Delivering an open and effective local government
A few weeks back, while City Council was in the throes of its discussions over Uber and how best to regulate our vehicle-for-hire industry, a quiet but transformational series of structural changes was unfolding within city administration. The news was overshadowed by our Vehicle-for-Hire decision, so I wanted to highlight the changes – and how they contribute to my goals for delivering Open and Effective local government.
Unless you’ve been lost in the pedway system for the past 12 months, you’ll know that we’ve been grappling with a series of significant and well-publicized infrastructure project management issues as of late. These issues come up in conversations at community league events, black tie dinners and even while I’m standing in line for coffee.
So, to say I was relieved to see these administrative changes come into effect might be the understatement of the year.
These changes have come in two phases, the first of which was last fall when a new, consolidated Integrated Infrastructure Services department (how’s that for a mouthful?) was announced. This new department will bring together the design and construction functions of the City into one branch, adding discipline and consistency to how we approach major (and minor) infrastructure projects. This consolidation begins to break down some of the communication barriers that I believe were inhibiting collaboration and sound project management between and within departments.
The City of Edmonton’s new administrative structure and its six branch functions
The second round of organizational changes, which completes the restructure, came last month. The biggest changes are for transportation: after moving the infrastructure function out last fall, the transportation planning functions were moved into the Sustainable Development Department (our planning dept). The remaining transportation functions were consolidated with other complementary areas like parks operations, which may lead to some efficiencies in managing things like road rights of way, for example.
As part of these moves, the City has also elevated our communications function to a proper department and gave it an expanded expectation for meaningful, open engagement that is now reflected in its title: Communications and Public Engagement.
On the City Council side of the table, we’ve also begun the process to change Council’s committee structure to support more coherent decision making and build clear lines of accountability into the departments. The new Urban Planning Committee should mean a better alignment of the City’s planning functions; City operations now report to the Citizen Services committee; and all infrastructure work will now report to the Executive Committee.
In parallel to this structural work, Council has directed a deeper examination of the relevance and effectiveness of the services the City of Edmonton delivers. Our Service Level Review will undoubtedly find new and better ways of delivering some services, and may even lead to cessation of certain programs that are no longer justified against other priorities. While the scope of this review is significant, it fundamentally asks two simple questions:
- Do the services we deliver still reflect Edmonton’s priorities of today?
- Are we delivering these services as effectively as possible?
In supporting this review, my goal was to ensure that we – you, me and every Edmontonian – get good value for the money we spend on city services.
By no means have we solved all the problems just yet, and there are undoubtedly more challenges ahead. But Council is strongly committed to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of your local government.
The concern I have as council as a whole has never addressed the continues unsustainable tax increase that is becoming on Edmontonians.
The total tax increase over the last years is around 13% once all of the increases are added up. There needs to be a cap say the rate of inflation. That should be the same as every other family does with their house hold.
I think the restructure is a really good move, but I also know it will be for naught if the culture of the bureaucracy is an underlying issue. I’m not saying it is, but I am suspicious given my experiences with other large bureaucracies. I hope you and Council can work to ensure that the senior civil service managers provide the leadership required to both manage the change.
Ken:
Would the efficiency work include determining which services or projects would be better done by the province? My understanding is that part of the tax raise problem is due to the city fulfilling duties that aren’t really its own.
I think the bringing together of similar groups and resources is one way to approach the challenges of infrastructure projects and has potential. However I don’t understand how this will create discipline or consistency in the approach to both major and minor infrastructure projects? The consolidation is organizational only at this time. I would like to understand more how the organizational structure will improve communication. Perhaps a better understanding of communication barriers that are either perceived or real is in order. Administration works and continues to work for the City of Edmonton regardless of organizational structure that hasn’t changed. I would have thought it didn’t matter where you sit in the organization, I would have expected that the ability to communicate with each department should have been able to occur regardless of what department you were under. I look forward to seeing how collaboration and sound project management between departments will occur. I think there is a great opportunity here. Just not sure how that will be achieved through an organizational chart. I do understand that if accountability becomes clear perhaps this may have some greater weight to it and will facilitate change.
On the examination of relevance and effectiveness. How does the City and council determine effectiveness. What are the expectations of effectiveness in a bureaucracy? I am assuming this is to align with the priority questions above. The answer to effectively will likely be no because effectively is subjective and impacted by an understanding of constraints and challenges that have either been placed or perceived to be place on the City as a whole and whether or not they are fully understood. Essentially effective in what context. To me this question is big and requires refinement on what the expectations of citizens and councilors are for effectiveness. This is an impactful question in my opinion and is well worth exploring. I look forward to what level this gets explored and am very interested in the findings.