Owen Sound: A Four-Year City Business Plan

Home › The Public Scorecard › Chapter 57

The Public Scorecard

Chapter 57Partnership: The Public Partnership Scorecard

9,835 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 successful because:

A partnership succeeds when:

The central principle is:

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

The second principle is:

Every layer adds value or earns a review.

The third is:

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

This Scorecard should cover several very different kinds of relationships.

They must not all be treated as if they are the same.

Owen Sound may work with:

Saugeen Ojibway Nation is not merely:

another community partner.

It is a distinct Indigenous governmental relationship involving rights, history, lands, waters and Crown responsibilities.

Grey County is not:

an outside nonprofit.

It is the upper-tier municipal government serving many of the same residents.

Ontario is not:

a grant provider.

It is the province from which Owen Sound receives its municipal authority.

Canada is not:

the City's senior government in every matter.

Federal responsibility applies where the Constitution and federal law place it.

Community organizations are different again.

Some may receive:

The Partnership Scorecard must preserve those distinctions while asking one practical question:

Is the relationship producing a better public result than Owen Sound could reasonably produce alone?

57.1Purpose

The Partnership Scorecard should answer:

Who are the City's significant partners?

Why does each relationship exist?

What does Owen Sound commit?

What does the partner commit?

What does it cost?

What public result is expected?

Was that result delivered?

Are responsibilities clear?

Is work being duplicated?

Are residents being transferred unnecessarily?

Are data-sharing arrangements appropriate?

Are disputes being resolved?

Are agreements reviewed on time?

Are weak partnerships being changed or ended?

Are strong partnerships becoming institutional rather than personality-dependent?

Are Ontario and Canada answering specific municipal requests?

Is the relationship with Saugeen Ojibway Nation becoming more durable and respectful?

Is Owen Sound working effectively with Grey County as two governments serving many of the same residents?

Those are the real measures.

57.2Partnership Types

Every major relationship should be classified.

Possible categories:

Government-to-Government

Shared Municipal Service

Public Institution

Community Partnership

Grant Relationship

Procurement / Contract

Referral Partnership

Facility Partnership

Data-Sharing Relationship

Emergency / Resilience Partnership

Project-Specific Partnership

Informal Coordination

57.3Do Not Mix Categories

A:

cannot be scored using the same governance test.

57.4Partnership Register

Maintain a Partnership Register for significant ongoing relationships.

57.5Partnership Register Fields

For each material relationship:

Partner

Relationship type

Purpose

City owner

Partner contact or institution

Authority or agreement

Start date

Review date

End date where applicable

City contribution

Partner contribution

Deliverables

Resident outcome

Data shared

Risks

Dispute mechanism

Exit process

Current status

57.6Not Every Relationship Needs a Formal Contract

A routine professional relationship can remain:

Use formal documentation where:

justify it.

57.7Do Not Formalize for Ceremony

A memorandum that creates no:

can become symbolic paper.

Use agreements when they clarify something real.

57.8Partnership Scorecard Headline Measures

A first-page dashboard could include:

  1. Significant active partnerships.
  2. Agreements due for review.
  3. Commitments due.
  4. Commitments completed.
  5. Overdue commitments.
  6. Shared services.
  7. Verified shared-service savings.
  8. Shared-service quality.
  9. Resident handoff performance.
  10. Duplication issues identified.
  11. Duplication issues resolved.
  12. Joint funding agreements.
  13. City contribution.
  14. Partner contribution.
  15. Unfunded commitments.
  16. Data-sharing relationships reviewed.
  17. Major disputes outstanding.
  18. Disputes resolved.
  19. SON relationship commitments.
  20. Grey County shared-service issues.
  21. Ontario requests.
  22. Ontario responses.
  23. Federal requests.
  24. Federal responses.
  25. Community partnerships.
  26. Partnerships expanded.
  27. Partnerships modified.
  28. Partnerships ended.
  29. Major partnership risks.

57.9No Single Partnership Grade

Avoid:

Partnership Score: A+

One excellent community project does not erase:

Show individual relationships.

57.10Outcome Before Activity

A meeting count is:

The result of the meeting may be:

57.11Meeting Count

Can be recorded internally.

Do not use:

number of meetings

as the main performance measure.

57.12Agreement Count

Same.

More agreements do not automatically mean:

57.13Partnership Deliverable

Every significant formal partnership should identify at least one:

57.14Example

Weak:

Strengthen collaboration.

Better:

Create one shared referral pathway by June.

57.15Commitment Register

Maintain a commitment register within major partnerships.

57.16Commitment Fields

Commitment

Responsible party

Due date

Status

Evidence

Reason for delay

Revised date if approved

57.17Commitment Status

Possible:

Not Started

In Progress

Complete

Delayed

Blocked

Cancelled

57.18Completed Means Completed

A meeting about a commitment is not:

57.19Delayed Is Not Failure Automatically

External:

may cause legitimate delay.

Explain.

57.20Silent Delay Is Poor Governance

If a deadline changes:

Record:

57.21Commitment Fulfilment

Possible measure:

Partnership Commitment Completion % = Commitments Completed by Agreed Date ÷ Commitments Due

Use cautiously because commitments differ in importance.

57.22Critical Commitment

A major commitment may matter more than:

Highlight material items separately.

57.23Partner Responsibility

Do not mark Owen Sound as failing when:

misses its commitment.

Show responsible party.

57.24City Responsibility

Likewise:

Do not blame partner for:

57.25Shared Responsibility

Some tasks genuinely require:

Label accordingly.

57.26No Wrong Door

Partnership performance should include resident handoffs.

57.27Resident Journey

If a resident contacts the City about something actually controlled by:

the answer should not simply be:

Not us.

57.28Proper Handoff

A good handoff means:

57.29Warm Handoff

For complex or vulnerable situations where lawful and appropriate:

Staff may help connect rather than merely provide:

57.30Warm Handoff Does Not Mean Data Dump

Share only what is needed and authorized.

57.31Handoff Measure

Possible:

Successful Handoff Rate = Eligible Inter-Organization Referrals Reaching the Correct Destination Without Returning Because of Routing Error ÷ Eligible Referrals

Use only if measurable.

57.32Repeat Bounce

Track cases where residents are repeatedly sent:

That indicates system failure.

57.33Handoff Count

For selected high-volume services:

Track:

57.34One Handoff May Be Necessary

Zero transfers is not realistic.

The goal is:

57.35Wrong Handoff

Should trigger:

57.36No Wrong Government

Staff should know common jurisdiction pathways.

57.37Who Does What

Maintain a plain-language:

Who Does What

guide.

57.38Current

Keep it updated.

Jurisdiction and programs can change.

57.39Staff Version

May contain:

57.40Public Version

Simple.

57.41Partnership Before Program

Before the City creates a new service:

Ask:

Who already does this?

57.42Existing Capacity

Inventory:

capacity.

57.43Gap

If existing partners cannot meet the need:

Define the gap.

57.44City Program

Create only where:

support it.

57.45Duplication Register

Maintain a register of significant suspected duplication.

57.46Duplication Fields

Service

Organizations involved

Resident impact

Cost

Overlap

Review

Decision

57.47Duplicate Does Not Mean Identical

Two programs may appear similar but serve:

Investigate.

57.48True Duplication

Exists where multiple public or publicly funded actors perform substantially the same function without:

57.49Duplication Outcome

Possible:

Retain Both

Coordinate

Merge

Transfer

Stop City Role

Stop Partner Role by Agreement

57.50No Forced Consolidation

Bigger is not always:

57.51Local Capability Matters

A local service may justify higher direct cost if it produces:

Show tradeoff.

57.52Shared Service

Shared service should be evaluated on:

57.53Shared Service Is Not Automatically Saving

Combining service can create:

cost.

57.54Shared-Service Business Case

Before major consolidation:

Show:

Current cost

Proposed cost

Service standard

Governance

Staffing impact

Transition cost

Data ownership

Assets

Exit rights

57.55Shared-Service Savings

Verify after implementation.

57.56Forecast Savings

Keep separate.

57.57One-Time Cost

Show.

57.58Ongoing Cost

Show.

57.59Cost Allocation

Define how municipalities or partners split costs.

57.60Population Share

May be appropriate sometimes.

57.61Usage Share

May be better in other cases.

57.62Tax Base

May matter elsewhere.

No universal formula.

57.63Cost Shift

Do not call something a City saving if the same residents simply pay more through:

57.64One Taxpayer

A crucial principle.

57.65One Taxpayer Test

Ask:

Did total public cost improve, or did we only move the charge to another tax bill?

57.66Shared Service Ledger

Maintain a ledger for significant City-County shared or transferred services.

57.67Ledger Fields

Service

City cost

County cost affecting City residents

Shared funding

Transfer payments

Major change

Resident impact

57.68No Double Saving

If City cost falls by $1 million and County cost rises by $1 million:

That is not automatically:

57.69Verified Net Effect

Measure total where data allows.

57.70Grey County Relationship

The City-County relationship should be treated as:

Two governments serving many of the same residents.

57.71County Is Not Competitor

Owen Sound should advocate firmly for residents.

But the County is not:

57.72City Interests

City representatives should still defend:

57.73County Interests

County Council must consider:

57.74Dual Responsibility

Where Owen Sound representatives also serve at County:

Be clear when speaking in:

capacity.

57.75No Mandatory Bloc

Owen Sound representatives should cooperate.

They should not be bound to vote as:

where their County duties require independent judgment.

57.76City-County Issues Register

Maintain significant outstanding issues.

57.77Issue Categories

Possible:

57.78Issue Owner

Each issue needs:

57.79Resolution Status

Open

Under Review

Agreement

Implementation

Resolved

Escalated

57.80County Road Transfers

Where responsibilities shift:

Track:

57.81No Free Asset Assumption

A transferred road can carry:

57.82No Free Money Assumption

Transition funding can still be insufficient over full asset life.

57.83Service Handoff

Residents should know:

after transfer.

57.84Planning

Where City and County planning roles interact:

Provide one understandable public process.

57.85No Planning Ping-Pong

A development applicant should not repeatedly hear:

ask the other government.

57.86Housing and Homelessness

Where County responsibilities are substantial:

Coordinate rather than duplicate.

57.87City Role

Use:

within authority.

57.88County Role

Respect its responsibilities.

57.89Outcome

Resident should experience:

even when governments remain distinct.

57.90Regional Transit

Any shared transit arrangement should have:

measures.

57.91Transit Partnership Announcement

Not enough.

Measure operation.

57.92Economic Development

City and County business services should avoid:

57.93Start-Up Desk

Can coordinate referral.

57.94Regional Promotion

Marketing can be shared where:

make sense.

57.95No Double Marketing Spend

Review overlapping campaigns.

57.96Grey County Annual Review

At least annually:

Publish major:

City-County issues.

57.97Saugeen Ojibway Nation

The relationship with Saugeen Ojibway Nation should stand in its own category.

57.98SON Is Government-to-Government

Do not place it under:

Community Organizations

on the Scorecard.

57.99Relationship First

The goal is not merely:

It is to build an institutional relationship capable of:

57.100Listen First

The City's source initiative specifically calls for opening a formal relationship with Saugeen Ojibway Nation and emphasizes listening first.

57.101Formal Agreement

A formal agreement may be useful.

Do not define success solely as:

57.102Prewritten Relationship

Do not arrive with:

Here is the agreement, please sign it.

Develop mutually.

57.103Relationship Commitments

Potential categories:

Only include commitments accepted by both sides.

57.104No Surprise Standard

A useful relationship principle:

Do not let the other government learn about a major shared-interest issue from the media.

57.105Notice Is Not Consultation

Important distinction.

57.106Crown Duty

Formal Crown consultation responsibilities must remain legally accurate.

The City should not falsely claim:

57.107Municipal Respect

Even where the formal legal duty rests elsewhere:

The City can still:

57.108Rights

Do not treat Aboriginal or treaty rights as:

57.109Disagreement

A mature relationship survives:

57.110SON Partnership Score

Do not assign:

Green relationship

based simply on:

57.111Better Measures

Ask whether:

57.112Relationship Confidentiality

Some discussions may appropriately remain:

while underway.

Do not use confidentiality to hide public financial commitments indefinitely.

57.113Indigenous Knowledge

Information shared by knowledge holders follows:

57.114No Automatic Open Data

Cross-reference Section 55.

57.115Elders and Knowledge Holders

Where specialized contribution is requested:

Compensate appropriately.

57.116Cultural Advice Is Work

Do not assume it should always be:

57.117Harbour

Any harbour discussions should involve SON early where interests or rights may be affected.

57.118River

Likewise.

57.119Archaeology

Likewise where relevant.

57.120Economic Opportunity

Procurement or project opportunities must still follow:

57.121No Token Procurement

Do not advertise reconciliation while designing opportunities no Indigenous supplier could realistically access.

57.122No Favouritism Outside Law

Use lawful and transparent frameworks.

57.123SON Relationship Handoff

The relationship must survive:

57.124Institutional Contacts

Maintain relationships across:

57.125No Personal Ownership

The Mayor does not:

the relationship.

57.126Relationship Record

Maintain institutional:

appropriately.

57.127Ontario Relationship

Ontario should be treated as:

57.128Not Party Relationship

The City's relationship is with:

Ontario

not:

the provincial party currently in power.

57.129Political Neutrality

Work professionally with:

as appropriate.

57.130No Party Test

A proposal is not good because:

It is not bad because:

57.131Ontario Issues Register

Maintain all major asks requiring provincial:

57.132Ontario Ask

Every significant request should be precise.

57.133Weak Ask

Give municipalities more power.

57.134Better Ask

Specify:

57.135Ask Book

Maintain an Ontario Ask Book.

57.136Ask Fields

Issue

Current authority

Requested change

Public purpose

Cost

City commitment

Provincial commitment

Status

Last contact

Next step

57.137Status

Possible:

Preparing

Submitted

Acknowledged

Under Review

Approved

Partially Approved

Declined

No Response

57.138Meeting Is Not Approval

Track separately.

57.139Letter Sent Is Not Result

Again.

57.140Provincial Funding

A grant should be reported as:

Not proof of:

57.141Funding Conditions

Show:

57.142No Free Grant

All grants may carry:

57.143Local Authority

Use existing municipal authority fully before asking Ontario for permission that is:

57.144Permission Theatre

Avoid.

57.145Provincial Barrier

Where current law genuinely prevents action:

Document it.

57.146Unfunded Mandate

Track provincial requirements producing significant municipal cost without matching funding.

57.147Unfunded Mandate Ledger

Cross-reference Finance.

57.148Ask Principle

Match authority with responsibility. Match funding with responsibility.

57.149Pilot Request

Where province is reluctant to change broadly:

Ask for:

where lawful.

57.150Pilot Accountability

Offer:

57.151No Provincial Bypass Fiction

Owen Sound cannot simply declare Ontario irrelevant.

57.152Federal Relationship

Canada should be approached where:

are genuinely involved.

57.153Federal Issues Register

Maintain.

57.154Federal Ask Book

Same discipline.

57.155No Ottawa-for-Everything

Do not ask Canada to solve matters primarily within:

authority simply because federal programs have money.

57.156Federal Precision

The principle is:

Local capability. Provincial respect. Federal precision. Canadian resilience.

57.157Federal Ask Fields

Issue

Federal jurisdiction

Requested action

City role

Provincial role

Public benefit

Cost

Status

57.158Federal Funding

Track:

57.159Grant Application

Not achievement.

57.160Grant Approval

Not project completion.

57.161Project Completion

Separate.

57.162Federal Property

Where federal ownership affects local planning:

Maintain direct institutional contact.

57.163Harbour

A particularly important example.

57.164Harbour Ask

Could involve:

Use precise requests.

57.165No Premature Transfer Celebration

A transfer is not necessarily a win.

Complete:

due diligence first.

57.166Federal Infrastructure

For federally regulated works:

Identify the correct process early.

57.167Crossing

If a future east-west crossing engages federal authority:

Coordinate early.

57.168No Grant-Driven Crossing

Do not build because:

Need comes first.

57.169Broadband

Federal broadband support may be relevant.

Eligibility must be verified.

57.170No Funding Assumption

Do not build a business case around a grant not secured.

57.171Canadian Digital Independence

Federal partnerships may support:

But municipal systems still need their own:

tests.

57.172Federal Relationship Does Not Require Partisanship

Professional communication regardless of government.

57.173Change of Government

Ask Book should survive.

57.174Minister Changes

Institutional file remains.

57.175Public Service Relationship

Maintain contact with:

not only politicians.

57.176Neighbouring Municipalities

Owen Sound should work with neighbouring municipalities where:

crosses boundaries.

57.177Local Independence

Cooperation does not mean:

57.178Amalgamation

Any major structural proposal requires:

process.

57.179Shared Equipment

May create value.

57.180Shared Specialists

May create value.

57.181Shared Procurement

May create value.

57.182Shared Facility

May create value.

57.183But Measure

Always:

57.184Mutual Aid

Emergency mutual-aid relationships are important.

57.185Mutual Aid Is Not Ordinary Staffing Substitute

It supports:

Do not plan chronically inadequate core capacity around neighbours always rescuing the City.

57.186Emergency Agreements

Review:

57.187Exercise

Test.

57.188Exercise Count

Activity.

57.189Exercise Lesson

Outcome.

57.190Hospitals and Health Institutions

The City may collaborate on:

57.191Health Care Delivery

Remain clear about:

authority.

57.192No Municipal Hospital Administration

Do not promise to run:

outside authority.

57.193City Support

Can include:

57.194Health Partnership Measure

Focus on:

57.195Schools

Schools and school boards are important partners for:

57.196Education Authority

Remain separate.

57.197Shared Use

School facilities may support community recreation.

57.198Shared-Use Agreement

Track:

57.199School Property Is Not City Property

Respect.

57.200Youth Opportunities

Schools may distribute:

information.

57.201No School-Only Route

Youth outside traditional schools remain included.

57.202Library

Libraries can be strong partners in:

57.203Library Independence

Respect its governance structure.

57.204Equipment Library

May be better housed there than:

Measure capability.

57.205No Forced Expansion

Partnership requires:

57.206Community Organizations

Community groups can deliver tremendous value.

57.207But Community Is Not Free Labour

Do not expect nonprofits to fill every public-service gap without:

57.208Partnership Before Program

Use community capacity where:

fit.

57.209Public Purpose

Any City-supported partnership should identify:

57.210Equal Opportunity

City support should use:

criteria.

57.211Political Support Irrelevant

A group supporting the Mayor receives no preference.

57.212Political Criticism Irrelevant

A critical group receives no penalty.

57.213Faith Communities

Faith organizations may contribute:

57.214Equal Standard

Treat faith organizations under the same lawful public-purpose framework as:

57.215No Religious Test for Public Service

Residents receiving publicly supported service should not be required to:

57.216Faith-Informed Motivation

A partner may have:

Municipal public funding still follows:

57.217No Secular Exclusion

Do not exclude a capable organization merely because:

57.218No Faith Preference

Do not favour an organization merely because:

57.219Service Clubs

Service clubs may contribute:

57.220Contribution

Track real contribution.

57.221Volunteer Hours

Useful context.

Do not automatically monetize at:

57.222Cash Contribution

Show separately.

57.223In-Kind Contribution

Show separately.

57.224Donated Materials

Use reasonable valuation only when needed.

57.225No Inflated Leverage

Do not claim:

$10 of community value for every $1 City spent

based on invented volunteer-hour valuations.

57.226Partnership Contribution Table

Separate:

Cash

In-Kind

Volunteer

Asset Access

Professional Expertise

57.227Nonprofit Capacity

Before assigning major service responsibility:

Assess:

57.228One Volunteer Dependency

A service cannot depend entirely on:

without risk.

57.229Succession

Important.

57.230Small Organization

Do not impose a giant municipal reporting burden for:

Use proportionality.

57.231Large Grant

More reporting may be justified.

57.232Grant Versus Contract

Important distinction.

57.233Grant

Supports:

with some partner independence.

57.234Contract

Purchases:

57.235Do Not Use Grant to Avoid Procurement

If City is buying a specific service:

Use proper mechanism.

57.236Do Not Use Procurement to Control a Community Grant Excessively

Choose correct tool.

57.237Partnership Agreement

May sit between depending on:

structure.

Use where material.

57.239Insurance

Clarify.

57.240Liability

Clarify.

57.241Staff Supervision

Clarify.

57.242Property

Clarify.

57.243Equipment

Clarify.

57.244Data

Clarify.

57.245Branding

Clarify.

57.246Public Communication

Partners should not imply:

beyond the actual agreement.

57.247City Should Not Imply Partner Endorsement

Same.

57.248Political Endorsement

Separate from institutional partnership.

57.249Business Partnerships

Private businesses may partner through:

57.250No Favourites

A partnership with one company should not create:

without public justification and proper process.

57.251Sponsorship

Publish material:

57.252Naming Rights

Same.

57.253No Hidden Exclusivity

If partner receives exclusive commercial rights:

Disclose and justify.

57.254Technology Partner

Requires:

57.255Pilot

A free technology pilot can still create:

Review before accepting.

57.256"Free" Vendor Offer

Ask:

What does the vendor receive?

57.257Data as Payment

If vendor gains resident data:

It is not:

57.258Advertising Rights

Same.

57.259Platform Dependence

Same.

57.260map.ca

Any municipal relationship with map.ca must follow the strict conflict and public-governance firewall established earlier.

57.261Founder Relationship

No special access.

57.262Independent Review

Required before material adoption.

57.263No Mayor Negotiating With Own Interest

Conflicts must be managed through proper process.

57.264RealMap

Same.

57.265Public Purpose First

Platform only if:

justify it.

57.266Community Calendar

Can be a partnership tool.

57.267Neutral Listing

Keep access:

57.268Partner Calendar Feed

Could reduce duplicate data entry.

Use open standards where practical.

57.269No Platform Compulsion

Partners should not need one proprietary account to participate in basic public listings.

57.270Shared Data

Partnership often creates data-sharing pressure.

57.271Minimum Necessary

Cross-reference Section 55.

57.272Data-Sharing Agreement

For significant personal-information sharing:

Define:

57.273Data Owner

Clarify.

57.274Data Steward

Clarify.

57.275Joint Database

Use cautiously.

57.276Joint Database Risk

It can blur:

57.277Separate Systems

May sometimes be safer.

57.278Referral Without Data Sharing

Often sufficient.

Use appropriately.

Do not make residents consent to unnecessary sharing to receive unrelated service.

57.280Shared Metrics

Partners may need to share:

57.281Aggregate First

Prefer where enough.

57.282Individual Tracking

Use only when service requires it.

57.283No Partnership Resident Dossier

Never create one giant profile merely because many partners want better coordination.

57.284Emergency Partnership

Emergency situations may require faster sharing.

Still use:

rules.

57.285Emergency Exception Is Not Permanent Expansion

Do not keep extraordinary access forever after the emergency ends.

57.286Joint Communications

Partnerships often communicate jointly.

57.287One Message

Useful during:

57.288Source Authority

Clarify who is authoritative for each part.

57.289Contradictory Messages

Track major cases.

57.290Correction

Joint partners should coordinate corrections.

57.291No Blame Messaging

Do not publicly accuse partners before facts are established.

57.292Disagreement Can Be Public

But keep it:

57.293Respectful Intergovernmental Disagreement

A strong City may say:

We disagree with Ontario on this issue.

without saying:

Ontario is our enemy.

57.294Same With County

57.295Same With Canada

57.296Same With SON

Respect is especially essential.

57.297Dispute Register

Track major unresolved partnership disputes.

57.298Dispute Fields

Issue

Parties

Public impact

Status

Last action

Next step

57.299Confidential Negotiation

Public version may need:

But existence of major unresolved issue should not vanish without lawful reason.

57.300Escalation Ladder

Possible:

  1. Operational staff.
  2. Senior administration.
  3. Governance or elected leadership.
  4. Mediation or formal dispute process where applicable.
  5. Legal process if necessary.

57.301Not Every Dispute Goes to Mayor First

Operational issues should remain operational.

57.302Mayor Role

Mayor can help with:

57.303Mayor Is Not Procurement Officer

57.304Mayor Is Not Contract Administrator

57.305Mayor Is Not Personal Gatekeeper

Partners should have:

57.306Relationship Continuity

A partner should not need to rebuild the relationship every election.

57.307Institutional Memory

Keep:

57.308Contact Succession

Update when staff or elected officials change.

57.309Departure

No relationship should collapse because one employee retires.

57.310Political Change

Likewise.

57.311Partner Change

Likewise.

57.312Partnership Risk Register

Major relationships should identify risks.

57.313Risk Types

Possible:

57.314Dependency Risk

A partner can become:

That creates resilience concerns.

57.315Single Partner

If one organization is the only provider:

Plan:

57.316Backup

Not always possible.

But understand consequence.

57.317Funding Expiry

Common risk.

57.318Grant-Funded Partnership

Before launch:

Ask what happens when grant ends.

57.319No Fiscal Cliff

Avoid.

57.320Renewal

Partners should know:

renewal decisions occur.

57.321Automatic Renewal

Use carefully.

57.322Performance Review Before Renewal

For material arrangements.

57.323Renewal Is Not Entitlement

A long-standing partner does not automatically own:

57.324History Matters

Past performance still matters.

57.325New Partner

Should be able to compete or apply where the program is open.

57.326No Closed Club

Essential.

57.327Partnership Satisfaction

Periodic partner feedback may be useful.

57.328Partner Questions

Are City responsibilities clear?

Are decisions timely?

Are staff contacts consistent?

Is reporting proportionate?

Are commitments honoured?

What is the largest barrier?

57.329Partner Satisfaction Is Not Public Outcome

A partner may be happy because:

Residents may receive little value.

Use alongside outcome metrics.

57.330City Satisfaction With Partner

Same.

57.331Resident Outcome First

Partnership exists for:

57.332Partnership Cost

Every material arrangement should show:

57.333Free Facility Use

Can be a public contribution.

57.334Discounted Rent

Can be a public contribution.

57.335City Staff Time

Do not over-account every hour.

But major support should be visible.

57.336Partner Contribution

Show:

57.337Do Not Mix

Keep categories separate.

57.338Co-Funding

Useful.

57.339"Leveraged Dollars"

Use cautiously.

57.340Example

If City contributes $100,000 and another government contributes $500,000:

Report:

Do not automatically say:

City created $500,000 of value.

57.341Grant Dependency

A partner contribution may be:

57.342Recurring Cost

Could fall to City later.

57.343Capital Gift

May create:

57.344Donated Asset

Not free if City must:

57.345Complete Cost

Always.

57.346Partnership Savings

If arrangement reduces cost:

Verify.

57.347Avoided Cost

Separate.

57.348Cost Shift

Separate.

57.349Grant Revenue

Separate.

57.350In-Kind

Separate.

57.351No Double Counting

Critical.

57.352Efficiency Dividend

Any verified partnership savings entering Efficiency Dividend:

Count once.

57.353Shared Procurement

May produce real savings.

57.354Shared Procurement Baseline

Need comparable:

57.355Bulk Buying

Lower unit price may create:

cost.

57.356Shared Technology

Can reduce duplication.

57.357Shared Technology Risk

Can also create:

57.358Exit Rights

Each municipality or partner should understand:

57.359Data Portability

Especially important.

57.360Shared Cyber Risk

A weak partner system can affect:

57.361Security Standard

Define.

57.362Accessibility

Shared systems should meet accessibility requirements.

57.363Canadian Digital Independence

Shared municipal systems can create stronger:

if built on portable standards.

57.364Open Playbook

Successful municipal methods should be documented for:

57.365Sharing Is Not Giving Away Resident Data

Share:

where appropriate.

57.366Open Municipal Playbook

Could include:

57.367Sensitive Material

Exclude:

57.368Canadian Municipal Collaboration

A good local system may be reusable elsewhere.

57.369No Franchise Requirement

Other municipalities should be free to:

57.370No Mayoral Ownership

Public methods developed with public money should not become:

57.371Community Goodwill

The source initiatives include a Goodwill Compact and Build Crew concept focused on community cooperation and practical action.

The Scorecard should measure what those ideas actually accomplish.

57.372Goodwill Compact

Should remain:

57.373No Ideological Pledge

Partners should not need to agree with:

57.374Practical Goodwill

Could mean:

57.375Build Crew

If created:

Define:

57.376Volunteer Labour Boundary

Cross-reference Youth and Community Partners.

57.377Skilled Work

Requires qualified people.

57.378Community Build

Can be excellent for:

projects.

57.379No Free Trades Replacement

Do not use volunteers to replace paid skilled trades inappropriately.

57.380Build Crew Measure

Track:

57.381Project Completion

Not:

57.382Maintenance After Build

Who owns it?

Clarify.

57.383Donation

If a service club builds an asset:

City should know:

57.384Gift Acceptance

Use proper process.

57.385Public Recognition

Appropriate.

57.386No Political Branding

Community-built public assets should not become:

57.387Partnership Accessibility

Partners delivering public services should consider:

57.388Accommodation Responsibility

Clarify.

57.389Partnership Privacy

Partners handling City-referred residents need appropriate:

57.390Referral List

Do not send sensitive personal information unless:

57.391Partner Marketing

A resident referred for public service should not automatically be enrolled in:

Use appropriately.

57.393Partnership Safety

Volunteers and partner staff require:

57.394Children

Additional safeguards.

57.395Vulnerable Adults

Likewise.

57.396Insurance Certificate

Where required:

Maintain current.

57.397Insurance Expiry

Should not surprise City after incident.

57.398Partner Capacity Failure

Have escalation process.

57.399Service Interruption

Residents need:

where possible.

57.400Partnership Exit

Every material partnership should know how it ends.

57.401Exit Reasons

Possible:

57.402Exit Is Not Failure Automatically

A successful project may:

57.403Sunset

Some partnerships should have:

57.404Pilot Partnership

Especially.

57.405Permanent Partnership

Still needs review.

57.406Exit Notice

Define.

57.407Resident Continuity

If residents rely on service:

Plan transition.

57.408Data Return

On exit:

Return or delete data as required.

57.409Asset Return

Clarify.

57.410Unspent Funds

Clarify.

57.411Intellectual Property

Clarify.

57.412Public Records

Clarify.

57.413No Hostile Exit by Default

End professionally.

57.414Relationship After Program

A project ending does not require:

57.415Public Reporting

Partnership Scorecard should show:

57.416Failed Partnership

Name it where material.

57.417No Shame

Failure can provide:

57.418Do Not Keep Weak Partnership for Optics

A signed MOU is not sacred.

57.419Partner Performance Table

A public table could use:

Partner / RelationshipPurposeCity CommitmentPartner CommitmentStatusNext Review

57.420Commitment Table

CommitmentResponsible PartyDueStatusEvidence / Next Step

57.421Intergovernmental Ask Table

GovernmentAskAuthority / IssueStatusLast ActionNext Step

57.422County Table

Shared IssueCity RoleCounty RoleCost / LiabilityStatus

57.423SON Relationship Table

A public version may include:

AreaCity CommitmentJoint StatusNext Step

Do not disclose confidential or culturally sensitive information.

57.424Community Partnership Table

Partner TypePublic PurposeCity ContributionPartner ContributionOutcomeStatus

57.425Shared-Service Table

ServiceCurrent CostPartner CostService StandardVerified Net EffectStatus

Where data allows.

57.426Data-Sharing Table

Relationship TypePurposeReview Current?Minimum Data?Next Review

57.427Dispute Table

IssuePartiesPublic ImpactStatusNext Step

Protect lawful confidentiality.

57.428Traffic Lights

Green

Commitments being met and partnership producing intended public value.

Amber

Material delay, capacity issue or unresolved question.

Red

Significant failure, governance concern or public value not being delivered.

Grey

Insufficient evidence or relationship too early to assess.

57.429No Green Because Agreement Signed

A signature starts work.

It does not prove:

57.430No Red Because Partners Disagree

Disagreement can be healthy.

Red should reflect:

57.431Grey New Partnership

Appropriate until:

57.432Anti-Gaming Rule One

Do not count meetings as partnership outcomes.

57.433Anti-Gaming Rule Two

Do not count MOUs as completed projects.

57.434Anti-Gaming Rule Three

Do not count letters sent as government approvals.

57.435Anti-Gaming Rule Four

Do not count grant applications as funding received.

57.436Anti-Gaming Rule Five

Do not count funding approved as project completed.

57.437Anti-Gaming Rule Six

Do not count partner cash as City savings automatically.

57.438Anti-Gaming Rule Seven

Do not count volunteer hours at arbitrary values to inflate community leverage.

57.439Anti-Gaming Rule Eight

Do not count City cost reductions that merely reappear on the County tax bill as savings.

57.440Anti-Gaming Rule Nine

Do not count forecast shared-service savings as verified savings.

57.441Anti-Gaming Rule Ten

Do not count donated assets as free without lifecycle cost.

57.442Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven

Do not count a referral as successful simply because staff supplied a phone number.

57.443Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve

Do not count data shared as improved coordination.

57.444Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen

Do not count a partner logo on a City event as partnership delivery.

57.445Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen

Do not count a joint press conference as joint action.

57.446Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen

Do not classify disagreement as partnership failure when both parties are fulfilling their responsibilities.

57.447Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen

Do not hide failure behind:

ongoing collaboration

for years.

57.448Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen

Do not use confidential negotiation as a permanent excuse to hide public financial commitments.

57.449Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen

Do not call a partnership inclusive while access depends on political relationships.

57.450Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen

Do not exclude faith organizations because of identity or favour them because of identity.

57.451Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty

Do not use grants to bypass procurement.

57.452Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One

Do not use procurement to control legitimate independent community activity unnecessarily.

57.453Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two

Do not call a technology pilot free if resident data or future lock-in is the real price.

57.454Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Three

Do not call a shared database efficient while governance and data ownership remain unclear.

57.455Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Four

Do not count the same project separately as:

in a final total.

57.456Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Five

Do not change partnership definitions before an election to inflate success.

57.457Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Six

Do not create ceremonial partnerships in Year Four solely to increase the count.

57.458Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Seven

Do not delay publication of failed partnership commitments until after an election.

57.459Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Eight

Do not invite only supportive partners to public reviews.

57.460Baseline

Year One should establish:

57.461Unknown Baseline

Where previous commitments are not centrally tracked:

Say:

Not previously measured consistently.

57.462No Historical Reconstruction From Photographs

Do not count old:

as successful historic partnerships without evidence.

57.463Year One Objective

Know:

57.464Year Two Objective

Resolve practical duplication and scale relationships producing real public value.

57.465Year Three Objective

Institutionalize successful:

relationships.

57.466Year Four Objective

Publish the full record and hand over relationships that do not depend on the personality of the Mayor.

57.467Four-Year Core Measures

Strong candidates:

57.468Do Not Predetermine Partnership Count Target

More partners is not automatically:

57.469Fewer Better Partnerships

Can be stronger.

57.470Relationship Depth

Quality matters.

57.471Four-Year Partnership Audit

At term end publish:

Partnership Register

Commitments completed

Commitments overdue

Shared services

Verified savings

Resident handoffs

Duplication removed

County relationship

SON relationship

Ontario asks

Federal asks

Neighbouring municipality partnerships

Public institution partnerships

Community organizations

Service clubs

Faith-community partnerships

Business partnerships

Data sharing

Disputes

Agreements renewed

Agreements ended

Major unresolved issues

57.472Name the Strongest Partnership Improvement

Use evidence.

57.473Name the Biggest Partnership Failure

Use evidence.

57.474Name the Most Important Duplication Removed

57.475Name a Suspected Duplication That Was Reviewed and Retained

Explain why.

57.476Name the Best Shared-Service Result

57.477Name a Shared-Service Proposal That Did Not Save Money

If applicable.

57.478Name the Most Important City-County Issue Resolved

57.479Name the Largest Unresolved City-County Issue

57.480Name the Most Important SON Relationship Milestone

Use mutually appropriate public language.

57.481Name an Important SON Issue Still Unresolved

Do not pretend relationship means every issue is solved.

57.482Name the Most Important Ontario Ask Resolved

57.483Name the Most Important Ontario Ask Declined or Unanswered

57.484Name the Most Important Federal Ask Resolved

57.485Name the Most Important Federal Ask Declined or Unanswered

57.486Name the Strongest Community Partnership

57.487Name a Community Partnership That Ended

Explain why.

57.488Name the Strongest Faith or Service-Club Partnership Where Applicable

Judge by:

Not identity.

57.489Name the Strongest Institutional Partnership

57.490Name the Largest Partnership Dependency Risk

57.491Name the Largest Shared Funding Cliff

57.492Name the Largest Partnership Liability Being Handed to the Next Council

57.493Commitment Test

Ask:

Did each party do what it said it would do?

57.494Resident Test

Ask:

Did the resident experience a simpler or better service?

57.495Handoff Test

Ask:

Were residents connected to the correct organization without being bounced unnecessarily?

57.496Duplication Test

Ask:

Did multiple organizations stop unnecessarily paying for substantially the same work?

57.497One Taxpayer Test

Ask:

Did total public cost improve, or was cost merely shifted between governments?

57.498Shared-Service Test

Ask:

Did shared delivery improve cost, quality or resilience enough to justify reduced local control?

57.499SON Test

Ask:

Did the City build a respectful institutional relationship capable of surviving disagreement and political change?

57.500County Test

Ask:

Did Owen Sound and Grey County operate more like two governments serving the same resident and less like two offices sending people back and forth?

57.501Ontario Test

Ask:

Did the City use existing authority fully and make precise provincial requests where more authority or funding was genuinely required?

57.502Canada Test

Ask:

Did federal requests focus on matters where federal responsibility or funding genuinely applied?

57.503Community Test

Ask:

Did community partnerships strengthen capable organizations without turning volunteers into unpaid municipal departments?

57.504Faith Test

Ask:

Were faith organizations treated equally under lawful public-purpose standards without preference or exclusion?

57.505Business Test

Ask:

Did private partnerships produce public value without unfair commercial advantage?

57.506Procurement Test

Ask:

Were contracts and grants kept distinct and properly governed?

57.507Data Test

Ask:

Did coordination improve without building unnecessary multi-agency resident profiles?

57.508Financial Test

Ask:

Were partnership savings real, complete and verified?

57.509Grant Test

Ask:

Did outside money strengthen a sound local priority rather than create a permanent fiscal cliff?

57.510Resilience Test

Ask:

Can the service survive if one partner, grant or vendor disappears?

57.511Political Test

Ask:

Could a group critical of the Mayor receive the same partnership consideration as a supporter?

The answer must be:

Yes.

57.512Independence Test

Ask:

Do these relationships belong to the institution or to individual politicians?

They must belong to the institution.

57.513Election Test

Ask:

Would the Partnership Scorecard look the same if several major relationships were politically inconvenient?

57.514Institution Test

Ask:

Could a completely different Mayor inherit the files tomorrow and understand who owes what to whom?

That should be the standard.

57.515What Success Looks Like

Partnership success does not mean:

Success means:

57.516What Failure Looks Like

Failure includes:

57.517The Partnership Scorecard Commitment

Owen Sound should commit to:

Treat partnerships as operating relationships with responsibilities, costs, outcomes and exit paths.

Distinguish government-to-government relationships, shared services, community partnerships, grants, contracts, data sharing and informal coordination.

Do not score every relationship using the same governance model.

Maintain a Partnership Register for significant ongoing relationships.

Give each material partnership a clear purpose, owner, commitment, cost, review date and public outcome.

Do not formalize relationships merely to create ceremonial agreements.

Measure deliverables rather than meetings.

Track commitments by responsible party and due date.

Do not classify meetings, letters or progress discussions as completed commitments.

Explain material delays.

Do not blame another government for City delay or the City for another government's delay.

Apply No Wrong Door across institutions.

Help residents reach the correct organization rather than saying only "not ours."

Use warm handoffs where the issue is complex and lawful information-sharing supports it.

Do not turn warm handoffs into unnecessary personal-data sharing.

Track repeated wrong-government routing.

Maintain a current Who Does What guide.

Use Partnership Before Program before creating new municipal services.

Inventory capable government, nonprofit, community and private providers before duplicating them.

Maintain a Duplication Register for significant overlapping public services.

Do not assume apparently similar programs are automatically duplicate.

Review, coordinate, merge, transfer or stop true duplication where evidence supports it.

Do not assume regionalization automatically reduces cost.

Evaluate shared service through cost, quality, accountability, local control and resilience.

Publish transition and ongoing costs before major shared-service changes.

Define cost allocation clearly.

Apply the One Taxpayer test to City-County service transfers.

Never call a City cost reduction public savings when the same cost simply moves to another local tax bill.

Maintain a Shared Service Ledger for major City-County arrangements.

Treat Grey County as a separate government serving many of the same residents rather than a rival institution.

Defend Owen Sound interests firmly while respecting regional responsibility.

Distinguish City and County roles when elected representatives serve in both settings.

Do not impose a mandatory political voting bloc at County.

Maintain a City-County Issues Register.

Assign leads and next steps for important City-County issues.

Measure road transfers through condition, cost, funding and lifecycle liability rather than kilometre counts alone.

Do not treat transferred infrastructure as free.

Make post-transfer maintenance responsibility clear to residents.

Coordinate City and County planning so applicants do not experience institutional ping-pong.

Coordinate housing and homelessness responsibilities instead of duplicating County services.

Measure shared or regional transit through cost, reliability, accessibility and actual use.

Coordinate economic-development intake and referrals.

Review overlapping marketing and business-support activity.

Publish the major City-County issues resolved and still unresolved each year.

Treat Saugeen Ojibway Nation as a distinct government-to-government relationship.

Do not bury SON inside a community-partner list.

Build a relationship that can survive disagreement rather than defining success only through agreement.

Listen before drafting formal relationship documents.

Develop commitments mutually rather than presenting a finished document for endorsement.

Use a No Surprise standard on significant shared-interest issues.

Do not confuse notice with consultation.

Maintain legal accuracy about Crown consultation responsibilities.

Engage respectfully even where the formal constitutional duty lies elsewhere.

Treat Aboriginal and treaty rights as rights rather than ordinary stakeholder preferences.

Measure SON relationship performance through commitments, early engagement, shared work and respectful handling of unresolved matters rather than meeting frequency.

Protect confidential and culturally sensitive information appropriately.

Respect agreed governance of Indigenous knowledge.

Compensate Elders and knowledge holders appropriately when specialized expertise is requested.

Involve SON early in harbour, river, archaeology and other matters affecting shared interests where appropriate.

Apply lawful and transparent frameworks to economic and procurement opportunities.

Do not use symbolic reconciliation language as a substitute for practical access.

Build institutional SON relationships across leadership and administration so they survive mayoral change.

Treat Ontario as the provincial government from which municipal authority derives, not merely a funding source.

Keep the relationship with Ontario professional regardless of partisan alignment.

Maintain an Ontario Issues Register and Ask Book.

Make provincial asks precise.

State the authority, funding, legislative change or pilot actually requested.

Do not count provincial meetings or letters as approvals.

Report grant conditions, City matching requirements and operating obligations.

Use existing municipal authority fully before seeking unnecessary provincial permission.

Document genuine provincial barriers.

Maintain an Unfunded Mandate Ledger where provincial requirements create major local costs without matching resources.

Ask Ontario to match authority with responsibility and funding with responsibility.

Use pilots and delegated authority requests where they provide a realistic path to reform.

Offer measurement and review in return.

Do not pretend Owen Sound can simply bypass Ontario's constitutional role.

Approach Canada only where federal jurisdiction, federal property, national programs or federal funding genuinely apply.

Maintain a Federal Issues Register and Federal Ask Book.

Do not ask Ottawa to solve every municipal or provincial issue merely because federal money exists.

Use the principle: Local capability. Provincial respect. Federal precision. Canadian resilience.

Separate federal grant applications, approvals, project delivery and completed outcomes.

Maintain institutional federal relationships rather than relying only on ministerial contacts.

Treat the harbour as a due-diligence file, not a transfer trophy.

Include legal, financial, infrastructure, environmental and SON considerations in any harbour transfer decision.

Coordinate early on federal navigation, fisheries or other applicable issues affecting major infrastructure projects.

Do not build an east-west crossing merely because a funding program appears.

Verify broadband and other federal-program eligibility before incorporating funding into a business case.

Use federal digital or broadband partnerships without weakening local privacy, portability or vendor-exit standards.

Keep federal relationships institutional through changes of government.

Cooperate with neighbouring municipalities where shared service, equipment, facilities, emergencies or regional opportunities justify it.

Do not confuse cooperation with amalgamation.

Require a separate evidence and democratic process for any major municipal restructuring.

Measure shared equipment, specialists and facilities through actual cost and availability.

Maintain mutual-aid arrangements without using neighbouring services as substitutes for chronically inadequate local emergency capacity.

Test emergency partnership agreements and implement lessons.

Work with health institutions on municipal issues while respecting provincial and health-sector authority.

Do not promise municipal administration of health-care functions outside City authority.

Work with schools on youth, recreation, shared space and civic education while respecting education governance.

Measure school-facility sharing through actual availability, cost and reliability.

Do not make schools the only access route to municipal youth opportunities.

Use libraries as potential partners for information, digital access, education and borrowing where governance and capacity support it.

Do not impose new services on library partners without agreement and resources.

Recognize the enormous practical value of community organizations without treating them as free substitutes for municipal staff.

Give City-supported community partnerships a clear public purpose.

Use neutral and lawful eligibility criteria.

Never reward organizations for political support or punish them for criticism.

Treat faith communities under the same lawful public-purpose framework as secular organizations.

Do not require religious participation as a condition of ordinary publicly supported service.

Do not exclude capable organizations merely because they are faith-based.

Do not favour organizations merely because they share the Mayor's faith or values.

Measure service-club and volunteer contributions honestly.

Keep cash, in-kind support, volunteer time, facilities and expertise as separate contribution categories.

Do not assign arbitrary dollar values to volunteer hours to inflate partnership leverage.

Assess nonprofit capacity before depending on an organization for essential service.

Consider succession and dependence on key volunteers.

Keep reporting requirements proportionate to the amount of public funding and risk.

Use grants for grants and contracts for purchased services.

Do not use grants to bypass procurement.

Do not over-control genuine grants through unnecessary contract-style administration.

Clarify liability, insurance, staffing, facilities, equipment, data and communications in material agreements.

Ensure partners describe City support accurately without implying broader endorsement.

Do not imply that an institutional partner politically endorses Council.

Use private-sector partnerships only where public value and fair competition are protected.

Disclose material sponsorship, naming rights and exclusivity arrangements.

Apply full privacy, cybersecurity, accessibility, procurement and exit tests to technology partnerships.

Never accept a so-called free technology pilot without understanding data access, lock-in and future cost.

Ask what the vendor receives in every free offer.

Treat resident data, advertising rights and platform dependence as real forms of consideration.

Apply the strictest conflict and governance standards to map.ca, RealMap or other technology associated with elected officials.

Never allow the Mayor to personally negotiate a municipal deal in which the Mayor has a private interest.

Use independent review and proper conflict procedures.

Keep community calendar and directory access neutral and platform-independent.

Use open standards to reduce duplicate partner data entry where practical.

Do not force community organizations onto one proprietary platform simply to appear in basic civic information.

Apply minimum-necessary data sharing across partnerships.

Use clear data-sharing agreements for material personal-information exchanges.

Clarify data ownership, stewardship, retention, breach and termination.

Avoid joint resident databases where simple referrals or aggregate reporting will do.

Never create a multi-agency resident dossier merely in the name of coordination.

Remove extraordinary emergency data access when the emergency justification ends.

Coordinate joint public communication so residents receive one clear message where possible.

Identify which partner is authoritative for each part of a joint issue.

Correct contradictory public information quickly.

Handle public disagreement with partners factually and respectfully.

Do not characterize another government or community institution as an enemy merely because it disagrees.

Maintain a Dispute Register for major unresolved institutional issues.

Use an escalation ladder from operational staff through senior administration and governance before legal escalation where appropriate.

Do not send every operational disagreement to the Mayor first.

Use the Mayor for strategic relationships and high-level advocacy, not contract administration or procurement.

Give partners institutional contacts so no relationship depends on personal access to the Mayor.

Maintain institutional memory when elected officials, staff and partner representatives change.

Keep a Partnership Risk Register covering funding, governance, capacity, data, dependency, succession and service continuity.

Identify services heavily dependent on one external organization.

Understand what happens if that partner disappears.

Identify grant-funded partnership cliffs before launch.

Do not create fiscal cliffs through temporary outside funding.

Review material partnerships before renewal.

Do not give long-standing partners automatic entitlement to future funding.

Consider past performance while keeping appropriate processes open to new partners.

Avoid closed partnership clubs.

Survey partners periodically about clarity, responsiveness and administration where useful.

Do not confuse partner satisfaction with public value.

Measure the public result first.

Show direct City cash, material asset use and other significant public contributions.

Show partner cash, facilities, volunteer effort and expertise separately.

Use "leveraged funding" cautiously.

Do not call outside money City-created value automatically.

Show whether partner funding is one-time or recurring.

Include maintenance and replacement obligations associated with donated capital assets.

Verify partnership savings before counting them in the Efficiency Dividend.

Separate realized savings, avoided costs, cost shifts, grant revenue and in-kind contributions.

Never count the same partnership benefit twice.

Evaluate shared procurement using complete comparable cost.

Include freight, storage and administration where relevant.

Evaluate shared technology for resilience as well as cost.

Maintain exit rights and data portability in shared digital systems.

Recognize shared cybersecurity dependency.

Use successful shared systems to improve Canadian municipal capability where practical.

Publish reusable methods, templates, code and lessons where public ownership and security permit.

Do not share personal information simply because the operating model is open.

Do not convert publicly funded municipal methods into personal political property.

Keep any Goodwill Compact voluntary and focused on practical respectful cooperation rather than ideological agreement.

Use Build Crew or similar community-building initiatives only with clear safety, employment, insurance and supervision rules.

Do not use volunteer crews to replace skilled paid work improperly.

Measure community build projects by completed public value rather than attendance.

Identify who maintains community-built assets after completion.

Use proper gift-acceptance and lifecycle review for donated public assets.

Keep public recognition separate from campaign branding.

Build accessibility, privacy and safety standards into public-service partnerships.

Clarify who provides accommodations.

Protect personal information transferred through referrals.

Do not automatically enrol referred residents into partner fundraising or marketing.

Use appropriate safeguarding where partnership programs involve children or vulnerable adults.

Maintain current insurance and risk documentation where required.

Plan for service interruption if a partner loses capacity.

Give every material partnership an exit or completion process.

Recognize that a partnership ending can represent successful completion rather than failure.

Use sunset dates for pilots where appropriate.

Review permanent partnerships too.

Protect resident continuity when a service partnership ends.

Address data, assets, unspent funds, intellectual property and records at exit.

End partnerships professionally rather than turning every exit into conflict.

Publish which partnerships were started, expanded, modified, completed and ended.

Name failed partnerships when the public significance warrants it.

Do not keep weak partnerships alive merely to preserve appearances.

Publish Partnership, Commitment, Intergovernmental Ask, County, SON, Community, Shared-Service, Data-Sharing and Dispute tables.

Use Green, Amber, Red and Grey with stable definitions.

Never mark a partnership Green merely because an agreement was signed.

Never mark a partnership Red merely because the partners disagree.

Use Grey for new relationships without enough evidence.

Never count meetings as outcomes.

Never count memoranda as completed projects.

Never count letters sent as approvals.

Never count applications as grants received.

Never count grants received as projects completed.

Never count partner contributions as City savings automatically.

Never inflate volunteer value through arbitrary monetization.

Never call a cost shift between governments a public saving.

Never count forecast shared-service savings as verified results.

Never count donated assets as free without lifecycle obligations.

Never count a referral as successful merely because a phone number was provided.

Never count information sharing as proof of coordination.

Never count logos, press conferences or joint announcements as delivery.

Never hide multi-year nonperformance behind the phrase "ongoing collaboration."

Never use confidentiality to conceal public financial commitments indefinitely.

Never use partnership access as political patronage.

Never create ceremonial Year Four partnerships solely to improve the election-year score.

Never delay failed partnership reporting until after an election.

Use Year One to build the Partnership Register, Ask Books, Issues Registers and baseline.

Use Year Two to resolve duplication and strengthen partnerships producing real public value.

Use Year Three to institutionalize successful shared service, intergovernmental and community relationships.

Use Year Four to publish the complete partnership record and hand the relationships over professionally.

Publish the full Four-Year Partnership Audit.

Name the strongest partnership improvement.

Name the largest partnership failure.

Name the most important duplication removed and one apparent duplication that was appropriately retained.

Name the strongest shared-service result and any shared-service proposal that failed the value test.

Name the most important City-County issue resolved and the largest one still unresolved.

Name the most important SON relationship milestone and important unresolved issues respectfully.

Name the strongest and weakest Ontario asks.

Name the strongest and weakest federal asks.

Name the strongest community, institutional and where appropriate faith or service-club partnerships according to public result.

Name the largest dependency and shared-funding risks.

Name the largest partnership liability being handed to the next Council.

Judge the final record by whether Owen Sound became better at working with others without becoming less accountable for its own responsibilities.

A strong Partnership Scorecard should allow a resident to ask:

Who is responsible?

What did Owen Sound promise?

What did the partner promise?

What did each side pay?

What did residents receive?

Was anything duplicated?

Was the service actually cheaper, or did the bill move somewhere else?

If the issue belongs to Grey County, did the City help me get there?

If Ontario must act, what exactly did Owen Sound ask Ontario to do?

If Canada must act, what exactly did Owen Sound ask Canada to do?

What commitments exist with Saugeen Ojibway Nation?

Were they honoured?

What remains unresolved?

What community organization received public support?

What public value did it deliver?

What happens if the partner disappears?

Can the City leave the arrangement?

Who owns the data?

What partnership failed?

What did we learn?

That is partnership accountability.

Good government does not have to do everything itself.

But government should always know:

Work together where working together adds value. Keep responsibilities clear. Honour commitments. Remove 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.

← Chapter 56: Environment: The Public Environmental Stewardship ScorecardChapter 58: Satisfaction: The Public Resident Experience Scorecard →