Home › How Every Initiative Will Be Written › Chapter 61
How Every Initiative Will Be Written
Chapter 61The Initiative Format: The Standard for Every City Proposal
Vote on the proposals, hear the audio, read the reviews, search the whole plan.
In this chapter
- 61.1 The Initiative Card
- 61.2 One Page First
- 61.3 The One-Page Rule
- 61.4 Longer Documents Still Allowed
- 61.5 No Consultant Before Problem
- 61.6 Problem Before Solution
- 61.7 Initiative Categories
- 61.8 Initiative Scale
- 61.9 Routine Initiative
- 61.10 Major Initiative
- 61.11 Transformational Initiative
- 61.12 No Paperwork Theatre
- 61.13 No Risk Escape
- 61.14 Risk Matters Alongside Cost
- 61.15 Initiative ID
- 61.16 Public Tracking
- 61.17 No Renaming to Reset History
- 61.18 Initiative Owner
- 61.19 Owner Is Not Mayor
- 61.20 Council Sponsor
- 61.21 Problem
- 61.22 Problem Statement
- 61.23 Weak Problem
- 61.24 Better Problem
- 61.25 Another Weak Problem
- 61.26 Better Downtown Problem
- 61.27 Problem Evidence
- 61.28 Anecdote
- 61.29 Social Media
- 61.30 Political Attention
- 61.31 Problem Scale
- 61.32 Unknown Scale
- 61.33 First Step May Be Measurement
- 61.34 Do Not Manufacture Urgency
- 61.35 Real Urgency
- 61.36 Emergency Path
- 61.37 Principle
- 61.38 Why Principle Matters
- 61.39 Possible Principles
- 61.40 One or Two Principles
- 61.41 Principle Is Not Slogan
- 61.42 Example
- 61.43 Current State
- 61.44 Current State Means Baseline
- 61.45 Baseline Questions
- 61.46 No Baseline
- 61.47 Baseline Build
- 61.48 No False Historical Data
- 61.49 Existing Programs
- 61.50 Duplication Test
- 61.51 Partnership Before Program
- 61.52 Existing Asset
- 61.53 Existing Contract
- 61.54 Existing Legal Obligation
- 61.55 Existing Council Direction
- 61.56 Existing Community Capacity
- 61.57 Current Cost
- 61.58 Hidden Current Cost
- 61.59 Resident Time
- 61.60 Municipal Authority
- 61.61 Authority Before Announcement
- 61.62 Authority Map
- 61.63 No Authority Assumption
- 61.64 Legal Review Threshold
- 61.65 Legal Review Is Not Policy Decision
- 61.66 "Legal Says No"
- 61.67 Legal Advice Privilege
- 61.68 Mayor Power
- 61.69 Staff Authority
- 61.70 Strong Mayor Powers
- 61.71 Authority Can Change
- 61.72 Other Governments
- 61.73 Ask Who Else Has Authority
- 61.74 No Wrong Government
- 61.75 Other Government Role
- 61.76 Provincial Ask
- 61.77 Federal Ask
- 61.78 County Ask
- 61.79 SON Relationship
- 61.80 Dependency
- 61.81 Critical Dependency
- 61.82 Speculative Dependency
- 61.83 Proposal
- 61.84 Proposal Should Be Specific
- 61.85 Weak Proposal
- 61.86 Better Proposal
- 61.87 Proposal Scope
- 61.88 Scope Boundary
- 61.89 Deliverable
- 61.90 Outcome
- 61.91 Example
- 61.92 No Outcome Promise Beyond Control
- 61.93 Alternative Options
- 61.94 Option Zero
- 61.95 Option Improve Existing
- 61.96 Option Partner
- 61.97 Option Pilot
- 61.98 Option Full Implementation
- 61.99 No Fake Options
- 61.100 Preferred Option
- 61.101 First Step
- 61.102 Smallest Useful Action
- 61.103 First Step Is Often Not Full Build
- 61.104 No Permanent Commitment Before Reversible Step
- 61.105 Low-Cost Learning
- 61.106 First Step Must Have Owner
- 61.107 First Step Must Have Decision After
- 61.108 Example
- 61.109 Four-Year Path
- 61.110 Year One
- 61.111 Year Two
- 61.112 Year Three
- 61.113 Year Four
- 61.114 Not Every Initiative Needs Four Years
- 61.115 Do Not Stretch Work to Fill Term
- 61.116 Multi-Term Project
- 61.117 Do Not Promise Four-Year Completion If Impossible
- 61.118 Gate-Based Path
- 61.119 Gate One
- 61.120 Gate Two
- 61.121 Gate Three
- 61.122 Gate Four
- 61.123 Gate Five
- 61.124 Gate Six
- 61.125 Gate Seven
- 61.126 Gate Eight
- 61.127 Not Every Gate Mandatory
- 61.128 Gate Failure
- 61.129 No Momentum Rule
- 61.130 Cost
- 61.131 Complete Cost
- 61.132 Cost Categories
- 61.133 Year-One Cost
- 61.134 Annual Operating Cost
- 61.135 Four-Year Cost
- 61.136 Lifecycle Cost
- 61.137 Cost Range
- 61.138 False Precision
- 61.139 Estimate Maturity
- 61.140 Estimate Date
- 61.141 Inflation
- 61.142 Contingency
- 61.143 Staff Time
- 61.144 Existing Staff
- 61.145 But Avoid Fake Internal Billing
- 61.146 Asset Use
- 61.147 Free Vendor Product
- 61.148 Donation
- 61.149 Grant
- 61.150 Cost to Stop
- 61.151 Cost to Leave Vendor
- 61.152 Cost to Reverse
- 61.153 Funding
- 61.154 Funding Source
- 61.155 Funding Is Not Cost
- 61.156 City Cost
- 61.157 Taxpayer Cost Across Governments
- 61.158 Secured Funding
- 61.159 Applied Funding
- 61.160 Speculative Funding
- 61.161 No Grant Assumption
- 61.162 Grant-Dependent Initiative
- 61.163 Grant Failure Plan
- 61.164 Possible Answers
- 61.165 No Automatic Tax Backfill
- 61.166 Debt
- 61.167 Reserve
- 61.168 User Fee
- 61.169 Free to User
- 61.170 Sponsorship
- 61.171 Donation
- 61.172 Efficiency Dividend
- 61.173 Forecast Savings
- 61.174 People
- 61.175 Who Does the Work?
- 61.176 Capacity
- 61.177 New Position
- 61.178 Temporary Position
- 61.179 Consultant
- 61.180 Consultant Is Not Owner
- 61.181 Contractor
- 61.182 Volunteer
- 61.183 Paid Work
- 61.184 Youth
- 61.185 Staff Workload
- 61.186 Overtime
- 61.187 Burnout
- 61.188 Training
- 61.189 Succession
- 61.190 Union
- 61.191 Contracting Out
- 61.192 People Affected
- 61.193 Do Not Invent Stakeholder Category
- 61.194 Rights & Accessibility
- 61.195 Rights Screen
- 61.196 Not Every Issue Engages Every Right
- 61.197 Charter Review
- 61.198 Viewpoint Neutrality
- 61.199 Behaviour Versus Identity
- 61.200 Privacy
- 61.201 Data Minimization
- 61.202 Surveillance
- 61.203 Biometrics
- 61.204 AI
- 61.205 Accessibility
- 61.206 Accessibility Retrofit
- 61.207 Non-Digital Access
- 61.208 Smartphone Requirement
- 61.209 Language
- 61.210 Indigenous Rights
- 61.211 SON
- 61.212 Risks
- 61.213 Every Initiative Has Risk
- 61.214 Risk Categories
- 61.215 Political Risk Is Not Public Risk
- 61.216 Public Trust Risk
- 61.217 Risk of Doing Nothing
- 61.218 Example
- 61.219 Likelihood
- 61.220 Impact
- 61.221 No Fake Mathematics
- 61.222 Critical Risk
- 61.223 Risk Owner
- 61.224 Mitigation
- 61.225 Residual Risk
- 61.226 Risk Acceptance
- 61.227 Risk Transfer
- 61.228 Vendor Risk
- 61.229 Grant Risk
- 61.230 Demand Risk
- 61.231 Pilot Helps
- 61.232 Cost Escalation
- 61.233 Unknown Conditions
- 61.234 Staff Capacity
- 61.235 Timeline
- 61.236 Election Timing
- 61.237 Safeguards
- 61.238 Safeguards Are Design Controls
- 61.239 Possible Safeguards
- 61.240 Conflict Safeguard
- 61.241 No Favourites
- 61.242 Procurement Safeguard
- 61.243 Vendor-Neutral Requirement
- 61.244 Privacy Safeguard
- 61.245 Accessibility Safeguard
- 61.246 Financial Safeguard
- 61.247 Schedule Safeguard
- 61.248 Pilot Safeguard
- 61.249 Public Reporting Safeguard
- 61.250 Independent Review
- 61.251 No Safeguard Theatre
- 61.252 Measurement
- 61.253 Define Success Before Launch
- 61.254 Output
- 61.255 Outcome
- 61.256 Both
- 61.257 Example
- 61.258 Baseline
- 61.259 Target
- 61.260 Directional Measure
- 61.261 No Arbitrary Target
- 61.262 Metric Owner
- 61.263 Data Source
- 61.264 Frequency
- 61.265 Public Reporting Frequency
- 61.266 Measurement Cost
- 61.267 Privacy
- 61.268 Metric Manipulation
- 61.269 Goodhart Risk
- 61.270 Example
- 61.271 Satisfaction
- 61.272 Objective
- 61.273 Financial Measure
- 61.274 Technical Measure
- 61.275 Pilot Measurement
- 61.276 External Context
- 61.277 No Attribution Overreach
- 61.278 Review
- 61.279 Every Initiative Needs Decision Date
- 61.280 Review Timing
- 61.281 Review Owner
- 61.282 Review Questions
- 61.283 Review Before Renewal
- 61.284 Automatic Renewal
- 61.285 Review Evidence
- 61.286 Review Is Decision
- 61.287 Review Outcome
- 61.288 Independent Review
- 61.289 Public Review
- 61.290 Technical Decision
- 61.291 Exit
- 61.292 Every Major Initiative Needs Exit Path
- 61.293 Why Exit Matters
- 61.294 Exit Conditions
- 61.295 Exit Authority
- 61.296 Exit Cost
- 61.297 Contract Exit
- 61.298 Technology Exit
- 61.299 Facility Exit
- 61.300 Program Exit
- 61.301 Grant Exit
- 61.302 Pilot Exit
- 61.303 Permanent Asset
- 61.304 Stop Condition
- 61.305 No Shame in Exit
- 61.306 No Automatic Stop Either
- 61.307 Sunset Clause
- 61.308 Sunset Means Review
- 61.309 Renewal Requires Evidence
- 61.310 Initiative Card Template
- 61.311 Executive Summary
- 61.312 Decision Requested
- 61.313 No Hidden Decision
- 61.314 Recommendation
- 61.315 Alternatives
- 61.316 Financial Summary
- 61.317 Authority Summary
- 61.318 Risk Summary
- 61.319 Measurement Summary
- 61.320 Public-Facing Initiative Card
- 61.321 Staff Working Paper
- 61.322 One Truth
- 61.323 No Political Version of Cost
- 61.324 Initiative Workflow
- 61.325 Idea Is Not Commitment
- 61.326 Exploration
- 61.327 Public Language
- 61.328 Approved
- 61.329 Funded
- 61.330 Under Construction
- 61.331 Operational
- 61.332 Completed
- 61.333 Missed
- 61.334 Idea Intake
- 61.335 No Source Privilege
- 61.336 Staff Idea
- 61.337 Resident Idea
- 61.338 Business Idea
- 61.339 Partner Idea
- 61.340 No Favourites
- 61.341 Idea Backlog
- 61.342 Not Every Idea Gets Full Study
- 61.343 Initial Screen
- 61.344 Screen Result
- 61.345 Decline Reason
- 61.346 No Endless Suggestion Box
- 61.347 Standing Work List
- 61.348 Strategic Initiative
- 61.349 Budget Integration
- 61.350 Budget Year
- 61.351 Future Budget Pressure
- 61.352 Capital Plan
- 61.353 Infrastructure Index
- 61.354 Workforce Plan
- 61.355 Procurement Plan
- 61.356 Digital Systems Index
- 61.357 Partnership Register
- 61.358 Commitment Register
- 61.359 One Initiative, Many Registers
- 61.360 Public Dashboard
- 61.361 Consultation
- 61.362 Consultation Test
- 61.363 No Consultation Theatre
- 61.364 Information Session
- 61.365 Technical Consultation
- 61.366 Neighbourhood Consultation
- 61.367 City-Wide Consultation
- 61.368 Partner Consultation
- 61.369 Staff Consultation
- 61.370 Labour Consultation
- 61.371 Accessibility Participation
- 61.372 Non-Digital Participation
- 61.373 Consultation Summary
- 61.374 Majority Does Not Decide Everything
- 61.375 Rights Are Not Poll Question
- 61.376 Procurement
- 61.377 Brand-Neutral Requirements
- 61.378 Proprietary Requirement
- 61.379 Market Sounding
- 61.380 No Backdoor Vendor Selection
- 61.381 Local Procurement
- 61.382 Canadian Procurement
- 61.383 Open Standards
- 61.384 Vendor Exit
- 61.385 Cybersecurity
- 61.386 Privacy
- 61.387 Accessibility
- 61.388 Data Ownership
- 61.389 Contract Renewal
- 61.390 Renewal Is Decision
- 61.391 New Technology Feature
- 61.392 AI Added Later
- 61.393 Surveillance Feature Added Later
- 61.394 Scope Drift
- 61.395 Change Request
- 61.396 Change Fields
- 61.397 Material Change
- 61.398 Administrative Change
- 61.399 Change Log
- 61.400 No Quiet Expansion
- 61.401 Pilot Discipline
- 61.402 Pilot Geography
- 61.403 Pilot Population
- 61.404 Pilot Duration
- 61.405 No Perpetual Pilot
- 61.406 Pilot Expansion
- 61.407 Pilot Success
- 61.408 Scale Test
- 61.409 Small Pilot Subsidy
- 61.410 Volunteer Pilot
- 61.411 Grant Pilot
- 61.412 Pilot Evaluation
- 61.413 Failed Pilot
- 61.414 No Failure Shame
- 61.415 Capital Initiative
- 61.416 Need Before Asset
- 61.417 Existing Asset Alternative
- 61.418 Lease Alternative
- 61.419 Shared Asset
- 61.420 Repair
- 61.421 New Build
- 61.422 Site
- 61.423 Land Cost
- 61.424 Servicing
- 61.425 Environmental Liability
- 61.426 Accessibility
- 61.427 Maintenance
- 61.428 Replacement
- 61.429 Decommissioning
- 61.430 No Ribbon-First Planning
- 61.431 Infrastructure Priority
- 61.432 Digital Initiative
- 61.433 Digital Problem
- 61.434 Manual Alternative
- 61.435 Account Requirement
- 61.436 Personal Data
- 61.437 Vendor Hosting
- 61.438 Data Export
- 61.439 Accessibility
- 61.440 Security
- 61.441 Offline Continuity
- 61.442 Digital Dependency
- 61.443 No App for App's Sake
- 61.444 No AI for AI's Sake
- 61.445 No Blockchain for Prestige
- 61.446 Open Source
- 61.447 Canadian Hosting
- 61.448 Public Ownership
- 61.449 Data Sovereignty
- 61.450 Community Initiative
- 61.451 Community Need
- 61.452 Existing Organization
- 61.453 Partnership
- 61.454 Grant or Contract
- 61.455 Volunteer Boundary
- 61.456 Liability
- 61.457 Insurance
- 61.458 Maintenance
- 61.459 Sunset
- 61.460 Faith Partner
- 61.461 No Ideological Test
- 61.462 Economic Development Initiative
- 61.463 Jobs Claim
- 61.464 Private Investment
- 61.465 Incentive
- 61.466 Incentive Cost Per Result
- 61.467 Clawback
- 61.468 Business Use
- 61.469 Market Risk
- 61.470 Housing Initiative
- 61.471 Approval Is Not Home
- 61.472 Permit Is Not Start
- 61.473 Start Is Not Occupancy
- 61.474 City Role
- 61.475 County Role
- 61.476 Ontario Role
- 61.477 Canada Role
- 61.478 Private Developer Role
- 61.479 Municipal Land
- 61.480 Servicing
- 61.481 Affordability
- 61.482 No Price Guarantee
- 61.483 Safety Initiative
- 61.484 Outcome
- 61.485 Surveillance
- 61.486 Police Role
- 61.487 Social Service Role
- 61.488 Behaviour Not Status
- 61.489 Privacy
- 61.490 Recreation Initiative
- 61.491 Facility Expansion
- 61.492 Program
- 61.493 Youth Initiative
- 61.494 Youth Voice
- 61.495 No Youth Prop
- 61.496 Accessibility Initiative
- 61.497 Barrier Removed
- 61.498 Study Alone
- 61.499 Environmental Initiative
- 61.500 No Branding-Only Initiative
- 61.501 Partnership Initiative
- 61.502 MOU Alone
- 61.503 Intergovernmental Initiative
- 61.504 Advocacy Plan
- 61.505 No Photo-Op Metric
- 61.506 Initiative Review Matrix
- 61.507 Red Flag
- 61.508 Exception
- 61.509 Decision Gate Summary
- 61.510 Initiative Scorecard
- 61.511 No Initiative Popularity Score
- 61.512 Status Categories
- 61.513 One Status Vocabulary
- 61.514 No Department Inventing Euphemisms
- 61.515 Initiative Review Meeting
- 61.516 Focus
- 61.517 Red Initiative
- 61.518 Amber Initiative
- 61.519 Green Initiative
- 61.520 Grey Initiative
- 61.521 Stop List
- 61.522 Start List
- 61.523 Continue List
- 61.524 Government Has Finite Capacity
- 61.525 Priority Limit
- 61.526 Priority Queue
- 61.527 Urgent
- 61.528 Important
- 61.529 Mandatory
- 61.530 Safety
- 61.531 Asset Failure
- 61.532 Election Promise
- 61.533 Reprioritization
- 61.534 Publish Material Reprioritization
- 61.535 Anti-Gaming Rule One
- 61.536 Anti-Gaming Rule Two
- 61.537 Anti-Gaming Rule Three
- 61.538 Anti-Gaming Rule Four
- 61.539 Anti-Gaming Rule Five
- 61.540 Anti-Gaming Rule Six
- 61.541 Anti-Gaming Rule Seven
- 61.542 Anti-Gaming Rule Eight
- 61.543 Anti-Gaming Rule Nine
- 61.544 Anti-Gaming Rule Ten
- 61.545 Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven
- 61.546 Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve
- 61.547 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen
- 61.548 Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen
- 61.549 Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen
- 61.550 Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen
- 61.551 Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen
- 61.552 Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen
- 61.553 Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen
- 61.554 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty
- 61.555 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One
- 61.556 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two
- 61.557 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Three
- 61.558 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Four
- 61.559 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Five
- 61.560 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Six
- 61.561 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Seven
- 61.562 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Eight
- 61.563 Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Nine
- 61.564 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty
- 61.565 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-One
- 61.566 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Two
- 61.567 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Three
- 61.568 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Four
- 61.569 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Five
- 61.570 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Six
- 61.571 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Seven
- 61.572 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Eight
- 61.573 Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Nine
- 61.574 Anti-Gaming Rule Forty
- 61.575 Public Initiative Audit
- 61.576 Year One
- 61.577 Year Two
- 61.578 Year Three
- 61.579 Year Four
- 61.580 Final Initiative Audit
- 61.581 Name the Best Initiative
- 61.582 Name the Weakest Initiative
- 61.583 Name the Best Responsible Stop
- 61.584 Name the Best Pilot
- 61.585 Name the Pilot That Proved the Idea Should End
- 61.586 Name the Best Partnership Before Program Decision
- 61.587 Name the Best Repair Before Replace Decision
- 61.588 Name the Initiative With the Strongest Complete-Cost Discipline
- 61.589 Name the Initiative With the Largest Cost Surprise
- 61.590 Name the Initiative With the Strongest Rights Safeguard
- 61.591 Name the Initiative With the Strongest Accessibility Improvement
- 61.592 Name the Initiative That Collected Less Data Because of Privacy Review
- 61.593 Name the Technology Initiative That Passed the Exit Test
- 61.594 Name One That Failed It
- 61.595 Name the Initiative That Changed Most After Resident Input
- 61.596 Name the Initiative Where Resident Input Did Not Change the Decision
- 61.597 Name the Initiative Blocked by Jurisdiction
- 61.598 Name the Initiative Improved by Intergovernmental Partnership
- 61.599 Name the Initiative That Should Have Been Scoped Better
- 61.600 Name the Initiative That Should Have Been Stopped Earlier
- 61.601 Name the Most Important Initiative Being Handed to the Next Council
- 61.602 Problem Test
- 61.603 Evidence Test
- 61.604 Authority Test
- 61.605 Duplication Test
- 61.606 Local Responsibility Test
- 61.607 Other Government Test
- 61.608 SON Test
- 61.609 Option Test
- 61.610 Cost Test
- 61.611 Funding Test
- 61.612 Tax Test
- 61.613 Capacity Test
- 61.614 Rights Test
- 61.615 Accessibility Test
- 61.616 Privacy Test
- 61.617 Digital Independence Test
- 61.618 Procurement Test
- 61.619 Risk Test
- 61.620 Safeguard Test
- 61.621 Measurement Test
- 61.622 Attribution Test
- 61.623 Review Test
- 61.624 Exit Test
- 61.625 Election Test
- 61.626 Reverse Election Test
- 61.627 Resident Test
- 61.628 Staff Test
- 61.629 Finance Test
- 61.630 Legal Test
- 61.631 Future Council Test
- 61.632 Institution Test
- 61.633 What Success Looks Like
- 61.634 What Failure Looks Like
- 61.635 The Initiative Format Commitment
A municipal business plan is useful only if ideas can move from:
- concept;
- to authority;
- to cost;
- to decision;
- to implementation;
- to measurement;
- to review.
Too many public initiatives begin with:
This sounds like a good idea.
Then government discovers later:
- the City does not control it;
- another government must approve it;
- nobody knows the complete cost;
- no department owns it;
- staff capacity was never considered;
- accessibility was added after design;
- privacy was considered after procurement;
- technology cannot be exited;
- residents were consulted after the important decisions;
- success was never defined;
- failure has no stop condition.
This business plan should use a different standard.
Every significant initiative should be capable of being summarized through the same operating framework:
Problem
Principle
Current State
Municipal Authority
Other Governments
Proposal
First Step
Four-Year Path
Cost
Funding
People
Rights & Accessibility
Risks
Safeguards
Measurement
Review
Exit
The purpose is not to create:
- more paperwork.
The purpose is to prevent:
bad ideas from becoming expensive simply because nobody asked the basic questions early enough.
The standard is:
No significant initiative should reach Council without a clear problem, lawful authority, responsible owner, complete-cost view, public-interest test, measurement method and exit path proportionate to its size and risk.
61.1The Initiative Card
Every significant initiative should begin with a one-page:
Initiative Card.
61.2One Page First
Before:
- consultant report;
- procurement;
- detailed design;
- grant application;
Council and residents should be able to understand the initiative in plain language.
61.3The One-Page Rule
The first page should answer:
What problem are we trying to solve?
Why is the City involved?
What authority does the City have?
What are we proposing?
What will it cost?
Who pays?
Who does the work?
What could go wrong?
How will we know if it worked?
When do we stop?
61.4Longer Documents Still Allowed
Complex initiatives may require:
- engineering reports;
- financial models;
- legal advice;
- environmental studies;
- procurement documents.
The Initiative Card does not replace them.
It makes them understandable.
61.5No Consultant Before Problem
Do not begin with:
Hire a consultant to tell us what project we should have.
Begin with:
What problem are we actually trying to solve?
61.6Problem Before Solution
The City should not decide:
- bridge;
- app;
- building;
- program;
before clearly defining:
- problem.
61.7Initiative Categories
Every initiative can be tagged:
Governance
Finance
Service
Infrastructure
Downtown
Housing
Business
Safety
Recreation
Youth
Accessibility
Information
Environment
Partnership
61.8Initiative Scale
Classify:
Routine
Moderate
Major
Transformational
The review burden should match the scale.
61.9Routine Initiative
May need only:
- short business case;
- department approval;
within delegated authority.
61.10Major Initiative
May require:
- Council;
- Finance;
- legal;
- procurement;
- public consultation;
- technical review.
61.11Transformational Initiative
May require:
- multiple decision gates;
- pilot;
- outside government;
- long-term funding;
- independent review.
61.12No Paperwork Theatre
Do not force a $2,000 operational improvement through the same process as:
- major bridge;
- city-wide digital platform.
Use proportionality.
61.13No Risk Escape
Do not classify a high-risk technology project as:
- routine;
merely because its initial contract price is low.
61.14Risk Matters Alongside Cost
A low-cost project can carry high:
- privacy;
- legal;
- reputational;
- accessibility;
risk.
61.15Initiative ID
Material initiatives should receive a stable:
- Initiative ID.
61.16Public Tracking
The ID follows the initiative through:
- proposal;
- approval;
- pilot;
- implementation;
- review;
- closure.
61.17No Renaming to Reset History
Changing a project name does not erase:
- old cost;
- failed pilot;
- missed deadline.
61.18Initiative Owner
Every initiative needs:
- one accountable administrative owner.
61.19Owner Is Not Mayor
Unless the commitment is genuinely:
- mayoral;
- intergovernmental;
- governance;
in nature.
Operational delivery belongs to administration.
61.20Council Sponsor
Where useful:
Council may identify:
- policy sponsor;
- committee.
But staff remains operational owner.
61.21Problem
The first required field is:
Problem.
61.22Problem Statement
A strong problem statement explains:
Who experiences the problem?
What is happening?
How often?
What is the consequence?
What evidence supports it?
61.23Weak Problem
Owen Sound needs an app.
That is not a problem.
61.24Better Problem
Residents currently need to contact three separate departments to determine responsibility for a common service issue, creating repeated transfers and unnecessary delay.
Now there is something to solve.
61.25Another Weak Problem
Downtown needs revitalization.
Too broad.
61.26Better Downtown Problem
Public-realm maintenance, storefront vacancy, upper-floor underuse and ordinary-day pedestrian activity show specific weaknesses requiring separate responses.
61.27Problem Evidence
Evidence can include:
- service data;
- asset condition;
- complaints;
- financial records;
- resident surveys;
- professional assessment;
- external data;
- partner information.
61.28Anecdote
Useful for identifying possible problem.
Not enough by itself for:
- major expenditure.
61.29Social Media
Can reveal:
- concern.
It does not automatically establish:
- prevalence.
61.30Political Attention
Likewise.
61.31Problem Scale
Estimate:
- frequency;
- severity;
- affected population;
- financial impact.
61.32Unknown Scale
If unknown:
Say:
The scale is not yet sufficiently measured.
61.33First Step May Be Measurement
Sometimes the correct first action is:
- measure.
61.34Do Not Manufacture Urgency
Not every problem is:
- crisis.
61.35Real Urgency
Safety, legal, financial or service continuity risk may justify:
- immediate action.
61.36Emergency Path
Emergency procurement and decision rules remain:
- separate;
- lawful.
61.37Principle
The second required field is:
Principle.
61.38Why Principle Matters
Principles prevent decisions from becoming:
- improvised;
- personality-driven.
61.39Possible Principles
Examples:
- Local Responsibility.
- Open Government.
- Complete Cost.
- No Wrong Door.
- Repair Before Replace.
- No Favourites.
- Verify Person. Protect Opinion.
- Public Standard First.
- One Taxpayer.
- Partnership Before Program.
- Measure the Result.
- Stop What Does Not Work.
61.40One or Two Principles
Do not attach:
- every principle;
to every initiative.
Choose the ones actually governing the decision.
61.41Principle Is Not Slogan
Explain how it changes:
- decision.
61.42Example
Principle:
Repair Before Replace.
Decision implication:
The City must compare repair, refurbishment and replacement before purchasing a new asset.
61.43Current State
The third field is:
Current State.
61.44Current State Means Baseline
Before changing something:
Know what exists.
61.45Baseline Questions
What service exists now?
Who provides it?
What does it cost?
What assets are involved?
What staff are involved?
What performance data exists?
What commitments already exist?
61.46No Baseline
If missing:
Say so.
61.47Baseline Build
May become Phase One.
61.48No False Historical Data
Do not reconstruct precise old performance from:
- press releases;
- memory;
- anecdote.
61.49Existing Programs
Before new initiative:
Identify:
- similar City program;
- County program;
- Ontario program;
- federal program;
- nonprofit;
- private service.
61.50Duplication Test
Ask:
Who already does this?
61.51Partnership Before Program
Use the answer.
61.52Existing Asset
Ask whether an existing:
- building;
- vehicle;
- system;
- staff capability;
can solve the problem.
61.53Existing Contract
Check.
61.54Existing Legal Obligation
Check.
61.55Existing Council Direction
Check.
61.56Existing Community Capacity
Check.
61.57Current Cost
Where meaningful:
Calculate.
61.58Hidden Current Cost
May include:
- staff time;
- repeated repairs;
- resident delay;
- contractor spend;
- emergency work.
61.59Resident Time
Can be a real burden.
Use cautiously where monetization would be speculative.
61.60Municipal Authority
The fourth field is:
Municipal Authority.
61.61Authority Before Announcement
Before promising implementation:
Ask:
Can Owen Sound lawfully do this?
61.62Authority Map
For significant initiatives identify:
Direct City Authority
Council Approval Required
Delegated Administrative Authority
County Role
Provincial Permission
Federal Role
Shared
61.63No Authority Assumption
Do not assume:
- useful;
- popular;
means:
- municipal authority exists.
61.64Legal Review Threshold
Use qualified legal review when:
- authority uncertain;
- Charter;
- privacy;
- procurement;
- conflict;
- property;
- regulatory;
issues are material.
61.65Legal Review Is Not Policy Decision
Lawyer advises:
- what City may do;
- risk.
Council decides policy within authority.
61.66"Legal Says No"
Should be specific.
Where possible identify:
- actual barrier.
61.67Legal Advice Privilege
Protect where appropriate.
Public explanation can still summarize:
- lawful reason.
61.68Mayor Power
Distinguish:
- Mayor authority;
- Council authority.
61.69Staff Authority
Distinguish.
61.70Strong Mayor Powers
Where applicable law provides powers:
Use lawfully.
Do not use them as substitute for:
- transparency;
- persuasion;
- Council collaboration.
61.71Authority Can Change
Review if:
- Ontario law;
- regulation;
changes.
61.72Other Governments
The fifth field is:
Other Governments.
61.73Ask Who Else Has Authority
Potential:
- Grey County;
- Ontario;
- Canada;
- Saugeen Ojibway Nation in distinct governmental and rights contexts;
- conservation or other statutory bodies where applicable.
61.74No Wrong Government
Even if City is not primary authority:
It can help residents navigate.
61.75Other Government Role
Identify:
Decision
Funding
Regulation
Asset ownership
Service delivery
Consultation
Partnership
61.76Provincial Ask
If Ontario must act:
Specify exactly:
- what is requested.
61.77Federal Ask
Same.
61.78County Ask
Same.
61.79SON Relationship
Do not reduce to:
- "stakeholder consultation."
Use appropriate:
- relationship;
- rights;
- engagement;
framework.
61.80Dependency
Identify whether initiative can proceed:
- without outside action.
61.81Critical Dependency
If no:
Mark clearly.
61.82Speculative Dependency
Do not present uncertain outside support as:
- secured.
61.83Proposal
The sixth field is:
Proposal.
61.84Proposal Should Be Specific
It should state:
- what City will actually do.
61.85Weak Proposal
Improve downtown.
61.86Better Proposal
Pilot a seasonal 2nd Avenue configuration using temporary infrastructure, maintain defined delivery and emergency access, collect before-and-after operating data and return to Council for a permanent-or-stop decision after the pilot.
61.87Proposal Scope
Define:
- included;
- excluded.
61.88Scope Boundary
This prevents:
- project creep.
61.89Deliverable
Identify.
61.90Outcome
Identify separately.
61.91Example
Deliverable:
- launch housing help desk.
Outcome:
- easier lawful suite pathway.
61.92No Outcome Promise Beyond Control
Do not promise:
home prices will fall
because City launches:
- help desk.
61.93Alternative Options
For major initiatives:
Show reasonable alternatives.
61.94Option Zero
Always consider:
Do nothing / maintain current system.
61.95Option Improve Existing
Often useful.
61.96Option Partner
Often useful.
61.97Option Pilot
Often useful.
61.98Option Full Implementation
Compare.
61.99No Fake Options
Do not present:
- one serious choice;
- three absurd alternatives;
to manufacture approval.
61.100Preferred Option
Explain why.
61.101First Step
The seventh field is:
First Step.
61.102Smallest Useful Action
Ask:
What is the smallest lawful step that gives us better information or public value?
61.103First Step Is Often Not Full Build
Could be:
- inventory;
- legal review;
- site test;
- pilot;
- resident interview;
- market sounding;
- engineering assessment.
61.104No Permanent Commitment Before Reversible Step
Where possible:
Test first.
61.105Low-Cost Learning
Prefer where risk is high.
61.106First Step Must Have Owner
And:
- date.
61.107First Step Must Have Decision After
Do not study forever.
61.108Example
First Step:
Complete a 60-day baseline of service transfers and identify the five highest-volume wrong-door issues.
Then decide.
61.109Four-Year Path
The eighth field is:
Four-Year Path.
61.110Year One
Typically:
- baseline;
- pilot;
- legal;
- design;
- early implementation.
61.111Year Two
Typically:
- scale what works;
- fix weak design.
61.112Year Three
Typically:
- make major capital or institutional decisions.
61.113Year Four
Typically:
- complete;
- stop;
- institutionalize;
- hand off.
61.114Not Every Initiative Needs Four Years
Some should finish in:
- weeks;
- months.
61.115Do Not Stretch Work to Fill Term
Finish when ready.
61.116Multi-Term Project
If genuinely longer:
Say so from start.
61.117Do Not Promise Four-Year Completion If Impossible
Use realistic path.
61.118Gate-Based Path
Major projects should use:
- decision gates.
61.119Gate One
Need confirmed.
61.120Gate Two
Authority confirmed.
61.121Gate Three
Business case.
61.122Gate Four
Funding.
61.123Gate Five
Design.
61.124Gate Six
Procurement.
61.125Gate Seven
Delivery.
61.126Gate Eight
Outcome review.
61.127Not Every Gate Mandatory
Use appropriate scale.
61.128Gate Failure
Can lead to:
- redesign;
- pause;
- stop.
61.129No Momentum Rule
Passing one gate does not guarantee:
- next.
61.130Cost
The ninth field is:
Cost.
61.131Complete Cost
The initiative should show more than:
- purchase price.
61.132Cost Categories
Possible:
Capital
Operating
Staffing
Consulting
Technology
Maintenance
Insurance
Training
Utilities
Licence
Cybersecurity
Accessibility
Legal
Replacement
Decommissioning
61.133Year-One Cost
Show.
61.134Annual Operating Cost
Show.
61.135Four-Year Cost
Show where meaningful.
61.136Lifecycle Cost
For significant assets:
Show.
61.137Cost Range
Early stages may use:
- range.
61.138False Precision
Avoid.
61.139Estimate Maturity
Label:
Conceptual
Preliminary
Design
Tender
Final
61.140Estimate Date
Show.
61.141Inflation
State assumptions where material.
61.142Contingency
Show separately where appropriate.
61.143Staff Time
Do not call something:
no cost
if it consumes substantial existing staff capacity.
61.144Existing Staff
Still has opportunity cost.
61.145But Avoid Fake Internal Billing
Use materiality.
61.146Asset Use
City building or land may have:
- cost;
- foregone use.
61.147Free Vendor Product
May have hidden:
- data;
- lock-in;
- support;
- future licence;
cost.
61.148Donation
May create:
- maintenance;
- replacement;
cost.
61.149Grant
May create:
- matching;
- reporting;
- operating;
cost.
61.150Cost to Stop
For pilots and contracts:
Know.
61.151Cost to Leave Vendor
Know.
61.152Cost to Reverse
Important for reversible policy.
61.153Funding
The tenth field is:
Funding.
61.154Funding Source
Possible:
Property Tax
User Fee
Reserve
Debt
Provincial Grant
Federal Grant
County
Partner
Donation
Sponsorship
Asset Sale
Verified Saving
61.155Funding Is Not Cost
A $5 million grant-funded project still:
- costs $5 million.
61.156City Cost
Show separately.
61.157Taxpayer Cost Across Governments
Where relevant:
Use One Taxpayer lens.
61.158Secured Funding
Means actually:
- approved;
- committed.
61.159Applied Funding
Separate.
61.160Speculative Funding
Separate.
61.161No Grant Assumption
Do not balance project around:
- hoped-for money.
61.162Grant-Dependent Initiative
Can remain conditional.
61.163Grant Failure Plan
State:
If grant not received, then...
61.164Possible Answers
- Stop.
- Reduce scope.
- Return to Council.
- Seek alternative.
- Defer.
61.165No Automatic Tax Backfill
Unless Council openly chooses it.
61.166Debt
If used:
Show:
- term;
- debt service;
- total repayment.
61.167Reserve
If used:
Show:
- reserve impact.
61.168User Fee
Show:
- who pays;
- full or partial cost recovery.
61.169Free to User
Say:
No user fee.
Do not imply:
- no cost.
61.170Sponsorship
Show:
- commercial benefit provided.
61.171Donation
Show:
- conditions.
61.172Efficiency Dividend
Only verified savings.
61.173Forecast Savings
Cannot fund permanent cost until sufficiently real.
61.174People
The eleventh field is:
People.
61.175Who Does the Work?
Identify:
- department;
- staff;
- contractor;
- partner;
- volunteers.
61.176Capacity
Ask:
Do we have capacity?
What skills are needed?
What existing work is displaced?
61.177New Position
If required:
Show:
- role;
- annualized cost;
- duration.
61.178Temporary Position
May be appropriate.
61.179Consultant
Use where specialized expertise needed.
61.180Consultant Is Not Owner
City remains accountable.
61.181Contractor
Use where appropriate.
61.182Volunteer
Never assume.
61.183Paid Work
If work is:
- skilled;
- scheduled;
- operational;
ask whether it should be:
- paid.
61.184Youth
Do not use youth participation as:
- unpaid labour substitution.
61.185Staff Workload
Show significant impact.
61.186Overtime
Consider.
61.187Burnout
Not business model.
61.188Training
New system may require:
- staff training.
Include cost and time.
61.189Succession
If initiative depends on one:
- expert;
plan continuity.
61.190Union
Where labour agreement applies:
Respect.
61.191Contracting Out
Use proper labour and procurement process.
61.192People Affected
Also identify:
- residents;
- businesses;
- property owners;
- tenants;
- users;
- vulnerable groups;
where relevant.
61.193Do Not Invent Stakeholder Category
Use actual affected groups.
61.194Rights & Accessibility
The twelfth field is:
Rights & Accessibility.
61.195Rights Screen
Every material initiative should ask:
Expression?
Privacy?
Equality?
Due process?
Property?
Conscience?
Accessibility?
Indigenous rights?
61.196Not Every Issue Engages Every Right
Use relevance.
61.197Charter Review
Where material:
Seek legal advice.
61.198Viewpoint Neutrality
Public facilities and programs should not discriminate based on:
- political;
- religious;
viewpoint where law requires equal treatment.
61.199Behaviour Versus Identity
Regulate:
- behaviour;
where lawful.
Do not classify people unnecessarily.
61.200Privacy
Ask:
What personal information does this initiative collect?
61.201Data Minimization
Collect less.
61.202Surveillance
Ask:
Does it watch, track or infer?
61.203Biometrics
High threshold.
61.204AI
If used:
Ask:
- input;
- output;
- human review;
- retention;
- vendor use.
61.205Accessibility
Ask from beginning:
Can people get there?
Can they enter?
Can they use it?
Can they understand it?
Can they participate without digital exclusion?
61.206Accessibility Retrofit
Avoid where design can solve early.
61.207Non-Digital Access
Consider.
61.208Smartphone Requirement
Justify.
61.209Language
Plain language.
61.210Indigenous Rights
Where relevant:
Engage appropriately and accurately.
61.211SON
Do not treat as generic stakeholder.
61.212Risks
The thirteenth field is:
Risks.
61.213Every Initiative Has Risk
Including:
- doing nothing.
61.214Risk Categories
Possible:
Financial
Legal
Operational
Safety
Privacy
Cybersecurity
Accessibility
Procurement
Staffing
Vendor
Schedule
Environmental
Reputational
Partner
Demand
Technology
Political
61.215Political Risk Is Not Public Risk
The Mayor losing credit is not:
- municipal risk.
61.216Public Trust Risk
Could be.
61.217Risk of Doing Nothing
Include.
61.218Example
Not replacing failing infrastructure also has:
- risk.
61.219Likelihood
Classify:
Low
Moderate
High
61.220Impact
Same.
61.221No Fake Mathematics
Do not pretend every risk can be reduced to:
- exact probability.
61.222Critical Risk
Flag.
61.223Risk Owner
Assign.
61.224Mitigation
Identify.
61.225Residual Risk
After mitigation:
What remains?
61.226Risk Acceptance
Some risk may be accepted.
Document major decisions.
61.227Risk Transfer
Insurance or contract may transfer some risk.
Not all.
61.228Vendor Risk
A contract does not make risk disappear.
61.229Grant Risk
Funding may disappear.
61.230Demand Risk
Residents may not use program.
61.231Pilot Helps
Sometimes.
61.232Cost Escalation
Major capital risk.
61.233Unknown Conditions
Consider.
61.234Staff Capacity
Consider.
61.235Timeline
Consider.
61.236Election Timing
Should not be project-risk driver.
61.237Safeguards
The fourteenth field is:
Safeguards.
61.238Safeguards Are Design Controls
They answer:
What prevents predictable harm?
61.239Possible Safeguards
- legal review;
- conflict disclosure;
- procurement competition;
- pilot;
- spending cap;
- privacy review;
- accessibility test;
- human review;
- exit clause;
- independent verification;
- public reporting;
- stop condition.
61.240Conflict Safeguard
Especially important where:
- elected official;
- staff;
- partner;
has private interest.
61.241No Favourites
Apply.
61.242Procurement Safeguard
Do not preselect:
- preferred vendor;
through initiative design.
61.243Vendor-Neutral Requirement
Write:
- public need;
before:
- vendor solution.
61.244Privacy Safeguard
Collect minimum necessary.
61.245Accessibility Safeguard
Test before launch.
61.246Financial Safeguard
Set:
- spending authority;
- escalation thresholds.
61.247Schedule Safeguard
Do not compress below:
- safe;
- lawful;
requirements.
61.248Pilot Safeguard
Make reversible.
61.249Public Reporting Safeguard
Publish status.
61.250Independent Review
Use for:
- high conflict;
- high cost;
- high rights risk.
61.251No Safeguard Theatre
A checklist is not enough.
Controls must:
- operate.
61.252Measurement
The fifteenth field is:
Measurement.
61.253Define Success Before Launch
Do not wait until results arrive.
61.254Output
What did City do?
61.255Outcome
What changed?
61.256Both
Use both.
61.257Example
Output:
- 500 service requests processed.
Outcome:
- fewer repeat contacts.
61.258Baseline
Required for:
- improve;
- reduce;
- increase;
claims.
61.259Target
Set where appropriate.
61.260Directional Measure
Sometimes enough:
- reduce;
- improve;
- stabilize.
61.261No Arbitrary Target
Do not invent:
- 20%;
because round number sounds serious.
61.262Metric Owner
Assign.
61.263Data Source
Identify.
61.264Frequency
Possible:
- monthly;
- quarterly;
- annually;
- pilot-end.
61.265Public Reporting Frequency
Proportionate.
61.266Measurement Cost
Do not spend more measuring a small program than:
- program costs.
61.267Privacy
Measurement should not create unnecessary:
- personal data.
61.268Metric Manipulation
Anticipate.
61.269Goodhart Risk
If target can be gamed:
Use multiple measures.
61.270Example
Faster closure could encourage:
- premature ticket closure.
Pair with:
- reopen;
- repeat issue.
61.271Satisfaction
Subjective measure.
61.272Objective
Pair where possible.
61.273Financial Measure
Verified through Finance.
61.274Technical Measure
Professional data.
61.275Pilot Measurement
Collect:
- before;
- during;
- after;
where useful.
61.276External Context
Account for:
- weather;
- economy;
- legislation;
where relevant.
61.277No Attribution Overreach
Do not claim City caused:
- everything that improved.
61.278Review
The sixteenth field is:
Review.
61.279Every Initiative Needs Decision Date
Ask:
When do we look again?
61.280Review Timing
Possible:
- 90 days;
- six months;
- one year;
- project completion;
- before renewal.
61.281Review Owner
Assign.
61.282Review Questions
Did we solve the problem?
At what cost?
What failed?
What unintended effects appeared?
Should we continue?
Change?
Stop?
61.283Review Before Renewal
Especially:
- vendor;
- grant-funded program;
- pilot;
- shared service.
61.284Automatic Renewal
Avoid where material.
61.285Review Evidence
Use:
- Scorecard;
- Finance;
- resident experience;
- professional review.
61.286Review Is Decision
Do not publish:
review completed
and then do nothing.
61.287Review Outcome
Must lead to:
Continue
Expand
Modify
Pause
Stop
Transfer
61.288Independent Review
May be justified for:
- large;
- controversial;
initiative.
61.289Public Review
May include:
- resident input.
61.290Technical Decision
Do not crowdsource:
- engineering certification.
61.291Exit
The seventeenth field is:
Exit.
61.292Every Major Initiative Needs Exit Path
Before launch ask:
How do we stop this?
61.293Why Exit Matters
Without exit:
- pilots become permanent;
- vendors become entrenched;
- programs continue because staff exist;
- bad ideas accumulate.
61.294Exit Conditions
Possible:
- cost exceeds threshold;
- demand below threshold;
- legal risk;
- safety failure;
- privacy failure;
- vendor failure;
- outcome below target;
- funding ends;
- better provider exists.
61.295Exit Authority
Who decides?
61.296Exit Cost
Know.
61.297Contract Exit
Understand:
- termination;
- penalties;
- data return.
61.298Technology Exit
Include:
- export;
- migration;
- deletion.
61.299Facility Exit
Include:
- disposal;
- reuse;
- decommissioning.
61.300Program Exit
Include:
- resident communication;
- staff;
- partner;
- records.
61.301Grant Exit
Include:
- repayment;
- reporting.
61.302Pilot Exit
Easy by design.
61.303Permanent Asset
Harder.
That is why:
- business case;
must be stronger before construction.
61.304Stop Condition
Should be defined before political attachment grows.
61.305No Shame in Exit
Stopping a weak initiative can be:
- good management.
61.306No Automatic Stop Either
One bad month may not prove failure.
Use defined review.
61.307Sunset Clause
Useful for:
- temporary programs;
- pilots.
61.308Sunset Means Review
Not necessarily automatic death.
61.309Renewal Requires Evidence
Good.
61.310Initiative Card Template
Every significant proposal should begin with:
Initiative Name
Initiative ID
Category
Scale
Owner
Problem
Principle
Current State
Municipal Authority
Other Governments
Proposal
First Step
Four-Year Path
Cost
Funding
People
Rights & Accessibility
Risks
Safeguards
Measurement
Review
Exit
61.311Executive Summary
At top:
One sentence explaining why the initiative exists and what decision is being requested.
61.312Decision Requested
Specify:
Information Only
Direction
Pilot Approval
Budget Approval
Procurement Approval
Policy Approval
Capital Approval
Partnership Approval
61.313No Hidden Decision
Council should know whether it is:
- discussing;
- authorizing.
61.314Recommendation
Staff recommendation should be:
- clear.
61.315Alternatives
Include.
61.316Financial Summary
One glance.
61.317Authority Summary
One glance.
61.318Risk Summary
One glance.
61.319Measurement Summary
One glance.
61.320Public-Facing Initiative Card
Use plain language.
61.321Staff Working Paper
May be more detailed.
61.322One Truth
Numbers and status should reconcile.
61.323No Political Version of Cost
Campaign and municipal reports should not present different:
- project cost;
without explanation.
61.324Initiative Workflow
A proposed initiative should move through:
Idea
Problem Definition
Authority Check
Baseline
Options
Business Case
Decision
Pilot / Design
Funding
Procurement
Delivery
Measurement
Review
Close / Continue / Exit
61.325Idea Is Not Commitment
Important.
61.326Exploration
City should be able to explore without promising:
- implementation.
61.327Public Language
Use:
exploring
when exploring.
61.328Approved
Use:
approved
when approved.
61.329Funded
Use:
funded
when funded.
61.330Under Construction
Use accurately.
61.331Operational
Use accurately.
61.332Completed
Use Section 59 rules.
61.333Missed
Use Section 60 rules.
61.334Idea Intake
Ideas can come from:
- residents;
- staff;
- Council;
- Mayor;
- businesses;
- partners.
61.335No Source Privilege
An idea from Mayor receives no automatic:
- priority.
61.336Staff Idea
Same test.
61.337Resident Idea
Same test.
61.338Business Idea
Same test.
61.339Partner Idea
Same test.
61.340No Favourites
Ideas compete on:
- public value;
- authority;
- cost;
- evidence.
61.341Idea Backlog
Maintain appropriate:
- idea;
- improvement;
list.
61.342Not Every Idea Gets Full Study
Screen.
61.343Initial Screen
Ask:
Is there a real problem?
Is it municipal?
Is it already being solved?
Is it plausible?
Is more work justified?
61.344Screen Result
Advance
Need More Information
Refer
Hold
Decline
61.345Decline Reason
Explain.
61.346No Endless Suggestion Box
Residents deserve:
- disposition.
61.347Standing Work List
Operational ideas can feed:
- Standing Work List.
61.348Strategic Initiative
Larger proposals enter:
- Initiative Format.
61.349Budget Integration
No significant initiative should bypass:
- budget.
61.350Budget Year
Identify.
61.351Future Budget Pressure
Identify.
61.352Capital Plan
If capital:
Integrate.
61.353Infrastructure Index
If asset:
Integrate.
61.354Workforce Plan
If staff:
Integrate.
61.355Procurement Plan
If contract:
Integrate.
61.356Digital Systems Index
If technology:
Integrate.
61.357Partnership Register
If partner:
Integrate.
61.358Commitment Register
If publicly committed:
Integrate.
61.359One Initiative, Many Registers
Cross-reference rather than duplicate.
61.360Public Dashboard
The initiative should link to:
- relevant Scorecards.
61.361Consultation
Not every initiative requires city-wide consultation.
61.362Consultation Test
Ask:
Who is materially affected?
Is there a decision residents can influence?
Is engagement legally required?
What will input change?
61.363No Consultation Theatre
Do not ask:
What do you think?
when decision is already final.
61.364Information Session
If decision is already made:
Call it:
- information session.
61.365Technical Consultation
Can be targeted.
61.366Neighbourhood Consultation
Use where local impact.
61.367City-Wide Consultation
Use for broader decisions.
61.368Partner Consultation
Use where service depends on partners.
61.369Staff Consultation
Critical for operational redesign.
61.370Labour Consultation
Where applicable.
61.371Accessibility Participation
Provide.
61.372Non-Digital Participation
Provide where needed.
61.373Consultation Summary
Publish:
What we heard
What changed
What did not change
Why
61.374Majority Does Not Decide Everything
Council remains responsible.
61.375Rights Are Not Poll Question
No.
61.376Procurement
Initiative design should not predetermine:
- vendor.
61.377Brand-Neutral Requirements
Use.
61.378Proprietary Requirement
Only when justified.
61.379Market Sounding
Can help before procurement if:
- fair;
- lawful.
61.380No Backdoor Vendor Selection
Do not let pre-procurement discussions become:
- private award.
61.381Local Procurement
Use lawful opportunities.
61.382Canadian Procurement
Use lawful, value-based preference where applicable.
61.383Open Standards
Important for technology.
61.384Vendor Exit
Mandatory consideration.
61.385Cybersecurity
Before contract.
61.386Privacy
Before contract.
61.387Accessibility
Before contract.
61.388Data Ownership
Before contract.
61.389Contract Renewal
Review initiative again.
61.390Renewal Is Decision
Not automatic.
61.391New Technology Feature
May materially change:
- privacy;
- function.
Review.
61.392AI Added Later
Requires review if material.
61.393Surveillance Feature Added Later
Requires review.
61.394Scope Drift
Track.
61.395Change Request
Major changes should update:
- Initiative Card.
61.396Change Fields
What changed?
Why?
Cost?
Schedule?
Risk?
Outcome?
61.397Material Change
May require:
- Council approval.
61.398Administrative Change
Can remain delegated.
61.399Change Log
Maintain.
61.400No Quiet Expansion
A small pilot should not become:
- city-wide permanent system;
through incremental administrative changes without decision.
61.401Pilot Discipline
Pilot must define:
Purpose
Area
Duration
Cost
Users
Measures
Stop Conditions
Final Decision Date
61.402Pilot Geography
Define.
61.403Pilot Population
Define.
61.404Pilot Duration
Define.
61.405No Perpetual Pilot
If pilot continues beyond planned end:
Council or delegated authority should:
- renew;
- modify;
- stop.
61.406Pilot Expansion
Needs evidence.
61.407Pilot Success
Does not automatically prove:
- city-wide scalability.
61.408Scale Test
Ask:
Costs at scale?
Staff?
Infrastructure?
Different users?
Equity?
Vendor terms?
61.409Small Pilot Subsidy
May hide true operating cost.
61.410Volunteer Pilot
May not scale.
61.411Grant Pilot
May not scale after grant ends.
61.412Pilot Evaluation
Publish.
61.413Failed Pilot
Publish.
61.414No Failure Shame
Learning was purpose.
61.415Capital Initiative
Needs stronger gate.
61.416Need Before Asset
First ask:
What service outcome requires this asset?
61.417Existing Asset Alternative
Compare.
61.418Lease Alternative
Compare where appropriate.
61.419Shared Asset
Compare.
61.420Repair
Compare.
61.421New Build
Compare.
61.422Site
Assess.
61.423Land Cost
Include.
61.424Servicing
Include.
61.425Environmental Liability
Include.
61.426Accessibility
Include.
61.427Maintenance
Include.
61.428Replacement
Include.
61.429Decommissioning
Include.
61.430No Ribbon-First Planning
Do not choose:
- visible project;
because it photographs well.
61.431Infrastructure Priority
Use Section 47.
61.432Digital Initiative
Needs distinct questions.
61.433Digital Problem
Do not digitize a bad process without:
- redesign.
61.434Manual Alternative
Ask whether simpler process works.
61.435Account Requirement
Justify.
61.436Personal Data
Minimize.
61.437Vendor Hosting
Know.
61.438Data Export
Test.
61.439Accessibility
Test.
61.440Security
Test.
61.441Offline Continuity
Plan.
61.442Digital Dependency
Measure.
61.443No App for App's Sake
A mobile-responsive webpage may be enough.
61.444No AI for AI's Sake
Same.
61.445No Blockchain for Prestige
Same principle.
61.446Open Source
Useful where appropriate.
Not automatic quality.
61.447Canadian Hosting
Useful factor.
Not automatic quality.
61.448Public Ownership
Public control can be important.
Still needs:
- competent operation.
61.449Data Sovereignty
Ask:
Can we leave?
61.450Community Initiative
Needs distinct test.
61.451Community Need
Verify.
61.452Existing Organization
Ask.
61.453Partnership
Prefer where capable.
61.454Grant or Contract
Choose correctly.
61.455Volunteer Boundary
Clarify.
61.456Liability
Clarify.
61.457Insurance
Clarify.
61.458Maintenance
Clarify.
61.459Sunset
Clarify.
61.460Faith Partner
Same lawful standards.
61.461No Ideological Test
No.
61.462Economic Development Initiative
Needs distinct caution.
61.463Jobs Claim
Do not claim City:
- created;
private jobs without evidence.
61.464Private Investment
Do not claim all:
- permit value;
as City-generated investment.
61.465Incentive
Public subsidy must be visible.
61.466Incentive Cost Per Result
Measure where meaningful.
61.467Clawback
Use where lawful and appropriate.
61.468Business Use
Measure.
61.469Market Risk
A City program cannot guarantee:
- business success.
61.470Housing Initiative
Needs distinct caution.
61.471Approval Is Not Home
Always.
61.472Permit Is Not Start
Always.
61.473Start Is Not Occupancy
Always.
61.474City Role
Identify.
61.475County Role
Identify.
61.476Ontario Role
Identify.
61.477Canada Role
Identify.
61.478Private Developer Role
Identify.
61.479Municipal Land
Value public subsidy.
61.480Servicing
Confirm.
61.481Affordability
Define.
61.482No Price Guarantee
No.
61.483Safety Initiative
Needs distinct caution.
61.484Outcome
Define actual:
- safety problem.
61.485Surveillance
Not default solution.
61.486Police Role
Respect governance.
61.487Social Service Role
Coordinate.
61.488Behaviour Not Status
Apply.
61.489Privacy
Protect.
61.490Recreation Initiative
Needs:
- demand;
- accessibility;
- lifecycle;
- maintenance.
61.491Facility Expansion
Usage evidence.
61.492Program
Participation evidence.
61.493Youth Initiative
Needs:
- youth purpose;
- safeguarding;
- paid-work test;
- privacy.
61.494Youth Voice
Real influence.
61.495No Youth Prop
No.
61.496Accessibility Initiative
Barrier identified.
61.497Barrier Removed
Outcome.
61.498Study Alone
Not enough.
61.499Environmental Initiative
Needs:
- local control;
- measurable outcome;
- lifecycle;
- maintenance.
61.500No Branding-Only Initiative
No.
61.501Partnership Initiative
Needs:
- roles;
- commitments;
- cost;
- exit.
61.502MOU Alone
Not outcome.
61.503Intergovernmental Initiative
Needs:
- precise ask.
61.504Advocacy Plan
Identify:
- target;
- authority;
- evidence;
- follow-up.
61.505No Photo-Op Metric
No.
61.506Initiative Review Matrix
A concise Council matrix could show:
| Question | Answer |
| Problem defined? | Yes / No / Partial |
| City authority confirmed? | Yes / No / Shared |
| Baseline established? | Yes / No |
| Alternatives considered? | Yes / No |
| Complete cost known? | Yes / Range / No |
| Funding secured? | Yes / Partial / No |
| Staff capacity confirmed? | Yes / Partial / No |
| Rights review complete? | Yes / Not Required / Pending |
| Accessibility reviewed? | Yes / Pending |
| Privacy reviewed? | Yes / Not Required / Pending |
| Major risks identified? | Yes / No |
| Measures defined? | Yes / No |
| Review date set? | Yes / No |
| Exit path defined? | Yes / No |
61.507Red Flag
A major initiative should not advance to irreversible commitment with several:
- No;
- Pending;
answers without explicit Council acknowledgement.
61.508Exception
Emergency may require:
- faster path.
Document later.
61.509Decision Gate Summary
Before irreversible commitment:
Need confirmed. Authority confirmed. Cost understood. Funding identified. Capacity confirmed. Rights protected. Risks understood. Measurement defined. Exit understood.
61.510Initiative Scorecard
Once operating:
Track:
Status
Budget
Schedule
Deliverable
Outcome
Risk
Next Decision
61.511No Initiative Popularity Score
No.
61.512Status Categories
Use:
Idea
Assessing
Preparing
Approved
Pilot
Delivering
Operational
Completed
At Risk
Deferred
Stopped
Missed
61.513One Status Vocabulary
Use City-wide.
61.514No Department Inventing Euphemisms
Avoid:
- advancing;
- maturing;
- evolving;
when actual status is:
- delayed.
61.515Initiative Review Meeting
Management should periodically review major initiatives.
61.516Focus
Not:
- presentation.
Focus:
- decision;
- block;
- risk.
61.517Red Initiative
Requires attention.
61.518Amber Initiative
Requires monitoring.
61.519Green Initiative
Still requires:
- evidence.
61.520Grey Initiative
Needs:
- assessment.
61.521Stop List
Leadership should periodically ask:
What should we stop doing?
61.522Start List
Also:
What should we begin?
61.523Continue List
And:
What is working well enough that we should stop redesigning it?
61.524Government Has Finite Capacity
Important.
61.525Priority Limit
Council should avoid approving unlimited:
- major priorities.
61.526Priority Queue
Maintain.
61.527Urgent
Not same as:
- important.
61.528Important
Not always:
- immediate.
61.529Mandatory
Legal requirement may outrank:
- political preference.
61.530Safety
May outrank.
61.531Asset Failure
May outrank.
61.532Election Promise
Does not automatically outrank:
- emergency;
- law;
- safety.
61.533Reprioritization
Allowed.
61.534Publish Material Reprioritization
Explain.
61.535Anti-Gaming Rule One
Do not define the solution before defining the problem.
61.536Anti-Gaming Rule Two
Do not invent a problem merely to justify a preferred project.
61.537Anti-Gaming Rule Three
Do not exaggerate problem scale without evidence.
61.538Anti-Gaming Rule Four
Do not claim municipal authority that does not exist.
61.539Anti-Gaming Rule Five
Do not claim another government blocked a project before asking it properly.
61.540Anti-Gaming Rule Six
Do not design a proposal around a preselected vendor.
61.541Anti-Gaming Rule Seven
Do not present fake alternatives.
61.542Anti-Gaming Rule Eight
Do not call purchase price complete cost.
61.543Anti-Gaming Rule Nine
Do not call a grant free money.
61.544Anti-Gaming Rule Ten
Do not call existing staff capacity free.
61.545Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven
Do not hide displaced work.
61.546Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve
Do not add accessibility after design and claim it was built in.
61.547Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen
Do not perform privacy review after resident data is already collected.
61.548Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen
Do not launch technology before understanding data export and exit.
61.549Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen
Do not use consultation after the decision as evidence of participation.
61.550Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen
Do not define success after seeing the results.
61.551Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen
Do not change metrics when results are weak.
61.552Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen
Do not call outputs outcomes.
61.553Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen
Do not call forecast outcomes observed outcomes.
61.554Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty
Do not keep pilots alive indefinitely.
61.555Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One
Do not call pilots permanent without a new decision.
61.556Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two
Do not continue weak programs because staff or contracts now exist.
61.557Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Three
Do not classify sunk cost as reason to continue.
61.558Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Four
Do not ignore exit cost.
61.559Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Five
Do not hide program failure by renaming it.
61.560Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Six
Do not split one project into many accomplishments.
61.561Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Seven
Do not combine separate failures into one vague initiative.
61.562Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Eight
Do not create election-year priorities solely because they can be completed quickly.
61.563Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Nine
Do not compress technical or legal requirements for political timing.
61.564Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty
Do not treat Mayor preference as evidence.
61.565Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-One
Do not treat staff preference as evidence either.
61.566Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Two
Do not treat public majority as authority to violate rights.
61.567Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Three
Do not treat consultant recommendation as Council decision.
61.568Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Four
Do not treat Council approval as implementation.
61.569Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Five
Do not treat implementation as outcome.
61.570Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Six
Do not treat outcome as permanent before enough time has passed.
61.571Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Seven
Do not quietly move projects outside the public dashboard when they become difficult.
61.572Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Eight
Do not remove initiatives because funding disappeared.
Change status.
61.573Anti-Gaming Rule Thirty-Nine
Do not remove initiatives because Council rejected them.
Record.
61.574Anti-Gaming Rule Forty
Do not remove initiatives because Mayor changed position.
Record.
61.575Public Initiative Audit
Each year:
Review major initiatives against the full format.
61.576Year One
Ask:
- problem;
- authority;
- baseline;
- first step.
61.577Year Two
Ask:
- pilot results;
- scaling;
- actual cost.
61.578Year Three
Ask:
- long-term capacity;
- major decisions;
- outcome.
61.579Year Four
Ask:
- complete;
- stop;
- institutionalize;
- handoff.
61.580Final Initiative Audit
At term end publish:
Initiatives proposed
Initiatives approved
Pilots
Initiatives operational
Initiatives completed
Initiatives stopped
Initiatives missed
Major cost changes
Major scope changes
Major outcome misses
Major lessons
Initiatives handed off
61.581Name the Best Initiative
Not:
- favourite.
The one with strongest:
- public result;
- cost;
- evidence.
61.582Name the Weakest Initiative
Use evidence.
61.583Name the Best Responsible Stop
61.584Name the Best Pilot
61.585Name the Pilot That Proved the Idea Should End
61.586Name the Best Partnership Before Program Decision
61.587Name the Best Repair Before Replace Decision
61.588Name the Initiative With the Strongest Complete-Cost Discipline
61.589Name the Initiative With the Largest Cost Surprise
61.590Name the Initiative With the Strongest Rights Safeguard
61.591Name the Initiative With the Strongest Accessibility Improvement
61.592Name the Initiative That Collected Less Data Because of Privacy Review
61.593Name the Technology Initiative That Passed the Exit Test
61.594Name One That Failed It
61.595Name the Initiative That Changed Most After Resident Input
61.596Name the Initiative Where Resident Input Did Not Change the Decision
Explain why.
61.597Name the Initiative Blocked by Jurisdiction
61.598Name the Initiative Improved by Intergovernmental Partnership
61.599Name the Initiative That Should Have Been Scoped Better
61.600Name the Initiative That Should Have Been Stopped Earlier
61.601Name the Most Important Initiative Being Handed to the Next Council
61.602Problem Test
Ask:
Can we state the problem without naming the preferred solution?
61.603Evidence Test
Ask:
What evidence tells us this problem is real?
61.604Authority Test
Ask:
Can the City lawfully act?
61.605Duplication Test
Ask:
Who already does this?
61.606Local Responsibility Test
Ask:
Is the City the closest capable level to solve it?
61.607Other Government Test
Ask:
What must Grey County, Ontario, Canada or another government do?
61.608SON Test
Ask:
Does this matter require early government-to-government engagement, rights consideration or respectful Indigenous knowledge governance?
61.609Option Test
Ask:
Did we compare doing nothing, improving existing service, partnering, piloting and full implementation where reasonable?
61.610Cost Test
Ask:
Do we know the complete cost, not merely the purchase price?
61.611Funding Test
Ask:
Is funding secured, applied for or speculative?
61.612Tax Test
Ask:
What tax or fee pressure does this create?
61.613Capacity Test
Ask:
Who does the work, and what other work moves?
61.614Rights Test
Ask:
Does the initiative respect rights and equal treatment?
61.615Accessibility Test
Ask:
Can residents actually use it?
61.616Privacy Test
Ask:
Are we collecting more information than the service requires?
61.617Digital Independence Test
Ask:
Can we leave the vendor?
61.618Procurement Test
Ask:
Did we define the public need before selecting a supplier?
61.619Risk Test
Ask:
What is most likely to go wrong?
61.620Safeguard Test
Ask:
What prevents that risk from becoming predictable harm?
61.621Measurement Test
Ask:
How will we know whether this actually worked?
61.622Attribution Test
Ask:
What result can the City reasonably claim it caused or contributed to?
61.623Review Test
Ask:
When will we look again?
61.624Exit Test
Ask:
How do we stop if it does not work?
61.625Election Test
Ask:
Would we still recommend this initiative if the next election were not approaching?
61.626Reverse Election Test
Ask:
Would we oppose this same initiative if a political opponent proposed it?
If yes:
Re-examine the reasoning.
61.627Resident Test
Ask:
Could an ordinary resident understand what problem is being solved, what it costs and how success will be measured?
61.628Staff Test
Ask:
Can the responsible department realistically deliver it?
61.629Finance Test
Ask:
Can Finance reconcile the numbers?
61.630Legal Test
Ask:
Can the City defend its authority and process?
61.631Future Council Test
Ask:
Could the next Council understand the initiative without relying on the memory of the current Mayor?
61.632Institution Test
Ask:
Would the initiative still make sense if every elected official changed tomorrow?
If the answer is no:
The initiative may be serving:
- a politician;
rather than:
- the institution.
61.633What Success Looks Like
The Initiative Format succeeds when:
- ideas begin with real problems;
- jurisdiction is checked early;
- existing capacity is considered;
- alternatives are compared;
- complete costs are visible;
- grants are not mistaken for free money;
- staffing is realistic;
- rights are considered early;
- accessibility is designed in;
- privacy is minimized;
- procurement remains fair;
- risks have safeguards;
- success is defined before launch;
- reviews produce decisions;
- weak projects can stop;
- strong projects can scale;
- failures remain visible;
- future councils inherit usable files.
61.634What Failure Looks Like
Failure includes:
- announcing solutions before defining problems;
- discovering jurisdiction after spending money;
- hiring consultants before deciding what question is being asked;
- creating new City programs that duplicate capable existing organizations;
- presenting only one real option;
- hiding operating cost behind capital grants;
- assuming existing staff can absorb unlimited new work;
- treating privacy and accessibility as late-stage compliance;
- selecting technology before writing requirements;
- locking public data into one vendor;
- consulting after decisions are effectively made;
- defining success after results arrive;
- running pilots forever;
- continuing failed programs because stopping is politically awkward;
- reaching Year Four with no exit path, no outcome data and no handoff.
61.635The Initiative Format Commitment
Owen Sound should commit to:
Use one consistent framework for significant municipal initiatives.
Begin with the problem rather than the preferred solution.
Require evidence proportionate to the size and risk of the initiative.
Use principles to guide decisions rather than decorate reports.
Establish the current state before claiming improvement.
Ask who already provides the service before creating another program.
Confirm municipal authority before promising implementation.
Map Grey County, Ontario, Canada and other governmental roles accurately.
Treat Saugeen Ojibway Nation as a distinct governmental and rights relationship where relevant.
Make proposals specific enough that residents can understand what is actually being approved.
Separate the deliverable from the intended outcome.
Consider reasonable alternatives, including doing nothing, improving existing service, partnering and piloting.
Choose a first step that produces useful information or value without unnecessarily locking the City in.
Use a realistic Four-Year Path without stretching simple work merely to fill a political term.
Use decision gates for major and irreversible commitments.
Apply Complete Cost rather than purchase price.
Show capital, operating, staffing, maintenance, technology, training, insurance, legal, replacement and exit costs where material.
Label cost estimates according to their level of maturity.
Do not pretend conceptual estimates have tender-level certainty.
Show secured, applied-for and speculative funding separately.
Never assume grant funding will arrive.
Define what happens if a grant application fails.
Do not automatically transfer an outside funding shortfall to property taxpayers.
Show debt, reserve, fee, sponsorship and partner funding honestly.
Never describe a service with no user fee as having no public cost.
Identify who will actually perform the work.
Confirm staff capacity and show what existing work may be displaced.
Do not use chronic overtime and burnout as implementation strategy.
Use consultants for specialized expertise while keeping City accountability.
Apply the paid-work test to youth and volunteers.
Build rights, privacy and accessibility review into the beginning of initiative design.
Do not regulate identities when lawful behaviour-based rules will do.
Collect the least personal information required.
Apply high scrutiny to surveillance, biometrics and high-impact AI.
Design for accessible physical, digital and non-digital participation.
Identify financial, legal, operational, safety, privacy, cybersecurity, accessibility, procurement, staffing, vendor, schedule, environmental, partner and demand risks where relevant.
Include the risk of doing nothing.
Give significant risks an owner and mitigation.
Distinguish political embarrassment from genuine public risk.
Use safeguards that actually operate rather than checklist theatre.
Use independent review where cost, conflict or rights risk warrants it.
Define success before launch.
Measure outputs and outcomes separately.
Require baselines for claims to reduce, improve or increase.
Do not invent arbitrary targets merely because round numbers sound ambitious.
Use objective and resident-experience measures together where appropriate.
Anticipate how metrics might be gamed.
Never reward faster closure if it increases repeat failure.
Set a review date for every significant initiative.
Make reviews lead to decisions.
Use Continue, Expand, Modify, Pause, Stop or Transfer rather than perpetual Review.
Define an exit path before launching major programs, partnerships and technology.
Know termination, migration and decommissioning costs.
Use sunset clauses for pilots and temporary programs where appropriate.
Require evidence before renewal.
Use the same Initiative Card structure across departments.
Clearly state what decision Council is being asked to make.
Never hide approval authority inside an information report.
Keep public Initiative Cards readable while allowing detailed technical appendices.
Use one set of numbers between public summaries, Finance and technical reports.
Move initiatives through a visible life cycle from Idea to Close, Continue or Exit.
Do not treat an idea as a commitment before Council or the responsible authority adopts it.
Allow ideas from residents, staff, Council, businesses and partners to face the same public-value test.
Do not give mayoral ideas privileged exemption from evidence.
Maintain an idea backlog without promising to study every suggestion.
Provide a disposition for significant resident proposals.
Integrate initiatives with budget, capital, infrastructure, workforce, procurement, digital, partnership and commitment systems rather than creating parallel administrative universes.
Use public consultation only when there is something participants can meaningfully influence or when law requires it.
Call an information session an information session when the decision is already made.
Engage staff, labour, partners and affected residents early enough for their knowledge to change the design.
Publish what consultation changed, what it did not change and why.
Never use majority opinion as authority to violate law or rights.
Write procurement requirements around the public need rather than a preferred brand.
Use fair market sounding without turning it into private vendor selection.
Consider lawful local and Canadian procurement opportunities while preserving value and competition.
Review cybersecurity, privacy, accessibility, data ownership and exit before technology procurement.
Reassess material new AI or surveillance features added after purchase.
Maintain a change log for material scope, cost, schedule and risk changes.
Do not allow small pilots to become permanent city-wide systems by administrative drift.
Give pilots defined purpose, geography, population, duration, cost, measures, stop conditions and final decision dates.
Do not permit perpetual pilots.
Test scalability before expanding.
Recognize that volunteer, grant-funded or heavily subsidized pilots may not reveal full operating cost.
Publish failed pilot results as well as successful ones.
Require stronger business cases for permanent capital assets because they are difficult to reverse.
Compare repair, lease, sharing, adaptation and new construction before major asset acquisition.
Include land, servicing, environmental, accessibility, maintenance, replacement and decommissioning costs.
Do not choose capital projects for ribbon-cutting value.
Do not digitize broken processes simply to call them modern.
Do not build apps where a simple accessible webpage solves the problem.
Do not deploy AI merely because AI is fashionable.
Do not adopt technologies for prestige rather than public need.
Treat open source, Canadian hosting and public ownership as factors requiring competent implementation, not automatic guarantees of quality.
Apply the Digital Independence question: Can we leave?
Use Partnership Before Program for community initiatives.
Clarify grant, contract, volunteer, liability, insurance and maintenance arrangements.
Treat faith and secular partners under the same lawful public-purpose standards.
Use evidence rather than unsupported jobs, investment or property-value claims in economic-development initiatives.
Make public subsidies visible.
Treat approvals, permits, starts and occupied homes as different housing stages.
Identify City, County, Ontario, Canada and private-sector housing roles accurately.
Define affordability whenever that word is used.
Do not promise housing prices or rents the City cannot control.
Define the actual safety problem before selecting surveillance or enforcement as the solution.
Respect police and partner governance.
Use Behaviour Not Status in safety initiatives.
Require demand, accessibility, lifecycle and maintenance evidence for recreation investments.
Protect youth privacy and safeguarding while ensuring genuine youth participation.
Measure accessibility initiatives by barriers removed rather than studies completed.
Keep environmental initiatives focused on measurable local stewardship, lifecycle value and maintenance.
Treat partnership memoranda as starting points rather than outcomes.
Make intergovernmental asks precise.
Never use meeting counts or photographs as the primary measure of advocacy.
Use a standard Council review matrix before irreversible major commitments.
Do not advance high-risk initiatives with major unresolved authority, funding, rights or exit questions without explicit public acknowledgement.
Maintain one city-wide status vocabulary.
Do not allow departments to invent euphemisms for delayed or failing initiatives.
Review major initiatives regularly for decisions, risks and blocks rather than presentation quality.
Maintain a Stop List as seriously as a Start List.
Recognize that government capacity is finite.
Do not approve an unlimited number of top priorities.
Distinguish urgent, important, mandatory and discretionary work.
Allow reprioritization when law, safety, emergency or asset failure requires it.
Publish major reprioritization.
Never define a solution before proving the problem.
Never invent a problem to justify a preferred project.
Never exaggerate problem scale without evidence.
Never claim authority the City does not have.
Never claim another government blocked an initiative before completing the City's own responsibilities.
Never design procurement around a preselected vendor.
Never present fake alternatives.
Never call purchase price complete cost.
Never call grants free money.
Never call existing staff capacity free.
Never hide work displaced by new priorities.
Never add accessibility only after design is substantially complete and describe it as integrated.
Never conduct privacy review only after resident data has already been collected.
Never deploy important technology before understanding export and exit.
Never use consultation performed after the real decision as proof residents influenced it.
Never define success after seeing results.
Never change metrics merely because performance is weak.
Never confuse outputs, outcomes, forecasts and observed results.
Never let pilots continue indefinitely without a decision.
Never make pilots permanent without evidence and authority.
Never continue a weak program merely because staff, vendors or political reputations are now attached to it.
Never let sunk cost dictate future spending.
Never hide exit costs.
Never rename failed initiatives to erase their history.
Never split one initiative into numerous accomplishments to inflate a record.
Never combine separate failures into one vague category to reduce the miss count.
Never create late-term priorities simply because they can generate fast political wins.
Never compress safety, procurement, legal, accessibility, privacy or Indigenous engagement requirements for election timing.
Never treat the Mayor's preference as evidence.
Never treat a consultant recommendation as the final public decision.
Never treat Council approval as implementation.
Never treat implementation as outcome.
Never claim permanence before sufficient operating evidence exists.
Never remove difficult initiatives from public reporting.
Use a Public Initiative Audit each year.
In Year One, focus on problem, authority, baseline and first steps.
In Year Two, evaluate pilots, scaling and actual costs.
In Year Three, make the major long-term decisions.
In Year Four, complete, stop, institutionalize or hand off.
Publish the final initiative record showing what was proposed, approved, piloted, implemented, completed, stopped and missed.
Name the strongest and weakest initiatives according to evidence, not political affection.
Name responsible stops as well as successes.
Name pilots that worked and pilots that disproved their original theory.
Name initiatives improved by Partnership Before Program and Repair Before Replace.
Name major cost surprises and scope failures.
Name initiatives where rights, accessibility or privacy safeguards materially changed the design.
Name digital initiatives that passed or failed the vendor-exit test.
Name initiatives materially changed by resident participation.
Explain initiatives where public input was heard but did not change the final decision.
Name jurisdictional blocks and intergovernmental successes.
Name initiatives that should have been scoped or stopped better.
Name the most important initiative being handed to the next Council.
Judge every significant initiative by the same core questions: What problem? What authority? What cost? Who does the work? What protects rights? What can go wrong? How will we measure it? When will we review it? How do we stop?
The Initiative Format should become a habit.
Before government asks:
How fast can we announce this?
it should ask:
What problem are we solving?
Do we have the authority?
Who already does this?
What are the alternatives?
What is the complete cost?
Who pays?
Who does the work?
What rights are engaged?
Can everyone reasonably access it?
What information are we collecting?
What happens if the vendor disappears?
What could fail?
What safeguards do we need?
How will we know if it worked?
When do we look again?
How do we stop?
That is the discipline of treating a City like a public institution entrusted with:
- money;
- authority;
- property;
- information;
- human time.
Problem before solution. Authority before promise. Complete cost before approval. Rights before convenience. Measurement before celebration. Review before renewal. Exit before lock-in.