PART 2: We need accountable and responsible government, not more ISDs
In Part 1, the 155 Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) agreements administered by the Capital Region District (CRD) were discussed.
In Part 2 we review a revealing 22 page document compiled by officials to document the purpose and membership of an astonishing 201 voluntary agreements between the 13 municipalities. Prescribed services are delivered either by municipal staff or private contractors. Each municipality can decide if and where to participate, and whether to commit funding, staff or facilities to a common cause. And of course each of these arrangements requires unique formal agreements, membership, funding formulas, committees, commissions and staff resources.
Advocates of 'no need for reform', such as retired academic Bob Bish and some local mayors, cite these agreements as evidence of extensive co-operation between the various municipalities .
A review of these ISDs reveal the number of agreements for various functions:
Given the variety, complexity and overwhelming number of ISDs, a detailed analysis is not possible here, but the following general observations can be made.
First, there is virtually no standard model for these ISDs. Each has different memberships, voting structures and financial commitments. A confusing array of arrangements has adjacent municipalities cooperating in one ISD, but strangely at odds with related services.
For example, can anyone explain why Esquimalt and Victoria share a common police force, yet Esquimalt uses Saanich as their fire dispatch centre?
How can any councilor or resident have a remote understanding of who does what with whom and who pays for it? Every week there are dozens of meetings of staff or public officials to keep the system afloat and clearly no one is in charge. In too many instances key municipalities just 'opt out'.
Only 28 of the agreements are 'all in' to provide services via the CRD, while another 56 are 'all in but separate from the CRD'. This confirms that several municipalities go it alone and have no use for the CRD and do not use their administrative framework.
Many agreements have laudable objectives, such as 'mutual aid' to neighbours. Others are simply to share information or common purchasing.
A majority of the 'mutual aid' ISDs, particularly fire protection, perpetuate a dependence on leadership, staff and facilities from Saanich and Victoria, at a cost to those taxpayers. (Note that Victoria has recently declined to renew the fire protection mutual aid agreement for this reason. As well, Victoria has withdrawn from the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association).
Several of the most important efforts at regional service delivery, such as the Greater Victoria Library Board and the Greater Victoria Transit Commission, are subject to provincial mandates, but both suffer from lack of accountability and inclusion. The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, divested from the Federal government, is similarly unaccountable to the electorate.
Cooperative arrangements for delivery of parks and recreation programs require 23 ISDs that reflect the fact that user patterns are regional and not local. Only the Peninsula and Westshore municipalities co-operate to provide facilities reflecting this reality.
The Capital Region Emergency Service Telecommunications (CREST) system seems to be unique as the only ISD to provide a regional service to all 13 municipalities and 27 institutional partners, and operates beyond the control of any single municipality.
In contrast, the fact that several municipalities hive together in complex exclusive arrangements to form 3 separate fire dispatch centres and another 3 separate police dispatch centres is clearly not effective, nor in the public interest. If municipalities could cooperate with common 911 and CREST communications services, then why not a central emergency dispatch centre and one regional police and one fire service?
The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was compiled with a massive time commitment and 15 separate planning ISDs to coordinate community planning. But the RGS is subject to approval by each municipality, and it has no legal enforcement teeth. Individual municipal Official Community Plans (OCPs) can frustrate common objectives for land use planning and arterial transportation routes.
The 13 municipalities have separate rules for land use zoning, building standards, and business licensing that complicate economic growth of the region. [A 2012 brief prepared by several business groups documents the serious economic constraints of the multiplicity of jurisdictions.]
Conclusion:
Currently the governance model of soft regional districts and strong municipalities facilitated by provincial legislation results in localism to triumph over regionalism and encourages each municipal council and staff protect their municipal turf. This is not viable or successful in meeting the economic, social and environmental needs of the Greater Victoria region.
Today 79% of all travel by any means is inter-municipal as we move through the region. Services for emergency dispatch and response, fire/police, transportation, provision of arts/cultural facilities and protection of environmental matters are essential needs for all residents and can only be delivered on a regional basis.
It is evident from the documents that the use of a multitude of informal ISDs is out of control and no longer viable. Furthermore, their use ignores the much simpler arrangement for service delivery: create service delivery economies of scale and under the control of single authority.
A 2013 research paper, New Pathways to Effective Regional Government, offers the following quote:
“Local patriotism is healthy natural phenomenon unless it manifests itself as parochialism or complete insensitivity to broader regional interest. …nobody has the opportunity or responsibility to articulate regional interest.”
Here in the Greater Victoria region the plethora of ISDs to protect local delivery has reached that point.
- Jim Anderson
In Part 1, the 155 Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) agreements administered by the Capital Region District (CRD) were discussed.
In Part 2 we review a revealing 22 page document compiled by officials to document the purpose and membership of an astonishing 201 voluntary agreements between the 13 municipalities. Prescribed services are delivered either by municipal staff or private contractors. Each municipality can decide if and where to participate, and whether to commit funding, staff or facilities to a common cause. And of course each of these arrangements requires unique formal agreements, membership, funding formulas, committees, commissions and staff resources.
Advocates of 'no need for reform', such as retired academic Bob Bish and some local mayors, cite these agreements as evidence of extensive co-operation between the various municipalities .
A review of these ISDs reveal the number of agreements for various functions:
- 42 agreements for policing
- 29 agreements for fire protection
- 35 agreements for engineering
- 17 agreements for finance and administration
- 17 agreements for parks and recreation
- 17 agreements for planning
- 41 agreements for other services
Given the variety, complexity and overwhelming number of ISDs, a detailed analysis is not possible here, but the following general observations can be made.
First, there is virtually no standard model for these ISDs. Each has different memberships, voting structures and financial commitments. A confusing array of arrangements has adjacent municipalities cooperating in one ISD, but strangely at odds with related services.
For example, can anyone explain why Esquimalt and Victoria share a common police force, yet Esquimalt uses Saanich as their fire dispatch centre?
How can any councilor or resident have a remote understanding of who does what with whom and who pays for it? Every week there are dozens of meetings of staff or public officials to keep the system afloat and clearly no one is in charge. In too many instances key municipalities just 'opt out'.
Only 28 of the agreements are 'all in' to provide services via the CRD, while another 56 are 'all in but separate from the CRD'. This confirms that several municipalities go it alone and have no use for the CRD and do not use their administrative framework.
Many agreements have laudable objectives, such as 'mutual aid' to neighbours. Others are simply to share information or common purchasing.
A majority of the 'mutual aid' ISDs, particularly fire protection, perpetuate a dependence on leadership, staff and facilities from Saanich and Victoria, at a cost to those taxpayers. (Note that Victoria has recently declined to renew the fire protection mutual aid agreement for this reason. As well, Victoria has withdrawn from the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association).
Several of the most important efforts at regional service delivery, such as the Greater Victoria Library Board and the Greater Victoria Transit Commission, are subject to provincial mandates, but both suffer from lack of accountability and inclusion. The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, divested from the Federal government, is similarly unaccountable to the electorate.
Cooperative arrangements for delivery of parks and recreation programs require 23 ISDs that reflect the fact that user patterns are regional and not local. Only the Peninsula and Westshore municipalities co-operate to provide facilities reflecting this reality.
The Capital Region Emergency Service Telecommunications (CREST) system seems to be unique as the only ISD to provide a regional service to all 13 municipalities and 27 institutional partners, and operates beyond the control of any single municipality.
In contrast, the fact that several municipalities hive together in complex exclusive arrangements to form 3 separate fire dispatch centres and another 3 separate police dispatch centres is clearly not effective, nor in the public interest. If municipalities could cooperate with common 911 and CREST communications services, then why not a central emergency dispatch centre and one regional police and one fire service?
The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was compiled with a massive time commitment and 15 separate planning ISDs to coordinate community planning. But the RGS is subject to approval by each municipality, and it has no legal enforcement teeth. Individual municipal Official Community Plans (OCPs) can frustrate common objectives for land use planning and arterial transportation routes.
The 13 municipalities have separate rules for land use zoning, building standards, and business licensing that complicate economic growth of the region. [A 2012 brief prepared by several business groups documents the serious economic constraints of the multiplicity of jurisdictions.]
Conclusion:
Currently the governance model of soft regional districts and strong municipalities facilitated by provincial legislation results in localism to triumph over regionalism and encourages each municipal council and staff protect their municipal turf. This is not viable or successful in meeting the economic, social and environmental needs of the Greater Victoria region.
Today 79% of all travel by any means is inter-municipal as we move through the region. Services for emergency dispatch and response, fire/police, transportation, provision of arts/cultural facilities and protection of environmental matters are essential needs for all residents and can only be delivered on a regional basis.
It is evident from the documents that the use of a multitude of informal ISDs is out of control and no longer viable. Furthermore, their use ignores the much simpler arrangement for service delivery: create service delivery economies of scale and under the control of single authority.
A 2013 research paper, New Pathways to Effective Regional Government, offers the following quote:
“Local patriotism is healthy natural phenomenon unless it manifests itself as parochialism or complete insensitivity to broader regional interest. …nobody has the opportunity or responsibility to articulate regional interest.”
Here in the Greater Victoria region the plethora of ISDs to protect local delivery has reached that point.
- Jim Anderson
What do you think? Let us know your views.