June 15, 2009 - District of Mission

59
That principle is that the work of the commission is essentially independent from
council.
Council has provided the necessary terms of reference and guidelines for the
commission to do its work, and is supposed to receive quarterly progress reports.
Council has selected and appointed the people it believes can do the job on its
behalf. These are the control elements that council has implemented in relation to
commissions.
Council should then relinquish control of the operations of the commission and rely
upon the commission reports to determine that the assigned work is being
completed.
If council accepts the principle that the work of the commission is essentially
independent from council, then the role of the council appointee (i.e. "liaison")
would be virtually identical to the role of a council liaison to any board or
committee. According to the draft policy, the role would that of "neutral
communication channel between the board or committee, and council".
Given that council has employed the terms "council representative" or "liaison" (i.e.
the same role) for 2 of the 3 commissions, and the role of "liaison" predates any of
the commissions, it seems evident that council simply wanted to have a council
member present as a representative. In contrast is the one example of the mayor
being appointed as the chair of the Social Development Commission, clearly
envisioning a different and more active role.
Summation
The lack of a definition of the role of council liaison has created some confusion and
distress. The proposed policy is intended to clarify the role of an appointed council
liaison in all situations. That role is defined as "to provide a neutral communication
channel between the board or committee, and council".
The policy also provides guidelines to assist council members to understand the
role.
ennis Clark
g: \admin \closed counci meetings\ sed council 2009\0519 may 19\cou 22 memo.doc
Page 4 of 5