Owen Sound: A Four-Year City Business Plan

Home › Appendices › Appendix M

Appendices

Appendix MPartnership, Shared-Service and Intergovernmental Agreement Standards

11,487 words · Mike Seiler · Owen Sound, Ontario

Open in the reader →

Vote on the proposals, hear the audio, read the reviews, search the whole plan.

In this chapter

A partnership is not an event or an MOU. It is an operating relationship with responsibilities, costs, outcomes and an exit path.

Municipal government cannot accomplish everything:

Owen Sound exists inside a network of:

Strong municipal government should know:

when to lead.

when to partner.

when to refer.

when to fund.

when to purchase.

when to advocate.

when to get out of the way.

The objective is not:

more partnerships.

The objective is:

better public results through clear relationships.

A photograph of two leaders shaking hands is not:

A memorandum of understanding is not automatically:

A committee meeting is not automatically:

A funding announcement is not automatically:

A shared service is not successful merely because:

A partnership can fail through:

The governing standard should therefore be:

A partnership is not an event or an MOU. It is an operating relationship with responsibilities, costs, outcomes and an exit path.

A second principle is:

Partnership Before Program.

Before the City creates another municipal program:

Who already does this well?

A third principle is:

Two governments. One resident. One taxpayer. No wrong door.

A fourth principle is:

Every layer adds value or earns a review.

And a fifth:

Government should collaborate without hiding who is responsible.

M.1Purpose

This appendix establishes the City's operating standards for relationships involving:

M.2Partnership Is an Umbrella Term

Not every cooperative relationship is legally or operationally:

M.3Relationship Types

The City should distinguish:

Government-to-Government Relationship

Intermunicipal Agreement

Shared Service

Public-Institution Partnership

Community Partnership

Grant

Procurement Contract

Sponsorship

Referral Relationship

Facility Agreement

Data-Sharing Agreement

Emergency / Mutual-Aid Arrangement

Project-Specific Agreement

Informal Coordination

M.4Classification Matters

Because each category may have different:

requirements.

M.5Label Does Not Decide Substance

Calling something:

partnership

does not make procurement law disappear.

M.6Calling Something

MOU

does not necessarily mean:

M.7Calling Something

grant

does not make purchase of a defined municipal service:

M.8Calling Something

donation

does not eliminate:

questions.

M.9Substance First

Always.

M.10Municipal Cooperation

Ontario's Municipal Act expressly permits municipalities to enter agreements with other municipalities or specified local bodies to jointly provide matters that each participant has power to provide within its own boundaries.

M.11Practical Meaning

Shared municipal delivery can be:

But the agreement should clearly define:

M.12Federal Agreements

The Municipal Act also expressly acknowledges municipal agreements with the federal Crown respecting matters within municipal jurisdiction.

M.13Funding Still Does Not Equal Authority

A federal contribution does not by itself turn:

into municipal jurisdiction.

M.14Provincial Program Agreement

Likewise:

should be distinguished.

M.15First Nation Agreements

The Municipal Act includes specific statutory authority for agreements with a First Nation concerning provision of a municipal system within reserve limits. That provision is a particular statutory tool, not a complete description of the broader political, constitutional or rights relationship between a municipality and Indigenous Nations.

M.16SON Relationship

Saugeen Ojibway Nation should not be placed in the same category as:

M.17Joint Political Voice

SON's own Joint Council describes itself as comprising the elected Chiefs and Councils of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen First Nation and as representing the unified political voice of SON.

M.18Constitutional Context

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.

M.19Therefore

The City's SON relationship belongs under:

Government-to-Government and Indigenous Rights Relationship

not ordinary:

community partnership.

M.20Partnership Register

The City should maintain a:

Partnership and Shared-Service Register.

M.21Register Purpose

To answer:

Who are we working with, why, under what authority, at what cost, to deliver what result?

M.22Partnership Register Fields

For material relationships:

Partnership ID

Partner

Relationship Type

Public Purpose

City Department Owner

Partner Contact

Start Date

Review Date

End Date

City Contribution

Partner Contribution

Assets

Staffing

Deliverables

Resident Outcome

Data Shared

Insurance / Liability

Dispute Process

Renewal

Exit

Status

M.23Contribution

Separate:

Cash

Staff Time

Facility

Equipment

Land

Data

Promotion

Professional Services

Volunteer Time

M.24Do Not Call Everything Free

A partner may contribute cash while City contributes:

M.25Complete Cost

Appendix E applies.

M.26In-Kind Contribution

Should be identified where material.

M.27Do Not Invent False Precision

Volunteer or in-kind value should be:

where estimated.

M.28Partner Contribution

Should distinguish:

M.29Promise Is Not Contribution Delivered

No.

M.30Partnership Owner

Every material partnership should have:

M.31Not

the Mayor knows somebody there.

M.32Political Relationship

Can open door.

M.33Institutional Relationship

Must carry the work.

M.34Leadership Change

Should not destroy functioning partnership.

M.35Relationship Belongs to Institution

Core rule.

M.36Partnership Before Program

Before creating new City service ask:

Who already provides this service?

Is it working?

Is there unmet need?

Is the problem coverage, capacity, awareness or coordination?

Could the City support existing capacity instead?

M.37Duplication Register

Maintain a simple:

Program and Service Duplication Register

for identified overlaps.

M.38Duplication Is Not Always Bad

Redundancy can improve:

M.39Unnecessary Duplication

Different.

M.40Duplication Review

Ask:

Are two organizations doing the same work for the same people with no meaningful difference in role?

M.41If Yes

Consider:

M.42Partnership Is Not Abdication

If City has legal responsibility:

It cannot simply say:

A nonprofit handles that now.

M.43Accountability Remains

Where City remains legally responsible.

M.44Partnership Is Not Municipalization

Likewise, City does not need to take over every good community activity.

M.45Capable Community

A healthy City strengthens:

M.46City as Convener

Sometimes City's greatest value is:

M.47Convener Role

Should have purpose.

M.48Meeting for Meeting's Sake

No.

M.49Convening Question

What action becomes possible because these people are in the same room?

M.50If None

Do not hold recurring meeting indefinitely.

M.51Meeting Count

Not partnership outcome.

M.52MOU Count

Not partnership outcome.

M.53Funding Count

Not partnership outcome.

M.54Outcome

Measure what changed for:

M.55Partnership Status

Use:

Exploring

Designing

Active

Delivering

At Risk

Under Review

Renewing

Winding Down

Complete

Stopped

M.56"Ongoing"

Too vague by itself.

M.57Every Ongoing Relationship

Needs:

M.58Government-to-Government

This category includes relationships with:

but each relationship is constitutionally and institutionally different.

M.59Do Not Flatten Governments

No.

M.60Grey County

Is not:

M.61Owen Sound

Is not:

M.62Two-Tier Governance

Residents can receive services from:

simultaneously.

M.63Current Grey County Role

Grey County currently identifies responsibilities including housing and homelessness, childcare, Ontario Works, paramedic services, long-term care, County roads, planning, Provincial Offences administration, economic development and tourism.

M.64Practical Standard

Two governments. One resident. One taxpayer. No wrong door.

M.65Who Does What

Appendix B should govern:

M.66Partnership Does Not Blur Responsibility

Every shared initiative should still identify:

City responsibility

County responsibility

Shared responsibility

External responsibility

M.67Example

Housing.

County may lead significant:

functions.

City may influence:

within its current authority.

M.68Do Not Build Shadow County Department

No.

M.69Housing Desk

Should:

M.70County Referral

Warm.

M.71No Resident Ping-Pong

Resident should not be told repeatedly:

That's County.

That's City.

That's County.

M.72Staff-to-Staff Resolution

When jurisdiction unclear:

Government staff should resolve:

M.73Resident Should Not Be Messenger

Core principle.

M.74Jurisdiction Dispute

If City and County disagree:

Record issue.

Assign temporary contact.

Resolve staff-to-staff.

Escalate administratively.

M.75Interim Safety

If immediate public risk exists:

Do what City can lawfully do while:

M.76No Wrong Door Does Not Mean

City permanently pays for:

M.77Cost Shifting

Track.

M.78Shared-Service Ledger

Maintain:

One Taxpayer Shared-Service Ledger.

M.79Ledger Purpose

Show:

M.80One Taxpayer

Residents should not pay twice because two institutions:

M.81One Taxpayer Does Not Mean

Every service should be:

M.82Local Control

Can have value.

M.83Regional Scale

Can have value.

M.84Right-Level Test

Ask:

At what level can this service be delivered most effectively while preserving accountability and responsiveness?

M.85Local Delivery

Favoured when:

M.86County Delivery

May make sense where:

create value.

M.87Shared Delivery

May make sense where:

M.88No Ideological Bias

Do not assume:

M.89Business Case

Use.

M.90Shared-Service Business Case

Should include:

Problem

Current Cost

Current Service Level

Proposed Model

Authority

Governance

Staff

Assets

Technology

Data

Cost Allocation

Transition Cost

Resident Impact

Service Standard

Exit

M.91Baseline First

Without current cost and service level:

Cannot know if shared model:

M.92Forecast Saving

Label.

M.93Verified Saving

Finance verifies later.

M.94Shared-Service Saving

Must not be:

City saved $500,000

if County taxpayers simply pay:

M.95One Taxpayer Test

Calculate total public effect.

M.96Cost Transfer

Not saving.

M.97Responsibility Transfer

Not saving.

M.98Staff Transfer

Not saving by itself.

M.99Building Transfer

Not saving by itself.

M.100Total System Cost

Compare.

M.101Service Quality

Compare.

M.102Resident Access

Compare.

M.103Shared Service Governance

Need clear decision authority.

M.104Questions

Who sets policy?

Who hires?

Who budgets?

Who approves capital?

Who receives complaints?

Who owns assets?

Who holds insurance?

Who reports publicly?

M.105Joint Board

May be appropriate in some lawful arrangements.

M.106Joint Board Is Not Automatically Needed

No.

M.107New Governance Body

Creates:

M.108Use Existing Structures

Where practical.

M.109No Committee for Every Partnership

No.

M.110Joint Staff Team

Could be enough.

M.111Named Leads

Could be enough.

M.112Escalation Route

Needed.

M.113Grey County Relationship

Should include recurring institutional discussion of:

where relevant.

M.114Not Political Bloc

Owen Sound representatives should not be required to:

at County.

M.115City Interest

Advocate.

M.116County Duty

Respect County-wide:

M.117No Ambush

Material City-County concerns should be raised:

M.118No Surprise Standard

Useful.

M.119Road Transfer

Shared agreements should define:

M.120Transfer Date

Matters.

M.121Before Transfer

County responsibility may remain.

M.122After Transfer

City responsibility may change.

M.123Public Guide

Update immediately.

M.124Data

Update immediately.

M.125No Old Signage

If responsibility changed:

Correct resident information.

M.126Ontario Relationship

Ontario is:

depending on issue.

M.127Do Not Treat Ontario as Grant Machine

No.

M.128Ontario Issues Register

Maintain.

M.129Fields

Issue

Provincial Ministry

City Authority

Provincial Authority

City Ask

Financial Impact

Status

Next Step

M.130Precise Ask

Better than:

Province needs to do more.

M.131Example Structure

Owen Sound requests Ontario to amend / fund / approve / clarify X because Y, with a proposed municipal contribution of Z.

M.132Ask Book

Maintain a concise:

Ontario Ask Book.

M.133Nonpartisan

Use with:

M.134Relationship Survives Election

Yes.

M.135Municipal Advocacy

Institutional.

M.136Mayor Can Advocate

But records and asks belong to:

M.137Provincial Grant

Agreement needs:

M.138Grant Does Not Make Bad Project Good

No.

M.139Funding Match

Show.

M.140Operating Tail

Show.

M.141Grant Cliff

Show.

M.142Temporary Funding

Should not create permanent service without:

M.143Unfunded Mandate

Track where responsibilities or requirements increase without matching:

M.144Unfunded Mandate Ledger

Appendix E / Ontario section applies.

M.145Canada Relationship

Canada can be:

depending on issue.

M.146Federal Issues Register

Maintain.

M.147Federal Ask Book

Maintain.

M.148Precise Federal Question

Examples may include:

M.149Do Not Ask Ottawa to Exercise Municipal Power

No.

M.150Do Not Refuse Federal Partnership Merely Because

M.151Municipal Act Recognition

Ontario law acknowledges agreements between municipalities and the federal Crown regarding matters within municipal jurisdiction.

M.152Federal Funding

Again:

Funding is not jurisdiction.

M.153Federal Program

Verify current:

M.154No Program Memory

Do not operate from:

M.155Harbour

Should have a dedicated:

M.156Harbour Relationship Map

Could include:

Canada

Ontario

City

SON

Port users

Environmental regulators

Property interests

M.157No Single-Partner Harbour Deal

Not responsible.

M.158SON Relationship

Different standard.

M.159SON Should Be Engaged As

M.160Not Merely

M.161SON Relationship Register

Could remain distinct from ordinary Partnership Register.

Maintain:

SON Relationship and Commitments Record

rather than reducing relationship to score.

M.163Fields

City Commitment

SON Commitment if mutually agreed for recording

Joint Item

City Lead

SON Contact

Meeting / Action Date

Confidentiality

Follow-Up

Status

M.164Do Not Score SON

No.

M.165Score City

Measure:

M.166Joint Measures

Only where:

M.167Relationship Quality

Not reducible to:

M.168Meeting Count

Not reconciliation.

M.169Agreement Signed

Not reconciliation.

M.170Ceremony

Not reconciliation.

M.171Listening

Important.

M.172Follow-Through

More important.

M.173First Contact

Respectful.

M.174Agenda

Do not arrive with:

Here is the agreement we already wrote for you.

M.175Ask

What relationship would be useful from your perspective?

M.176Formal Agreement

If desired by both sides:

Develop together.

M.177No Surprise

Major City projects potentially affecting:

should consider early SON engagement.

Separate from:

Appendix I.

M.180Rights

Section 35.

M.181Crown Duty

Do not inaccurately transfer all Crown obligations to:

M.182City Relationship Responsibility

Still real.

M.183Knowledge

Indigenous knowledge shared in relationship is not automatically:

Respect.

M.185Confidentiality

Respect.

M.186Elder / Knowledge Holder

Compensation may be appropriate for substantive:

M.187No Free Cultural Consulting

By default.

M.188Procurement Opportunity

Can be discussed.

M.189But SON Government

Not supplier pool.

M.190Indigenous-Owned Business

Different role.

M.191Keep Roles Distinct

Always.

M.192Public Institutions

Other institutional partners may include:

M.193Each Has Own Authority

Do not assume City can:

M.194Public Institution Partnership

Should identify:

Institution authority

City authority

Shared objective

Data boundary

Funding

Accountability

M.195Hospital

City may support or coordinate.

It does not become:

through partnership.

M.196School Board

Same.

M.197Police

Operational independence and statutory roles remain.

M.198Public Health

Same.

M.199Library

Distinct governance considerations.

M.200Right Responder

Particularly requires:

M.201No MOU Can Safely Redefine Professional Responsibility

No.

M.202Qualified Triage

Stays with:

M.203Community Partners

Community organizations often know:

better than City Hall.

M.204Strengthen Capable Partners

Where public purpose supports.

M.205Do Not Capture Them

A City partnership should not turn independent nonprofit into:

M.206Independence

Can be healthy.

M.207Criticism

Partner should not lose support merely because it:

M.208Funding Conditions

Must remain:

M.209Political Loyalty

Never.

M.210Faith

Never as loyalty test.

M.211Community Grant

Ontario's Municipal Act grants municipalities broad grant authority for purposes Council considers in the municipal interest, subject to statutory restrictions including the anti-bonusing provisions relating to commercial and industrial enterprises.

M.212Grant Authority Is Not Unlimited

Specific circumstances may require:

review.

M.213Grant Standard

For ordinary community grants:

Public purpose

Eligibility

Amount

Conditions

Reporting

Conflict review

Decision authority

M.214Grant Is Not Purchase

If City defines exactly:

and is buying it for municipal purposes, relationship may be:

rather than grant.

M.215Substance Test

Ask:

Are we supporting their work or buying our work?

M.216Supporting Their Public-Purpose Work

More grant-like.

M.217Buying Defined City Deliverable

More contract-like.

M.218Ambiguous

Legal / procurement review.

M.219Do Not Use Grant to Avoid Tender

No.

M.220Do Not Use Procurement to Over-Control Small Community Initiative

No.

M.221Proportionality

Important.

M.222$1,000 Community Grant

Should not require:

M.223$500,000 Service Arrangement

Needs stronger:

M.224Grant Reporting

Match:

M.225Small Grant

Possible reporting:

M.226Large Grant

May require:

M.227No Paperwork Theatre

Do not spend $500 of volunteer labour administering:

M.228Grant Renewal

Not automatic.

M.229Legacy Recipient

Not entitlement.

M.230New Applicant

Should have fair opportunity where program is:

M.231Core Institution

Some long-term institutional relationships may justify:

M.232Explain

Why.

M.233Faith Organizations

Faith organizations may participate in lawful public-purpose municipal partnerships under:

M.234No Preferred Faith

M.235No Anti-Faith Rule

M.236Public Service

If publicly supported:

Should be provided according to:

terms appropriate to program.

M.237Religious Activity

Different from:

M.238Funding Design

Should distinguish.

M.239City Should Not Police Theology

No.

M.240City Should Police Public Agreement

Yes.

M.241Downtown Churches

Can be partners in:

activities.

M.242Same Standards

Apply to:

M.243Public-Purpose Test

What public outcome is supported?

M.244Access Test

Who can receive service?

M.245Funding Test

What is City paying for?

M.246Proselytization Condition

Where service funding intersects with religious activity:

Obtain appropriate legal and program review rather than creating:

M.247Neutrality

Essential.

M.248Community Nonprofit

Same.

M.249Service Clubs

Can contribute:

M.250Volunteers

Valuable.

M.251But

Volunteer labour should not systematically replace:

simply to reduce budget.

M.252Volunteer Role

Define.

M.253Paid Work Paid

Where work is truly:

M.254Volunteer Choice

Must be genuine.

M.255Civic Corps

Same.

M.256Youth Volunteer

Higher safeguards.

M.257Screening

Where appropriate.

M.258Insurance

Where appropriate.

M.259Supervision

Where appropriate.

M.260Volunteer Agreement

Could be simple.

M.261No Waiver Theatre

A waiver does not eliminate all:

M.262Volunteer Value

Can be acknowledged.

M.263Do Not Inflate

A volunteer-hour valuation is:

not cash revenue.

M.264Businesses

Business partnerships need stronger distinction between:

M.265Business Can Partner

Yes.

M.266Sponsorship

Yes.

M.267Procurement

Yes.

M.268Economic Development

Yes.

M.269But

Municipal assistance to private commercial enterprise is constrained by Ontario's statutory anti-bonusing framework, while municipal grant authority is expressly subject to those restrictions.

M.270Therefore

Do not promise:

to private business without specific lawful authority and review.

M.271Community Improvement Tools

May create lawful routes in appropriate planning framework.

M.272Verify

Do not assume.

M.273Sponsorship

A private business can provide:

in return for approved recognition.

M.274Sponsorship Is Not Donation

If consideration is exchanged.

M.275Sponsorship Rules

Should cover:

Eligibility

Naming

Recognition

Term

Content

Conflict

Termination

M.276No Ownership of City Policy

Sponsor does not buy:

M.277No Procurement Advantage

Sponsor should not automatically gain:

M.278Naming Rights

Appendix I / L review.

M.279Reputation Risk

Consider.

M.280Morality Clause

Use carefully.

M.281Political Neutrality

Do not sell public asset naming rights into:

M.282Donation

Could be accepted under:

M.283Restricted Donation

Conditions matter.

M.284Gift That Costs More Than It Is Worth

Can be:

M.285Donated Playground

Still needs:

M.286Donated Software

Same.

M.287Donated Land

Same.

M.288Gift Acceptance Test

Ask:

What will this cost us after receiving it?

M.289Asset Gift

Complete Cost.

M.290Community Build Crew

Volunteer / community improvement concepts should define:

M.291Licensed Trade

Use licensed / qualified professional where required.

M.292Volunteer Painting

Different from:

M.293Community Enthusiasm

Does not waive:

M.294Goodwill Compact

Could establish:

M.295Goodwill Compact Should Not Become

M.296Voluntary

Yes.

M.297Civic Standard

Could emphasize:

M.298Benefit Eligibility

Should not depend on signing political goodwill pledge.

M.299Community Partner Directory

Could help residents find:

organizations.

M.300Directory Neutrality

No paid basic rank.

M.301Inclusion Rule

Published.

M.302City Listing

Does not mean:

M.303Contact Accuracy

Partner responsible to:

M.304City Review

Periodic.

M.305Sensitive Services

Use care.

M.306Vulnerable People

Do not map individual users.

M.307Community Calendar

Appendix J applies.

M.308Shared Facilities

Partnership may involve:

M.309Before Building New

Ask:

Is suitable existing space underused?

M.310Shared Facility Agreement

Should address:

Hours

Access

Cost

Maintenance

Damage

Insurance

Accessibility

Security

Scheduling

Termination

M.311Shared Facility

Can increase:

M.312It Can Also Create

M.313Who Cleans?

Define.

M.314Who Plows?

Define.

M.315Who Repairs?

Define.

M.316Who Insures?

Define.

M.317Who Opens Door?

Define.

M.318Who Pays Utilities?

Define.

M.319Simple Questions Prevent Conflict

Yes.

M.320Referral Partnership

Sometimes no money needs to change hands.

M.321Referral Relationship

Could include:

M.322Referral Is Not Guarantee

City should not promise:

M.323Partner Directory

Current information matters.

M.324Dead Referral

Bad service.

M.325Referral Owner

Someone verifies:

M.326No Wrong Door

Requires:

M.327Referral Metric

Could include:

Handoff completed

Resident had to repeat information

Contact was current

Resolution known where lawful

M.328Privacy

Do not demand partner tell City:

about referred resident.

M.329Outcome Follow-Up

Can be:

M.330Health / Social Service Referral

Stronger privacy.

Use appropriately.

M.332Data Sharing

A partnership should not automatically create:

M.333Default

Share:

M.334Data-Sharing Agreement

Where needed, Appendix J applies.

M.335Agreement Should Define

Purpose

Authority

Data Fields

Access

Further Disclosure

Security

Retention

Incident Handling

Termination

M.336Whole Client File

Not default.

M.337No Wrong Door

Does not mean:

No privacy boundaries.

M.338Warm Handoff

Can often be accomplished by:

M.339Multi-Agency Case Conference

May be appropriate for specific lawful purposes.

M.340It Should Not Become

M.341Partner Analytics

Aggregate.

M.342Shared Dashboard

Do not expose:

M.343Homelessness

Measure service system.

Not:

M.344Youth

Protect.

M.345Seniors

Protect.

M.346Health

Protect.

M.347Faith

Protect.

M.348Political Views

Protect.

M.349Campaign

No partner client data to:

M.350Campaign Firewall

Absolute.

M.351Community Partner Email List

Not campaign list.

M.352Volunteer List

Not campaign list.

M.353Business List

Not campaign list.

M.354SON Contact List

Not campaign list.

M.355County Contact Access

Not campaign resource.

M.356Government relationships

Belong to:

M.357Emergency Partnership

Different standard.

M.358Mutual Aid

Could involve:

M.359Emergency Agreement

Should be established:

where possible.

M.360Emergency Contact

Current.

M.361Call-Out Authority

Clear.

M.362Cost Recovery

Clear.

M.363Equipment

Clear.

M.364Command

Clear.

M.365Insurance

Clear.

M.366Communications

Clear.

M.367Emergency Exercise

Test.

M.368Agreement Existing

Not proof it works.

M.369Drill

Can reveal:

M.370Emergency Partner Failure

Plan.

M.371One Provider

May be single point of failure.

M.372Redundancy

Useful.

M.373Resilience Skills Directory

Could help.

M.374But

Do not publicly publish private resident capability / equipment lists without:

M.375Informal Cooperation

Not every relationship needs:

M.376Example

Two staff members share:

M.377Informal Becomes Formal When

increase.

M.378Escalation Trigger

Define.

M.379"Handshake Deal"

Not enough for material public commitment.

M.380Institutional Memory

Document.

M.381MOU

Useful when parties need:

but do not necessarily require full service contract.

M.382MOU Should Identify

Purpose

Roles

Resources

Duration

Confidentiality

Non-Binding / Binding Provisions

Review

Exit

M.383Do Not Assume Non-Binding

Legal review if important.

M.384Letter of Intent

Same.

M.385Term Sheet

Same.

M.386Partnership Charter

Could be useful.

M.387Plain Language

Prefer.

M.388Agreement Length

Match:

M.389Forty-Page MOU for Two Meetings

No.

M.390One-Page Handshake for Million-Dollar Shared Service

No.

M.391Right-Sized Governance

Always.

M.392Shared Service Staffing

People matter.

M.393Employee Transfer

Needs:

review.

M.394Staff Loan

Different.

M.395Secondment

Different.

M.396Shared Position

Could be useful.

M.397Who Employs?

Define.

M.398Who Supervises?

Define.

M.399Who Evaluates?

Define.

M.400Who Pays?

Define.

M.401Who Holds HR Record?

Define.

M.402Joint Direction

Can be difficult.

M.403One Administrative Supervisor

Often clearer.

M.404Policy Accountability

Can remain shared.

M.405Labour Agreements

Respect.

M.406No Shared-Service Saving Through Manufactured Layoff

Same principle.

M.407Redeployment

Consider.

M.408Attrition

Consider.

M.409Capacity

Consider.

M.410Employee Knowledge

Retain.

M.411Shared Assets

Who owns?

M.412Joint Ownership

Can complicate:

M.413One Owner

May be simpler.

M.414Cost Sharing

Separate.

M.415Capital Replacement

Agreement should define.

M.416Reserve

Who funds?

M.417Major Repair

Who approves?

M.418Asset Disposal

Who decides?

M.419Residual Value

Who receives?

M.420Data Ownership

Who owns?

M.421Shared Software

Same.

M.422Joint Licence

Exit issues.

M.423Vendor Lock-In

Shared service can multiply:

M.424Technology Exit

Appendix J / L.

M.425Financial Allocation

Shared-service formula should be:

M.426Possible Allocation Bases

M.427No One Universal Formula

Correct.

M.428Formula Should Match

M.429Population Formula

May not fit service with highly unequal:

M.430Usage Formula

May create:

M.431Equal Share

May be unfair for:

M.432Blended Formula

Can improve.

M.433Keep Understandable

No need for:

M.434Annual Reconciliation

Use where actual usage changes.

M.435Estimate

Separate.

M.436Actual

Separate.

M.437Cost Overrun

Who pays?

Define.

M.438Budget Underrun

Who benefits?

Define.

M.439Reserve Balance

Who owns?

Define.

M.440Grant Revenue

How allocated?

Define.

M.441User Fees

How allocated?

Define.

M.442Insurance Recovery

Define.

M.443Financial Transparency

Shared service should not disappear between:

M.444Public Reporting

Show combined costs where practical.

M.445One Taxpayer Ledger

Important.

M.446Shared Service Performance

Use same measures across participants where possible.

M.447Different Definitions

Create false comparison.

M.448Agree Metrics Before Launch

M.449Service-Level Agreement

Could define:

M.450SLA Is Not Partnership Outcome

It is:

M.451Outcome

Resident result.

M.452Partnership Scorecard

Possible measures:

Active relationships

Deliverables due

Deliverables completed

Commitments overdue

City contribution

Partner contribution

Shared-service cost

Resident outcome

Handoff performance

Duplication removed

Agreements reviewed on time

Partnerships ended

M.453Partnership Count

Context only.

M.454More Partnerships

Not automatically:

M.455Fewer Partnerships

Not automatically:

M.456Outcome First

M.457Partnership Health

Possible:

Green

Purpose, roles and outcomes functioning.

Amber

Material issue requires attention.

Red

Relationship is not delivering or creates significant unresolved risk.

Grey

Information insufficient.

M.458Do Not Score Another Government

Important distinction.

M.459Status Applies to

City's partnership arrangement

not:

quality of another government.

M.460Example

Red:

Owen Sound-Grey County handoff process for Service X is not meeting agreed standard.

Not:

Grey County is Red.

M.461SON

Even greater care.

M.462Do Not Give SON

rating.

M.463City Commitment

Can have status.

M.464Joint Action

Can have:

if mutually agreed.

M.465Resident Outcome

Can be measured.

M.466Relationship Respect

Do not gamify.

M.467Partnership Deliverable

Define.

M.468Meeting

May be deliverable if commitment was:

M.469But

Meeting is not substantive outcome unless that is actual:

M.470Agreement Signed

Could be deliverable.

M.471Service Operating

Different.

M.472Resident Result

Different.

M.473Commitment Register

Each material partnership commitment should identify:

Who promised?

What?

By when?

To whom?

Evidence?

M.474City Promise

Track.

M.475Partner Promise

Track only appropriately.

M.476Do Not Publicly Shame Partner for Informal Conversation

No.

M.477Formal Commitment

Different.

M.478Commitment Drift

Avoid.

M.479Verbal Understanding

Confirm.

M.480Minutes

Useful.

M.481Action List

Useful.

M.482Relationship CRM

No need for fancy:

M.483Basic Register

Enough.

M.484Meeting Notes

Protect sensitive information.

M.485Political Notes

Separate from:

where campaign.

M.486Institutional Contact History

Preserve.

M.487Renewal

Every material partnership should have:

M.488Evergreen Agreement

Can be appropriate.

M.489But

Evergreen should still have:

M.490Renewal Review

Ask:

Is purpose still valid?

Is partner still capable?

Is City still needed?

What did it cost?

What was delivered?

What outcome occurred?

What risk changed?

Is there better model?

M.491Sunk Relationship

Do not continue because:

we have always partnered.

M.492Relationship Loyalty

Should not replace:

M.493Partner Change

Leadership changes.

M.494Organization Can Change

M.495Funding Can Change

M.496Reassess.

M.497Exit

Every material relationship should answer:

How does this end?

M.498Exit Is Not Hostility

No.

M.499Exit Protects Both Parties

Yes.

M.500Exit Clause

Could define:

Notice

Financial Reconciliation

Asset Return

Data Return / Deletion

Staff Transition

Public Communication

Outstanding Obligations

M.501Immediate Termination

Needed for some:

M.502Ordinary Termination

Needed.

M.503Expiry

Can be enough.

M.504Transition

Important for resident-facing service.

M.505Do Not Abandon Residents

If partner service ends:

Plan:

M.506Fiscal Cliff

Grant-supported partnerships need:

M.507Federal Grant Ends

Then what?

M.508Provincial Grant Ends

Then what?

M.509Donor Funding Ends

Then what?

M.510Partner Fails

Then what?

M.511City Should Know Before Launch

M.512Dependency

Measure.

M.513Single Partner Dependency

Could be risky.

M.514Unique Expertise

May justify.

M.515Backup Plan

Consider.

M.516Dispute Resolution

Every significant partnership should establish:

How do we disagree?

M.517First Stage

Operational staff.

M.518Second Stage

Department / executive lead.

M.519Third Stage

CAO / senior counterpart.

M.520Political Escalation

Where appropriate.

M.521Mediation

Could help.

Where required.

M.523Do Not Start With Press Conference

No.

M.524Public Disagreement

Sometimes necessary.

M.525But

Try institutional resolution first where:

M.526No Surprise Criticism

Partners should generally have opportunity to:

before public escalation where circumstances allow.

M.527Emergency / wrongdoing

Different.

M.528Transparency

Does not require:

M.529Relationship Can Survive Disagreement

Important.

M.530SON

Particularly.

M.531County

Particularly.

M.532Ontario

Particularly.

M.533Canada

Particularly.

M.534One Dispute

Should not destroy:

M.535Issue-Specific Disagreement

Keep specific.

M.536No Personalization

Do not turn:

into personal feud between leaders.

M.537Marcus Aurelius Standard

Listen.

Clarify.

Steelman.

Respond.

M.538Both-Sides Standard

Before escalating:

State partner's position fairly.

M.539Steelman

Ask:

Could they agree that this is a fair description of their concern?

M.540Then State City Position

M.541Public Civility

Strength.

M.542Disagreement Record

Useful.

M.543Do Not Rewrite History

No.

M.544Decision Made

Record.

M.545Reason

Record.

M.546Relationship Repair

Possible.

M.547Partner Failure

If partner materially fails:

Verify facts.

Notify.

Seek cure.

Protect residents.

Enforce agreement.

Exit if necessary.

M.548City Failure

Same standard.

M.549Admit.

M.550Correct.

M.551Compensate where legally required.

M.552Do not shift blame automatically.

M.553Partner Performance

Should be evidence-based.

M.554Community Nonprofit

Do not publicly attack before:

M.555Vendor

Procurement framework.

M.556Government

Intergovernmental framework.

M.557Different accountability mechanisms

Yes.

M.558Partnership Risk Register

For major relationships identify:

Financial risk

Service risk

Data risk

Liability

Dependency

Governance

Reputation

Capacity

Political continuity

M.559Risk Register

Not necessary for:

M.560Proportional.

M.561High-Risk Partnerships

Examples may include:

M.562Low-Risk Partnership

Example:

M.563Right-Sized Agreement

Again.

M.564Insurance

Partner arrangement should identify:

M.565Certificate

Where required.

M.566Insurance Does Not Remove

M.567Indemnity

Understand.

M.568Waiver

Understand.

M.569Volunteer Waiver

Not magic.

M.570Asset Use

Who damages?

Define.

M.571Facility keys

Control.

M.572Cyber access

Control.

M.573Data credentials

Control.

M.574Partner System Access

Least privilege.

M.575Shared Email Account

Avoid where accountability matters.

M.576Shared Calendar

Fine where appropriate.

M.577Shared Documents

Access-controlled.

M.578Partner Departure

Remove access.

M.579Data Retention

Appendix J.

M.580Accessibility

Appendix K.

M.581Partner-Funded Public Service

Should meet appropriate:

M.582Small Community Event

Proportionate.

M.583Essential City Service Delivered Through Partner

Higher standard.

M.584Accessibility Cannot Be Outsourced Away

No.

M.585Public Information

Partner contact info should be:

M.586Resident Should Know

M.587Co-Branding

Can be useful.

M.588Too Many Logos

Can confuse.

M.589Lead Service Brand

Clear.

M.590"Powered by"

Marketing language less important than:

M.591Service Ownership

State.

M.592Public Communications

For joint announcements:

Who approved?

What is actually funded?

What remains conditional?

Who delivers?

When?

M.593Photo Opportunity

Not implementation.

M.594Announcement Date

Not delivery date.

M.595Groundbreaking

Not completion.

M.596MOU Signing

Not service launch.

M.597Funding Application

Not award.

M.598Funding Award

Not service outcome.

M.599Language Discipline

Use:

Discussing

Proposed

Agreed in Principle

Approved

Funded

Under Contract

Operating

Completed

M.600Do Not Upgrade Language

No.

M.601Economic Impact Claims

Joint events / partnerships should not claim:

without methodology.

M.602Attendance

Not spending.

M.603Partner Estimate

Label.

M.604Tourism Impact

Use evidence.

M.605Fundraising Total

Not City economic benefit.

M.606Sponsor Contribution

Not City saving automatically.

M.607Finance Verification

Required.

M.608Grants

A grant replacing City spending could create avoided cost.

M.609But

If it creates new permanent program:

Could increase future cost.

M.610Complete Cost

Always.

M.611Intergovernmental Infrastructure

Major projects often require:

M.612Crossing

Could involve multiple:

M.613Partnership Map

Create before:

M.614Infrastructure Partner Matrix

For major project:

RoleInstitution
Asset Owner
Project Sponsor
Regulator
Funder
Operator
Maintainer
Rights Relationship
Emergency Role

M.615One Institution Can Hold Several Roles

Yes.

M.616Do Not Confuse

M.617Federal Funder

May not own.

M.618Provincial Regulator

May not fund.

M.619City Operator

May not own land.

M.620SON

Should not be reduced to:

M.621Role Precision

Prevents:

M.622Harbour

Need exactly this.

M.623River

Same.

M.624Transit

Same.

M.625Housing

Same.

M.626Broadband

Same.

M.627Public Safety

Same.

M.628Partnership and Innovation

New ideas often need partner.

M.629Pilot Partnership

Should include:

Duration

Participants

Cost

Data

Measure

Stop Condition

Exit

M.630Pilot Is Not Marriage

No.

M.631Partner Pilot

Should not automatically receive:

M.632Procurement

Appendix L.

M.633Pilot Data

Appendix J.

M.634Public Evaluation

Where appropriate.

M.635Failed Pilot

Can end.

M.636Relationship Can Continue

Yes.

M.637Do Not Blame Partner for Hypothesis Failure

If both acted properly.

M.638Evidence Changed

Stop responsibly.

M.639Scaling

Requires:

M.640Temporary Partner Capacity

Do not assume scalable.

M.641Volunteer Project

May not scale.

M.642Founder Energy

May not scale.

M.643Grant funding

May not scale.

M.644Scale Test

Ask:

Does this still work if the charismatic person who started it leaves?

M.645Institutionalization

Necessary for permanent service.

M.646Personality Dependency

Risk.

M.647Mayor Dependency

Risk.

M.648One Donor Dependency

Risk.

M.649One Volunteer Dependency

Risk.

M.650One staff expert dependency

Risk.

M.651Partnership Succession

Plan.

M.652Contact Change

Update.

M.653Executive Change

Brief successor.

M.654Election Change

Relationship continues.

M.655Records

Handoff.

M.656Election-Year Partnership Standard

Do not create:

primarily for campaign optics.

M.657Partner Event

Do not turn into:

using public resources.

M.658Campaign Signs

Separate.

M.659Campaign Speeches

Separate.

M.660Official Event

Public-purpose.

M.661Candidate Attendance

Apply equal lawful rules.

M.662Partner Endorsement

Partner may have own rights.

M.663City Funding

Should not depend on:

M.664No Retaliation

If partner criticizes incumbent.

M.665No Reward

If partner endorses incumbent.

M.666Election Data

No sharing.

M.667Institutional Communications

No campaign mailing list transfer.

M.668Partnership Audit

Election year definitions stay:

M.669No Last-Minute MOU Inflation

Do not sign dozens of symbolic agreements solely to claim:

record partnership success.

M.670No Ribbon-Cutting Metrics

M.671Anti-Gaming Rule One

Do not count meetings as:

M.672Rule Two

Do not count MOUs as:

M.673Rule Three

Do not count funding applications as:

M.674Rule Four

Do not count funding awards as:

M.675Rule Five

Do not call partner money:

without financial verification.

M.676Rule Six

Do not call transferred cost:

M.677Rule Seven

Do not call transferred staff:

without outcome.

M.678Rule Eight

Do not call one taxpayer saving if:

M.679Rule Nine

Do not call all duplication:

M.680Rule Ten

Do not create duplicate municipal service merely because:

M.681Rule Eleven

Do not outsource a statutory municipal duty and pretend:

M.682Rule Twelve

Do not municipalize healthy community activity simply to:

M.683Rule Thirteen

Do not classify SON as:

M.684Rule Fourteen

Do not score SON as:

M.685Rule Fifteen

Do not claim formal relationship is successful because:

M.686Rule Sixteen

Do not use Indigenous engagement as:

M.687Rule Seventeen

Do not publish Indigenous knowledge without:

M.688Rule Eighteen

Do not call City engagement:

unless legally accurate.

M.689Rule Nineteen

Do not treat Grey County as:

where County has statutory responsibility.

M.690Rule Twenty

Do not treat Owen Sound as:

M.691Rule Twenty-One

Do not use jurisdiction to send resident:

M.692Rule Twenty-Two

Do not let No Wrong Door become:

M.693Rule Twenty-Three

Do not let government dispute make resident:

M.694Rule Twenty-Four

Do not call City-County dispute:

M.695Rule Twenty-Five

Do not use shared service to obscure:

M.696Rule Twenty-Six

Do not use shared service to hide:

M.697Rule Twenty-Seven

Do not use complex cost formula nobody can:

M.698Rule Twenty-Eight

Do not change allocation formula after results to:

M.699Rule Twenty-Nine

Do not create joint committee without:

M.700Rule Thirty

Do not create permanent shared bureaucracy before:

M.701Rule Thirty-One

Do not call Ontario grant:

before public result.

M.702Rule Thirty-Two

Do not create permanent local program around:

without fiscal plan.

M.703Rule Thirty-Three

Do not create permanent service around:

without fiscal plan.

M.704Rule Thirty-Four

Do not blame another government merely because:

M.705Rule Thirty-Five

Do not claim another government blocked proposal when:

M.706Rule Thirty-Six

Do not claim another government supports project because:

M.707Rule Thirty-Seven

Do not treat ministerial photo as:

M.708Rule Thirty-Eight

Do not call grant:

M.709Rule Thirty-Nine

Do not call contract:

to bypass procurement.

M.710Rule Forty

Do not use partnership label to bypass:

M.711Rule Forty-One

Do not use sponsorship to sell:

M.712Rule Forty-Two

Do not give sponsor procurement preference.

M.713Rule Forty-Three

Do not accept gift without considering:

M.714Rule Forty-Four

Do not call donation:

M.715Rule Forty-Five

Do not use community volunteers to replace:

M.716Rule Forty-Six

Do not use volunteer enthusiasm as substitute for:

M.717Rule Forty-Seven

Do not use youth volunteers as:

M.718Rule Forty-Eight

Do not provide community funding based on:

M.719Rule Forty-Nine

Do not provide faith-based organization worse treatment merely because:

M.720Rule Fifty

Do not provide faith-based organization better treatment merely because:

M.721Rule Fifty-One

Do not require organizations to support Mayor's platform to:

M.722Rule Fifty-Two

Do not retaliate against partner that:

M.723Rule Fifty-Three

Do not treat criticism as:

unless actual agreement supports conclusion.

M.724Rule Fifty-Four

Do not share whole resident files because:

M.725Rule Fifty-Five

Do not build cross-agency dossier under banner of:

M.726Rule Fifty-Six

Do not transfer partner client information to:

M.727Rule Fifty-Seven

Do not share City mailing list with:

without lawful basis.

M.728Rule Fifty-Eight

Do not call partnership accessible if:

M.729Rule Fifty-Nine

Do not impose giant accessibility bureaucracy on:

without proportionality.

M.730Rule Sixty

Do not let shared facility fail because nobody knows:

M.731Rule Sixty-One

Do not let informal agreement manage:

M.732Rule Sixty-Two

Do not let major relationship exist solely in:

M.733Rule Sixty-Three

Do not keep agreement alive because:

M.734Rule Sixty-Four

Do not end useful partnership merely because:

M.735Rule Sixty-Five

Do not renew automatically without:

M.736Rule Sixty-Six

Do not treat exit clause as sign of:

M.737Rule Sixty-Seven

Do not wait for conflict to decide:

M.738Rule Sixty-Eight

Do not attack partner publicly before verifying:

where circumstances allow private correction.

M.739Rule Sixty-Nine

Do not conceal material public failure merely to:

M.740Rule Seventy

Do not personalize institutional disagreement.

M.741Rule Seventy-One

Do not make another government leader personally responsible for:

M.742Rule Seventy-Two

Do not let personality conflict interrupt:

M.743Rule Seventy-Three

Do not let partner leadership turnover erase:

M.744Rule Seventy-Four

Do not let City leadership turnover erase:

M.745Rule Seventy-Five

Do not build permanent service around one:

M.746Rule Seventy-Six

Do not let partnership pilot become permanent without:

M.747Rule Seventy-Seven

Do not call failed hypothesis:

when partner delivered correctly.

M.748Rule Seventy-Eight

Do not count economic impact without:

M.749Rule Seventy-Nine

Do not count volunteer-hour estimate as:

M.750Rule Eighty

Do not count shared project as exclusively:

M.751Credit Test

Ask:

Who actually delivered?

M.752City

Credit.

M.753County

Credit.

M.754Ontario

Credit.

M.755Canada

Credit.

M.756SON

Credit appropriately and do not appropriate.

M.757Community partner

Credit.

M.758Business

Credit.

M.759Residents

Credit.

M.760Shared result

Call:

shared result.

M.761Blame Test

Same.

M.762Partnership Decision Tests

Before entering material partnership:

What problem are we solving?

Why this partner?

Who has authority?

Who is responsible?

What does City contribute?

What does partner contribute?

What outcome should residents see?

Is this grant, contract, shared service or another form?

What data moves?

What liability exists?

How is disagreement handled?

When is it reviewed?

How does it end?

M.763The Existing Capacity Test

Who already does this well?

M.764The Duplication Test

Are we duplicating an existing service?

M.765The Partnership Before Program Test

Could supporting existing capacity solve the problem better than creating another City program?

M.766The Authority Test

Does every participant have lawful authority for its role?

M.767The Role Test

Can we explain who does what in one paragraph?

M.768The One Taxpayer Test

Does total public cost fall, rise or merely move between governments?

M.769The Resident Test

Does this make the resident's experience easier?

M.770The No Wrong Door Test

If the resident calls the wrong institution, do they still reach the right one without becoming the messenger?

M.771The Cost-Shifting Test

Are we calling another government's increased cost our saving?

M.772The Scale Test

Is regional scale genuinely useful here?

M.773The Local Control Test

What responsiveness or accountability would be lost by centralizing?

M.774The Grant Test

Are we supporting another organization's public-purpose work?

M.775The Procurement Test

Or are we actually purchasing a defined City service?

M.776The Anti-Bonusing Test

Does assistance to a private commercial enterprise require specific legal review?

M.777The SON Test

Are we treating SON as a government and rights-holder rather than a stakeholder?

M.778The Section 35 Test

What rights and Crown responsibilities may be relevant?

M.779The Relationship Test

Regardless of minimum legal duty, should Owen Sound engage SON early?

M.780The Faith Neutrality Test

Would the same public-purpose rules apply to a secular organization?

M.781The Political Neutrality Test

Would the same partnership be available if the organization criticized the Mayor?

M.782The Volunteer Test

Is this genuinely volunteer work or work that should be paid?

M.783The Data Test

What information actually needs to move between partners?

M.784The Privacy Test

Can the resident receive coordinated service without creating a permanent shared dossier?

M.785The Accessibility Test

Can residents actually use the partnered service?

M.786The Financial Test

What is City's complete contribution, including staff and facilities?

M.787The Funding Cliff Test

What happens when external funding stops?

M.788The Governance Test

Who decides when participants disagree?

M.789The Performance Test

How will we know whether relationship delivered more than meetings?

M.790The Dependency Test

What happens if partner disappears?

M.791The Exit Test

How does this end?

M.792The Succession Test

Does this relationship survive leadership change?

M.793The Reverse Test

Would we consider the terms fair if a political opponent negotiated them?

M.794The Public Trust Test

Can we explain publicly why this partner, this contribution and this arrangement were chosen?

M.795Partnership Card

For each significant arrangement, publish where appropriate:

FieldDescription
Partner
Purpose
Relationship Type
City Role
Partner Role
City Cost
Partner Contribution
Resident Outcome
Start / End
Review
Status

M.796Sensitive Information

Do not publish:

details merely for dashboard completeness.

M.797Transparency

Can still show:

M.798Partnership Scorecard

Headline measures could include:

Material partnerships inventoried

Agreements with review dates

Commitments overdue

Shared-service cost

Duplicate services identified

Duplicate services resolved

Wrong-government handoffs

Repeated resident handoffs

Agreements ending within twelve months

Fiscal cliffs

Data-sharing arrangements reviewed

M.799Do Not Target

100 partnerships.

No.

M.800Do Not Target

50 MOUs.

No.

M.801Target

Could be:

100% of material partnerships have defined owner, purpose, review and exit.

M.802Better.

M.803First 30 Days

Build:

Partnership Baseline.

M.804Inventory

Identify material relationships with:

Grey County

SON

Ontario

Canada

Neighbouring municipalities

Public institutions

Community organizations

Businesses

M.805First 30 Days

Do not start by:

M.806First

Know:

M.807Locate Agreements

M.808Locate Expiry Dates

M.809Locate Owners

M.810Locate Financial Commitments

M.811Locate Shared Data

M.812Locate Unwritten Dependencies

M.813Identify

personality-dependent partnerships.

M.814First 30 Days

Confirm current:

M.815First 30 Days

Make respectful SON introductory contact consistent with the relationship framework.

M.816Listen First

No pre-written demand.

M.817First 30 Days

Create:

M.818First 30 Days

Identify:

M.819Fiscal Cliff List

Important.

M.820First 60 Days

Create formal:

Partnership and Shared-Service Register.

M.821First 60 Days

Create:

Who Does What

links to:

M.822First 60 Days

Review biggest City-County:

M.823Do Not Start With Merger Goal

Start with:

M.824First 60 Days

Identify partner-dependent essential services.

M.825Continuity

Assess.

M.826First 60 Days

Review material data-sharing arrangements.

M.827First 100 Days

Publish public high-level:

Partnership Baseline.

M.828First 100 Days

Baseline should show:

Relationship

Public purpose

City contribution

Review date

Status

M.829First 100 Days

Do not publish:

M.830First 100 Days

Choose limited number of:

problems for improvement.

M.831First 100 Days

Create:

Shared-Service Business Case Template.

M.832First 100 Days

Create:

Grant Versus Contract Test.

M.833First 100 Days

Create:

Partnership Exit Standard.

M.834Year One

Primary objective:

Know the relationships, clarify the roles and fix obvious handoff failures.

M.835Year One

Review:

M.836Year One

Review:

M.837Year One

Review:

M.838Year One

Review:

M.839Year One

Establish institutional:

M.840Year One

Do not demand formal agreement by arbitrary:

M.841Relationship Pace

Mutual.

M.842Year One

Establish Ontario and federal:

M.843Year One

Measure handoffs.

M.844Year One

Identify duplication.

M.845Year One

Stop at least those weak arrangements that no longer have:

where appropriate.

M.846Do Not Set Arbitrary Stop Quota

No.

M.847Year Two

Primary objective:

Strengthen partnerships that work and redesign those that do not.

M.848Year Two

Consider shared services only where:

support them.

M.849Year Two

Do not chase shared service merely to claim:

M.850Year Two

Review shared facilities.

M.851Year Two

Review community capacity.

M.852Year Two

Review grants reaching:

through overlapping organizations.

M.853Consolidation

Not automatic.

M.854Specialization

Possible.

M.855Referral

Possible.

M.856Joint application

Possible.

M.857Year Two

Expand No Wrong Door where early handoff data shows:

M.858Year Two

Address fiscal cliffs early.

M.859Year Two

Test emergency / mutual-aid arrangements.

M.860Year Three

Primary objective:

Make the strongest relationships institutional rather than personality-dependent.

M.861Year Three

Review:

M.862Year Three

Ask:

Would this relationship survive if every current leader left tomorrow?

M.863If No

Fix:

M.864Year Three

Revisit shared-service savings.

M.865Forecast Versus Actual

Compare.

M.866Year Three

Stop arrangements that:

unless other clear public purpose supports them.

M.867Year Three

Strengthen those producing:

M.868Year Four

Primary objective:

Complete, renew, wind down or hand off every significant relationship honestly.

M.869Election-Year Restraint

Avoid signing long-term agreements solely to:

M.870Long-Term Agreement

Can still be appropriate.

M.871But

Explain why decision cannot reasonably wait.

M.872Four-Year Partnership Audit

Publish:

Material partnerships at baseline

New partnerships

Partnerships ended

Shared services

City-County improvements

SON commitments

Ontario asks

Federal asks

Community grants

Partner contributions

Handoff performance

Duplication reduced

Fiscal cliffs avoided

Data-sharing improvements

Partnership failures

M.873Name the Most Valuable Partnership Improvement

M.874Name the Weakest Partnership

M.875Name a Partnership Ended

And explain:

M.876Name a Partnership That Survived Major Disagreement

Where appropriate.

M.877Name a Shared Service That Actually Reduced Total Cost

If any.

M.878Name One That Did Not

If any.

M.879Name a Duplication Removed

M.880Name a Duplication Deliberately Retained

And explain:

M.881Name the Most Improved City-County Handoff

M.882Name the Worst Remaining City-County Handoff

M.883Name an Ontario Ask Resolved

M.884Name an Ontario Ask Still Unresolved

M.885Name a Federal Ask Resolved

M.886Name a Federal Ask Still Unresolved

M.887Name the City's Most Important SON Commitment Completed

Only where appropriate to report.

M.888Name the Most Important SON Relationship Work Still Ahead

With care and mutual respect.

M.889Name a Community Organization Whose Existing Capacity Prevented Need for New City Program

Where appropriate.

M.890Name a Grant Converted to Procurement

If substance required.

M.891Name a Procurement Converted to Grant

If over-control was corrected.

M.892Name a Fiscal Cliff Avoided

M.893Name a Fiscal Cliff Remaining

M.894Name a Data-Sharing Arrangement Reduced

M.895Name a Shared Dossier Proposal Rejected

If applicable.

M.896Name the Most Significant Partner Dependency

M.897Name a Succession Risk Fixed

M.898Name the Most Significant Remaining Partnership Risk

M.899Handoff

Next Council receives:

Partnership Register

Shared-Service Ledger

SON Commitments Record

Ontario Issues Register

Federal Issues Register

Grant Agreements

Shared-Service Agreements

Expiry Calendar

Fiscal Cliff List

Data-Sharing Agreements

Partner Contacts

Disputes

Pending Renewals

M.900No Partnership Surprise

Next Council should not discover:

Nobody knows who owns this shared service.

M.901Or

The grant ends next month and City is expected to fund it permanently.

M.902Or

The partner has access to resident records nobody documented.

M.903Or

The MOU expired two years ago but everyone kept operating.

M.904Or

The relationship existed only because former Mayor had person's cell number.

M.905Or

City claimed savings by moving cost onto County taxpayers.

M.906Or

An Indigenous relationship was treated as stakeholder consultation.

M.907Or

A community nonprofit was effectively performing City contract without procurement review.

M.908Or

City has no plan if essential partner shuts down.

M.909The Partnership, Shared-Service and Intergovernmental Agreement Commitment

Owen Sound should commit to:

Treat partnerships as operating relationships rather than ceremonial announcements.

Define every significant relationship by public purpose, authority, roles, contributions, outcomes, review and exit.

Distinguish government-to-government relationships, shared services, grants, contracts, sponsorships, referrals, facility arrangements, data-sharing arrangements and informal cooperation.

Use substance rather than labels to determine what legal and financial rules apply.

Recognize Ontario's statutory framework for joint municipal undertakings and other lawful intergovernmental agreements.

Use shared service where authority, evidence and public value support it rather than regional cooperation for its own sake.

Maintain a Partnership and Shared-Service Register.

Give every material relationship an institutional owner.

Do not let relationships live only in the Mayor's phone, a staff member's memory or an expired MOU.

Record City and partner contributions separately.

Distinguish cash, staff, facility, equipment, data and in-kind contributions.

Never describe a partnership as free simply because no invoice is issued.

Use Complete Cost to understand municipal contribution.

Measure what residents receive rather than how many meetings officials attend.

Use Partnership Before Program before creating new municipal services.

Ask which capable organization already does the work and whether the actual problem is capacity, awareness, coordination or access.

Maintain a Duplication Register for meaningful overlaps.

Recognize that some redundancy creates resilience and should not automatically be removed.

Do not outsource a statutory municipal responsibility and pretend accountability disappeared.

Do not municipalize healthy independent community activity merely to control it.

Use the City as convener where convening creates an identifiable path to action.

Do not measure partnership success by meeting count, MOU count or press releases.

Treat Grey County as a distinct upper-tier government serving many of the same residents, not as an optional community partner or department of Owen Sound.

Use Two Governments, One Resident, One Taxpayer, No Wrong Door as the operating City-County standard.

Keep City and County responsibilities visible even when delivery is coordinated.

Do not create shadow County services by default.

Route residents to the correct authority through warm handoffs.

When City and County disagree about responsibility, resolve the dispute staff-to-staff rather than making the resident the messenger.

Track recurring jurisdictional handoffs and fix the underlying confusion.

Recognize that No Wrong Door is a service rule, not a permanent commitment for City taxpayers to fund another government's statutory responsibility.

Maintain a One Taxpayer Shared-Service Ledger.

Show total public cost rather than celebrating savings created solely by moving cost between City and County.

Use the Right-Level Test to decide whether a service belongs locally, regionally or through a shared arrangement.

Do not assume bigger government is more efficient.

Do not assume smaller government is more responsive in every case.

Require shared-service business cases to establish baseline cost, service level, governance, staffing, assets, technology, data, cost allocation and exit.

Label forecast savings as forecasts until Finance verifies actual results.

Do not count staff or asset transfer alone as savings.

Design shared-service governance so residents can identify who decides, who pays and who receives complaints.

Avoid creating joint boards or committees when simple administrative coordination would work.

Use recurring City-County dialogue on roads, housing, planning, transit, economic development, emergency resilience and shared facilities where useful.

Do not turn Owen Sound's County representatives into a mandatory voting bloc.

Use a No Surprise standard for material City-County issues.

Document effective dates, condition, liabilities, costs and public-information changes when roads or other assets transfer between governments.

Treat Ontario as a constitutional government and regulator as well as a funding partner.

Maintain an Ontario Issues Register and a precise Ontario Ask Book.

Use local authority fully before asking Ontario for permission the City does not need.

Ask Ontario precisely where provincial authority, amendment, approval or funding actually is required.

Maintain nonpartisan relationships with Ontario regardless of the government of the day.

Review provincial grants for conditions, matching requirements, reporting obligations, clawbacks and permanent operating costs.

Do not create permanent municipal services around temporary provincial funding without a post-grant plan.

Maintain the Unfunded Mandate Ledger.

Treat Canada as a distinct federal government that may act as funder, regulator, owner or program administrator depending on the issue.

Maintain a Federal Issues Register and Federal Ask Book.

Keep federal asks tied to actual federal roles.

Do not ask Canada to exercise a municipal power merely because federal funding may be available.

Do not refuse useful federal cooperation simply because municipal institutions are provincially constituted.

Verify federal program status and eligibility at the time of each application.

Maintain a dedicated multijurisdictional relationship map for harbour, crossing, broadband and other major projects.

Distinguish owner, regulator, funder, operator, maintainer and rights relationship.

Never confuse funding with ownership or regulation.

Treat Saugeen Ojibway Nation as a government and rights-holder rather than a generic stakeholder.

Maintain a SON Relationship and Commitments Record separate from ordinary community-partnership scoring.

Measure Owen Sound's own commitments to SON rather than assigning performance scores to SON.

Use joint measurements only where mutually appropriate.

Do not reduce reconciliation to meetings, ceremonies or signed agreements.

Listen before proposing a formal relationship document.

Do not arrive with a pre-written agreement and call that consultation.

Develop formal arrangements collaboratively where both governments consider them useful.

Engage SON early on harbour, river, water, land, archaeology, shoreline, infrastructure and other issues where rights or shared interests may be relevant.

Distinguish Owen Sound's relationship standard from the formal constitutional duties of the Crown.

Do not falsely claim the City alone carries all Crown consultation obligations.

Do not use minimum legal duty as the maximum relationship standard.

Protect Indigenous knowledge, confidentiality and data according to appropriate consent and governance.

Do not treat Indigenous knowledge shared with the City as automatically municipal open data.

Compensate Elders and knowledge holders appropriately where the City requests substantive expertise or repeated work.

Keep government-to-government SON relations distinct from procurement involving Indigenous-owned businesses.

Respect the independent statutory and governance roles of hospitals, school boards, police, public health, libraries and other public institutions.

Do not assume an MOU permits Owen Sound to direct another institution's professional or statutory functions.

Define roles carefully in Right Responder and other multi-agency safety initiatives.

Strengthen capable nonprofits and community organizations without converting them into political arms of City Hall.

Allow partners to disagree publicly with the City without retaliation.

Use neutral, public-purpose grant criteria.

Recognize municipal grant authority while respecting statutory restrictions on assistance to commercial and industrial enterprises.

Use the Grant Versus Contract Test whenever the relationship is unclear.

Ask whether the City is supporting another organization's public-purpose work or purchasing a defined municipal deliverable.

Do not disguise procurement as a grant.

Do not impose procurement-level bureaucracy on small genuine grants without reason.

Keep grant reporting proportionate to public money and risk.

Do not create legacy grant entitlement merely because an organization has always received funding.

Use neutral lawful standards when partnering with faith organizations.

Do not favour religious organizations because they are religious.

Do not exclude religious organizations because they are religious.

Define the public service being supported rather than judging theology.

Use the same public-purpose, accountability and access standards for comparable secular and faith organizations.

Use service clubs, charities and volunteers to increase civic capacity where appropriate.

Do not systematically replace paid municipal work with volunteers simply to reduce budgets.

Maintain Paid Work Paid where work is genuinely employment or productive municipal labour.

Apply youth safeguarding to volunteer and Civic Corps relationships.

Respect professional licensing and safety requirements in community Build Crew initiatives.

Keep any Goodwill Compact voluntary and nonpartisan.

Never make public-service access contingent on signing a civic loyalty pledge.

Maintain neutral directories and calendars for community organizations and events.

Do not turn basic public directories into paid ranking systems.

Use shared facilities before constructing new space where existing capacity can satisfy the public need.

Define responsibility for access, utilities, snow, maintenance, cleaning, scheduling and insurance in shared-facility agreements.

Treat referrals as real service pathways rather than handing residents another phone number.

Keep referral contacts current.

Do not guarantee another organization's eligibility or service outcome unless the City actually has authority to do so.

Do not make data sharing an automatic condition of partnership.

Share the minimum necessary personal information for lawful purposes.

Recognize that No Wrong Door does not mean No Privacy Boundary.

Use warm handoffs without transferring entire resident records when a simpler introduction will work.

Apply strict privacy safeguards to multi-agency case coordination.

Do not build permanent cross-agency resident dossiers merely for convenience.

Protect youth, health, housing, senior and faith-related information.

Maintain an absolute campaign firewall around all partner, client and resident information.

Never turn community organization mailing lists or intergovernmental contacts into campaign assets.

Create mutual-aid and emergency agreements before emergencies where practical.

Define call-out authority, command, equipment, insurance, cost recovery and communications.

Test emergency arrangements rather than assuming written agreements work.

Maintain current emergency contacts.

Use informal cooperation where the risk is genuinely low.

Move to written agreements when money, assets, service obligations, data or liability become material.

Do not rely on handshake agreements for significant public commitments.

Use MOUs, letters of intent and term sheets according to their actual substance rather than their names.

Match agreement length and complexity to the underlying relationship.

Do not use forty pages where one page will do.

Do not use one page for a multimillion-dollar shared service that requires detailed governance.

Define who employs, supervises, pays and evaluates staff in shared-service arrangements.

Respect collective agreements, pensions, seniority and employment law during staff transfers or secondments.

Preserve employee knowledge during restructuring.

Define ownership, maintenance, replacement, reserves and disposal for shared assets.

Avoid accidental joint-ownership complexity.

Define data, intellectual property and software ownership in shared technology.

Do not allow shared-service technology to multiply vendor lock-in without an exit plan.

Use understandable cost-sharing formulas tied to actual public-service drivers.

Do not use a formula so complicated that neither Council nor residents can understand who pays.

Reconcile estimates against actual costs where appropriate.

Define how overruns, underruns, grants, user fees and reserves are allocated.

Do not allow shared services to disappear between municipal budgets.

Report total public cost where practical.

Agree on common service measures before shared-service launch.

Do not compare participants using different definitions and call that performance management.

Measure resident outcomes as well as service levels.

Use partnership traffic-light indicators only for the City's arrangement, not as grades assigned to another government.

Never give Saugeen Ojibway Nation a municipal Green, Amber or Red score.

Track formal commitments by party, due date and evidence.

Do not publicly transform informal partner conversations into binding commitments.

Preserve action lists and institutional contact history.

Give every material partnership a review date even when the agreement itself is evergreen.

Do not continue weak relationships merely because they are traditional.

Do not terminate valuable relationships merely because a new administration wants different branding.

Review purpose, capability, cost, outcomes, risks and alternatives before renewal.

Give every material relationship a workable exit path.

Treat exit clauses as responsible governance rather than evidence of distrust.

Plan financial reconciliation, asset return, data return, staff transition and resident continuity when relationships end.

Identify fiscal cliffs before grants or external contributions expire.

Do not let external funding expire before Council understands the future operating obligation.

Identify dependence on a single partner and prepare continuity where service is critical.

Establish dispute-resolution routes before disputes occur.

Begin disagreements at the operational level and escalate proportionately.

Do not begin ordinary institutional disputes through press conferences or social media.

Allow public disagreement where necessary while maintaining professional institutional relationships.

Use a No Surprise standard where appropriate.

Steelman another government's position before publicly attacking it.

Keep disagreement issue-specific rather than turning it into personal hostility.

Recognize that durable intergovernmental relationships must survive disagreement and leadership change.

When a partner fails materially, verify, notify, seek correction, protect residents and enforce or exit according to the agreement.

Apply the same accountability when the City is the party that failed.

Do not shift blame to partners for municipal failures.

Use a risk register for high-value, high-dependency or high-liability partnerships.

Keep insurance, indemnity, access control, cybersecurity and data protection proportional to actual risk.

Include accessibility in partner-delivered public services.

Do not use outsourcing as a way to avoid accessibility responsibilities.

Tell residents clearly who delivers a partnered service, who funds it and where complaints belong.

Use joint communications carefully so announcements distinguish proposals, approvals, funding, contracts, operations and completion.

Do not count political photo opportunities as implementation.

Do not claim economic impact from partnership activity without defensible methodology.

Do not call partner contributions verified municipal savings unless Finance confirms the actual financial effect.

Create role matrices for major intergovernmental infrastructure so ownership, regulation, funding, operation and rights relationships are not confused.

Use defined pilot terms, measures and exit conditions for experimental partnerships.

Do not give pilot partners automatic permanent contracts.

Do not blame a partner simply because a jointly tested hypothesis failed.

Test scalability before turning founder energy, volunteer energy or temporary grant funding into permanent service.

Ask whether a partnership would still work if the individuals who created it left tomorrow.

Reduce personality dependency through governance, records and succession.

Maintain strong election-year firewalls around partnership communications, data and public resources.

Do not reward political endorsements through municipal partnerships.

Do not punish criticism through municipal funding decisions.

Do not sign symbolic last-minute agreements merely to inflate an incumbent's partnership record.

Never count meetings, MOUs, funding applications, funding awards or ceremonies as resident outcomes unless that was genuinely the defined deliverable.

Never classify cost shifting as efficiency.

Never classify another government's contribution as exclusively Owen Sound's achievement.

Give credit to Grey County, Ontario, Canada, SON, community organizations, businesses and residents for the work they actually perform.

Use the same discipline when assigning responsibility for failure.

Apply the Existing Capacity, Duplication, Partnership Before Program, Authority, Role, One Taxpayer, Resident, No Wrong Door, Cost-Shifting, Scale, Local Control, Grant, Procurement, Anti-Bonusing, SON, Section 35, Faith Neutrality, Political Neutrality, Volunteer, Data, Privacy, Accessibility, Funding Cliff, Governance, Performance, Dependency, Exit, Succession, Reverse and Public Trust tests to significant partnerships.

Use the first 30 days to establish a partnership baseline rather than announcing a new partnership strategy before understanding existing relationships.

Use the first 30 days to inventory major City-County, SON, provincial, federal, community and institutional relationships.

Use the first 30 days to identify expiring grants and fiscal cliffs.

Use the first 60 days to create the Partnership and Shared-Service Register and improve Who Does What handoffs.

Use the first 100 days to publish a high-level Partnership Baseline and establish Shared-Service, Grant Versus Contract and Exit templates.

Use Year One to clarify roles and repair obvious handoff failures.

Use Year Two to strengthen high-value relationships and redesign weak arrangements.

Use Year Three to remove personality dependency and test whether projected shared-service savings actually occurred.

Use Year Four to complete, renew, wind down or hand off significant relationships openly.

Publish a Four-Year Partnership Audit that names successes, unresolved problems, responsible terminations, failed arrangements, fiscal cliffs and major remaining dependencies.

Give the next Council the Partnership Register, Shared-Service Ledger, SON Commitments Record, Ontario Issues Register, Federal Issues Register, expiry calendar, data-sharing agreements, fiscal cliffs and unresolved disputes.

Never make the next Council reconstruct the City's relationships from personal contacts and old emails.

Apply the final partnership standard to every significant arrangement: What public problem are we solving, who already does this work, who has authority, who is responsible, what does each party contribute, what will residents experience, how will we measure it, what happens when we disagree, and how does the relationship end?

The partnership framework can therefore be reduced to ten rules:

Partner before duplicating.

Know who has authority.

Name who is responsible.

Show what each party contributes.

Measure resident outcomes, not meetings.

Protect one taxpayer from cost shifting.

Respect distinct governments.

Share only the information the service actually requires.

Plan for disagreement and succession.

Know the exit before entering.

The City should seek fewer relationships that exist only on paper and more relationships that work:

The test of partnership is not whether leaders:

The test is whether the relationship helps institutions do their proper jobs better.

Work together where working together adds value. Keep authority clear. Honour commitments. Remove unnecessary duplication. Protect the taxpayer from cost shifting. Respect distinct governments. Strengthen capable community partners. End weak arrangements professionally. Make every partnership belong to the institution, not the politician.

← Appendix L: Procurement, Local Opportunity and Canadian Capacity StandardsAppendix N: Campaign, Private Interest and Municipal Conflict Firewall →