as soon as possible." They are not God, They are educated professionals and I actually do trust them.

I don't think that these new councilors are expecting anything more than what we are saying. I believe we are actually in complete agreement on this issue but because of our own backgrounds, we say things a little differently.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Harvey and Council and Staff got along as well as Mayor McCallion does in her position. I believe Harvey could have that but he needs to change a little and never again withhold details that the public already knows.

[Bill(2)]

You know, it is quite possible that what we are seeing is the learning curve on both parties.

Staff is learning to what level this council would like to see reports.
Councillors are learning what reports are out there and where to find the information that they are looking for.

I truly believe that the information is available, bu there are so many different ways that the same information is being reported that it is indeed getting out of hand. This is how mistakes happen: too many reports on the same topic but presented differently, and then one day one of the reports uses newly updated information (or worse - out of date information) and then the discrepancies show up and are flagged as attempts to mislead.

For some reason, Kingston feels that the job of City Councillor (and Mayor come to think of it) are 'part time' jobs. I know from speaking with a number of councillors that they are putting in FTE (Full Time Equivalent) energies into the research and other activities that they are doing. Staff would (and should) report to one level of detail for the needs of 'part time' councillors. However, the FTE councillors want (and could probably digest) the level of reporting that a FTE councillor would need, or expect.

Maybe the answer is that it is time to rethink City Council makeup. :eek: Maybe it is time to go back to a two-tier level - City Councillors as PTE (Part time Equivalent) representing Districts, and City Councillors-at-Large as FTE looking to the needs of the city as a whole. Each having an equal voice at council, but the Councillors-at-Large having portfolio's (forming a 'cabinet' if you will) and giving it the focus it deserves. But then again, this means that it is time to move this to a new thread .. I'll do that shortly.

[Dogma]

Bill - I agree there seems to be no process of solisiting reports, other than councillor request.

The staff seem to assemble reports - (or portions of) like any large organisation - on a particular, immediate, as needed or, conspiracy "spirited" initative.

This can include: garbage studes, recycling, tree counting / planting, project management, costings, Estimates, RFQ proposals, (or the processes of any of the latter) and whatever program one "wishes" to study.

To me personally...

There needs to be a "report process request" to ask for reports, and a data base for such reports, updated reports, sub reports, closing time etc.

The access to such reports is another question, who should have access to reports - complete, non complete etc. who decides the process and criteria? - Council.

It would also be interesting to note although studies. reports are on "public record" - since many feel it necessary to access, use to police the "public agency" or feel we pay for the reports.. the public has a right for any and all..access (thus where the councillor's usual reasoning is).

I would suggets not in all cases does the public have a right to (all) reports, knowing that it is a (corporation entity) and has legal obligations, projects etc - with its union members, Ontario employment standards, and other legal and privicy issues that are involved with any "organisation".

To me they (the public or councillors) should have reasonable and clear reasons for accessing based on their districts, legal issues and project spend. i.e if the LVEC falls in Kingstown a higher "grade" of access would be granted for Kingstowns councilor, ONLY, (not the public) based on project budget grade, study or report completion dates etc.

This is a very poor example - but my thoughts are from the idea of anyone can ask for any report, or have a report done - on speculation or interest only.

To me, I would bet that to many "reports" are being done on a whim.

And that Staff Managers seem to be the guardians of (all reports) i.e if they get done, and who has access to them (if asked).

And from what I understand the public complain's about these "studies" costing us tax revenue, when they (the public) wish taxes invested in sewers and infastructure. (not studies)

Outsourcing studies, are fine for special projects (such as the 7 priories projetcs) and outside the expertise of staff...but there does not seem there is a fair process to even engage in studies or reports?

Thus, their is no trust in the process.

Any comments?

[Lydia]

Excellent points, Bill and Dogma.

Maybe the best way for me to understand this reporting process better is to tell you why I think a certain way about projects.

I am fearful of having Councilors at Large because I believe that a Councilor can not fully understand a district that they do not live in. So having a Councilor responsible for their own district is more appealing to me.

The only way I can see an advantage of having Councilors at Large is where Community Associations are established in each District and the Board of Directors have more power to influence the Council. (This I believe isn't what Dogma would endorse because it would allow the public more powers). I would have the same fear as Dogma on this because it would depend on how an association is actually structured.

In order for this to work would be if each District had an Association where the public can vent their concerns and give ideas on what needs to be correct and how to correct issues. (Actually, I am hoping to establish that kind of association in the Loyalist Cataraqui District). Now it is important to understand that if this happens then Councilors at Large need to actually LISTEN and strongly consider what the different Associations really want.

Every District is unique, exciting, loved, and should be respected. They will have different needs and wants. I believe that each district should have a active and responsible Association. Under the present system I don't see this happening in the City. I don't fault the Staffers on this, It truly is the resident's problems and we need to organize and become more respectful and helpful which isn't easy.

When it comes to reports, I truly like Steve Garrison's ideas on really revamping the way Council and Staffers work. Instead of having several departments deal with a project and not sharing information, let's have a department head of each project and everyone reports to him ONLY and he reports to all the Councilors. (lol Fall Guylol) No, Really. I believe that there are too many reports that are done without any real need and are a waste of time. There are too many reports that are not listened too as well.

However, the reports that are done should be totally open, clear and audited for accuracy. Halifax just canceled the Commonwealth Games because they didn't have all the correct information on their reports. Apparently, there are Speciallized Accountants that are being hired in Ottawa to deal with misleading financial statements of corporations and governmental departments. It was on the a radio program today where I heard this. I don't know if these specialized accountants are working with Ontario Securities Department but I would think that they are.

So there you are gentlmen, together we need to examine our structures and learn to improve our systems.

[Bill(2)]

Excellent points, Bill and Dogma.

I am fearful of having Councillors at Large because I believe that a Councillor can not fully understand a district that they do not live in. So having a Councilor responsible for their own district is more appealing to me.

The only way I can see an advantage of having Councilors at Large is where Community Associations are established in each District and the Board of Directors have more power to influence the Council. (This I believe isn't what Dogma would endorse because it would allow the public more powers). I would have the same fear as Dogma on this because it would depend on how an association is actually structured.



I seem to have missed on the presentation here.

There would still be (and needs to be) Councillors for each Electoral District. In addition, there would be Councillors-at-Large. At amalgamation, the new City of Kingston called this level the Board of Control. I am not suggesting that the Board of Control be brought back. However, additional Councillors-at-Large would expand the City Council, and their objective would (should) be to look at the city wide picture, allowing District Councillors to concentrate on any issues that affect the District that they represent.

[Lydia]

Okay, I understand your idea on the Councilors at Large. It seems very interesting and I will ask around and see how others feel about it.

Talking about Councilors at Large, did you hear about the Cape Breton Councilor who lives in Alberta but works in Cape Breton??? lol It was in the Cape Breton Newspaper. Apparently, this councilor only showed up about 6 or 7 times and is getting paid as a full time one. Apparently there isn't any bi-law against this and the CEO there thinks this is okay. lol lol.

After hear this, are you still in favour of Councilors at large??? lol lol.
That truly is a Councilor at Large, So at large he is even in another province. lol lol lol.

Check it out this is for real. lol

Okay, Bill, what you are saying is that there would be additional councilors at the Council Table, the present councilors who are responsible for their district and additional ones to cover and manage projects. Am I correct??


Hay wait a minute, amalgamation, Are we amalgamated? If we are, how come we still have 3 different bi-laws, 3 different tax rates, and god know what other 3s there are. lol lol. Until this city has one tax rate for ALL, and I would hate that as a tax payer, we will never be amalgamated. Maybe in name, but certainly never in the way the city is governed and that is why we see different districts thinking that they are not as good as other districts. i.e. when councilors use words like east versus downtowners, westeners, northerners and my favourite Boonies lol lol . Us Boonies are way to proud for that lol lol.

[Bill(2)]

Okay, Bill, what you are saying is that there would be additional councilors at the Council Table, the present councilors who are responsible for their district and additional ones to cover and manage projects. Am I correct??



Yes, you have the idea. Now, the Councillors-at-Large would not be responsible to manage projects etc, but rather they would be charged with the responsibility of looking out for the needs of the city, when it comes to projects and what-have-you. Yes, perhaps if they were full-time councillors, they could (or should) have portfolio's to manage as well (almost like a Minister at the Provincial / National level) but this is getting way to deep for now. The key here is that for those councillors who can only really put in 'part time' workload due to other commitments, then this will help them. It may even get more (possibly better) candidates out and running. The Councillor-at-Large as a 'full-time' position would have the time and energy to put what is needed into the research, and should also be seen as 'champions' for City wide or multiple-district projects or issues (ie - third crossing; K&P Trail) By the way, the Councillors-at-Large should be limited to a smaller group than District Councillors - I think no more than 4 - this would give twelve Districts, 4 at-Large, and 1 Mayor - total of 17 votes at the horseshoe. More than that and it could be silly.

Come to think of it, maybe 3 Councillors-at-Large and 1 Deputy Mayor. This would make five full time politicians (Mayor, Deputy Mayor and 3 Councillors-at-Large) with the additional support / guidance / self-policing activity of the 12 District Councillors, who would be 'part-time'.


Hay wait a minute, amalgamation, Are we amalgamated? If we are, how come we still have 3 different bi-laws, 3 different tax rates, and god know what other 3 there are. lol lol. Until this city has one tax rate for ALL, and I would hate that as a tax payer, we will never be amalgamated. Maybe in name, but certainly never in the way the city is governed and that is why we see different districts thinking that they are not as good as other districts. i.e. when councilors use words like east versus downtowners, westeners, northerners and my favourite Boonies lol lol . Us Boonies are way to proud for that lol lol.


The city is working on amalgamating the three by-laws in areas. It is taking a long time. Personally, I think it's taking too long, but I do not know all of the details or reasons for the length of time taking to do this work. It is quite possible that the complexity and available resources just means it will take time. The difficulty is how to merge stuff, keeping the good while getting rid of the bad and not increase taxes to do so. Unfortunately, there are different service levels still in different areas of the city, and these expectations need to be managed.

[BornAndRaised]

You know the story about the engineer who develops a product and the technician who has to deal with the unforeseen problems that happen when he has to build it, fix it and the end user has to use it.

Bottom line is that if there is no communication from the people who need to impliment plans, then plans that were destined for success can easily become failures. Communication is vital to the successes of projects and everyone who is involved in the projects should have their ideas at least considered. Now our mayor is the city representative but some people think that he has an alterior motive. If the city had a representative on council, then the Mayor would be able to focus more on nurturing the council and maybe give him the distance to avoid a lot of skepticism that seems to be surrounding him.

In MHO this position could be very beneficial to a positive influence for the city.

[Lydia]

Bottom line is that if there is no communication from the people who need to impliment plans, then plans that were destined for success can easily become failures.


Isn't this the truth. I agree with you fully BornandRaised. Usually plans happen at the upper level of management and then work their way down. Unfortunately, the people at the bottom don't have the same vision as the top tier decisions makers. Both sides are at the losing ends of stuff.


I personally don't believe that the Mayor has an alterior motive other than develope this city into a thriving and dynamic city. Having said that, I just believe his way of doing this isn't the way I would prefer. Keep in mind that his profession is as a LAWYER. The training and thinking process is diffeent then the rest of us and therefore I can see why he does things the way he does. Do I believe that Our Mayor wants the best for this city. Yes I do. Is He doing this by his method? No!!


I'm sorry what does MHO mean?

[BornAndRaised]

MHO = My Humble Opinion.

Sorry. I normally don't use computer lingo when posting. I know it may have saved me 2 seconds but truthfully those two seconds I can't say were valuable in any way shape or form.

[Lydia]

Now you did it BornandRaised, You just started a NEW shortcut.

MHO = My Humble Opinion.

Trust me, This will BE the new way of saying this on our system and may even become famous with the younger crowd. lol lol

Ill take any shortcut useful or not
lol lol. Thank you.

[Bill(2)]

If the city had a representative on council, then the Mayor would be able to focus more on nurturing the council and maybe give him the distance to avoid a lot of skepticism that seems to be surrounding him.
Born 'n Raised suggestion is interesting. There is representation through the CAO and other staff at Council meetings. I don't think that they should get a vote however, since they were hired, not elected. :eek:
The job of City Council is to establish policy, staff's job is to impliment policy, and advise Council while there are debating or establishing policy. :D

[BornAndRaised]

I am just saying it would be nice to know what a city representative may or may not stand for by having a vote recorded and/or counted so that we know from the people who must impliment changes if they think it will work. That may deter councillors from just voting on something because they were convinced that it is a good idea. Good idea doesn't always mean the best thing for the city, especially when every idea means more time, money and resources that seem to be spread very thin already. This could also give the city staff a chance to say "wait a minute we have a little too much on our hands already" if they feel overloaded, which they can use to defend themselves later on.

I am not sure but can city staff record any opposition to anything voted on during council?

[Lydia]

I am not sure but can city staff record any opposition to anything voted on during council?

Other than the local newspaper, I don't know that myself.

Maybe someone on here that works for the city might be able to advise us.

[Bill(2)]

Council sets policy, staff implements. :eek:

If there are workload issues, then staff (through CAO) responds with time-lines and workload estimates, based on priorities. When there are conflicting priorities, then decisions need to be made. Failure to do so would be management malpractice - something that is seen in both the public and private sectors.

Deal with it, is unfortunately the only true answer. The details are the devil (or is it the devil is in the details?):p

[Lydia]

[B][When there are conflicting priorities, then decisions need to be made. Failure to do so would be management malpractice - something that is seen in both the public and private sectors.
/B]

I agree completely that is WHY council needs to set the priorities in the first place so the staff won't be OVERLOADED. It is Management that needs to see and understand the difficulties and time restrains in order to give overworked staff a helping hand in accomplishing the tasks.

Unfortunately in the past too many councilors were willing to pile on the projects to quickly. It isn't that their projects are all that unwanted it is just that you only have two hands in order to do anything.

I agree both need to deal with it.

[Bill(2)]

I agree completely that is WHY council needs to set the priorities in the first place so the staff won't be OVERLOADED. It is Management that needs to see and understand the difficulties and time restrains in order to give overworked staff a helping hand in accomplishing the tasks.
The difficulty here for the management in the middle is the usual one. Senior management (Council) outlines their wants (and needs). Middle management (CAO, Commissioners) need to push back to senior management and keep the priorities and workload realistic, and at the same time push the staff to the maximum to get the work completed in a timely and efficient manner. Not enviable, that's for sure. :p

[Lydia]

Exactly, Now don't you feel sorry for Glen??? I sure the hell do.

Luck for us that we have Glen as our CEO. At least he understand the position and duties he holds and isn't one bit intiminated by it.

He straightened the West out now he needs to do the East. lol lol

[Bill(2)]

Tonights Council Meeting will receive a number of Information Reports, including workload analysis and estimated costs for recent motions. Now the cost of actions requested are starting to creep up. Interesting reading (if you are really into that kind of stuff. http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/council/agenda/2007/A08_InfoRpt.pdf

Enjoy - we shall see what to night brings!:eek:

[Lydia]

Thanks Bill for the info.

I would love to see the entire report and will get it from the city. Iam not able to attend council tonight due to family events, however, I would like to know how this tonight's meeting turns out.


I would love to see cogeco's coverage of council meetings placed on the city's website. I own a stallite and this excludes me from seeing council meetings via television. I wonder if our website was able to have a 2 minute video of the candidates during the last elections, why couldn't we see a video of the entire council meeting on the city's own site?

Just a thought.

[Bill(2)]

Lydia - I'm actually one of the production volunteers (watch the credits) so I'll ask about it. Keep in mind that COGECO is broadcasting council proceedings (and re-broadcasts later in the week) as a public service. It is copyrighted by COGECO, not the City, and is the property of COGECO. If you want to get a copy of the tape (or DVD) COGECO would be probably happy to do this, probably for a fee. Or, get a cable hookup. :p

[Lydia]

Bill,
I think Cogeco is doing an excellent job on reporting things. Problem I have and anyone with a satelite is that we can only get the Kingston Television Station which I have to say does a good job at reporting the news.

My problem is that althought I would want to switch over to Cogeco, My husband is a Bell retiree and Cogeco couldn't match our bills. lol lol.

I would still love to see the cogeco productions. I wonder is there any way people like me could see it somewhere other than home. I thought it would be great on the internet on this site or on the city's own site.

Thanks for your response.

[Bill(2)]

Lydia, as threatened (promised) yesterday, I asked.

If you would like to get a copy of the proceedings, you could contact COGECO (The local station manager is Scott Meyers) and see what he could or would do for you.

As far as a copy being posted to a web site, the City would have to ask for this I suspect. Contact your councillor and ask him / her to take this forward. Do you know who your councillor is? The City Hall web site has the information. :rolleyes:

Finally, the easier way to resolve your viewing issue is to get cable access. Or go see a friend who has it. Don't forget, the proceedings are re-broadcast later in the week - Wednesday at 2 PM and Thursday at 8 PM.

[Lydia]

Thanks Bill,

I will suggest this to all the councilors and see if they would want to see this happen. Hay Bill, Can I come over and watch them with you.???? :D :D :D

Opps forgot, I would need to travel by car lol lol and it is a long way from the suburb lol lol.

[Lydia]

"There hasn't been [incentives for] building managers to decrease energy consumption," MacLatchy said. "That time is now."

Energy spending is spread throughout the city's budget. MacLatchy couldn't estimate how much the city currently spends on energy - electricity, fuels and natural gas - but a study in 2000 revealed the city spent about $6.1 million on energy and emitted over 27,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases.



These two paragraphs upset me just a little. I wonder if anyone can answer my questions.

Firstly WHY isn’t there INCENTIVES for building managers to decrease energy consumption? If we are asked to reduce our needs what makes these mangers exempted?

Secondly. If every resident knows their cost for electricity, fuels and gas, why are our leaders unable to know theirs??? Don't you think there is something wrong with our Financial Accounting Departments? It really isn't all that difficult. You have to BUY and you SPEND. Otherwise know in the accounting field as Purchases and SALES. Could it be CREATIVE ACCOUNTING done by our leaders that causes us to not know where the money goes????

The statements that caused me the concern was posted in the Kingston Whig today when it spoke about the recycling system we have.

I understood that the city has done a great job on recycling. That we are saving money by the way we are recycling. Could anyone tell me the cost of BOTH RECYCLING AND GARBAGE COLLECTION and whether BOTH are saving us money or is it like I am assuming that one is being lowered and the other is increasing. If I am correct than how much are we REALLY SAVING???