Metro Vancouver Governance Model: Changing the Board Structure

A few weeks ago, I posted about proposed changes to the governance model at the Metro Vancouver Regional District based on recommendations by Deloitte earlier last year. The Regional District is currently working through these recommendations via its Governance Committee. One of the more complex areas that may require provincial collaboration is any change to the board's makeup, which currently has 41 Directors who are elected representatives: 39 appointed by their municipal councils, 1 by Tsawwassen First Nation, and 1 directly elected in Electoral Area A.

Directors were recently polled about what works and what doesn’t at the board level.

What works:

• The Regional District governance model is fundamentally sound.
• Strong commitment and engagement from Directors.
• Broad regional representation is valued and legitimate.
• Collaboration across jurisdictions has historically delivered results.
• Governance fundamentals and processes are largely in place.

What is a challenge:

• Board size can be unwieldy and inefficient (with 41 people in the room, discussing a single matter can take hours).
• Fiduciary duty to Metro Vancouver is difficult to balance with municipal obligations (municipal political expectations conflict with regional responsibilities).
• Board culture and turnover can inhibit constructive deliberation (who is elected matters, and every four years, there is normally a large turnover due to local government elections).
• Volume, structure, and timeliness of Board materials limit effective preparation (the agenda can be large and highly technical).
• Committee structure and meeting processes can be duplicative (committee decisions are often re-assessed at the board level).
• Perceived lack of subject matter expertise on Boards with high-risk exposure

Given my experience on TransLink’s Mayors’ Council and my involvement at the regional level through my role as mayor, I fully agree with both what works and the current challenges.

The governance committee will be looking at how to possibly restructure the board to most effectively accomplish the following objectives:

• Governance effectiveness (including proportionality, transparency, accountability, risk, and resilience).
• Stakeholder impact (including building public trust).
• Municipal representation
• Transition readiness (including ease of implementation and support from municipal and provincial governments).

Having a good governance structure is important, but even the best governance structure cannot prevent people who are only in it for power or self-interest from making decisions that are not in the region's best interest. I’ve also seen how challenging governance structures, such as those at TransLink, can deliver solid decisions when we all work together, as with the unanimously approved Investment Plan.

I look forward to seeing the committee's recommendations on possible changes to the board.